The value of schools is shifting back to the long term model; total endowment, total student population, amount of state support, academic stature, amount of living alumni, does your school bring two senators that your conf doesn’t already have?
That distinction goes to Wake Forest. Wake Forest entered the ACC in 1953 while Virginia entered in 1954. Using 1954 as the start year, WF averages 4.35 wins and 6.77 losses vs. Virginia's 4.99 wins and 6.30 losses. Puke is second worst during that same time with an average of 4.61 wins and 6.45 losses.
The B1G will take Cal & Stanford at some point, it likely is more than a decade out however. Oregon and Washington were only added as early as they were due to a) the PAC imploding and b) their willingness to join at a greatly discounted price.
Stop it! You are just trying to find a justification. The Big 10 has made some inexplicable choices particularly in Rutgers and Maryland which seem to have been cable driven. They seem to have returned to a football oriented process in the last round. Bringing in Virginia and even UNC would be a return to the Rutgers model without the access to cable carriage fees. Next you’ll be telling us they are doing it because they think Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy!!
Wake and duke were my next guesses. no one is arguing on behalf of wake being a valuable addition to the P3, and rightfully so, and duke is in its own category thanks to having the most valuable bball brand in the country
I don't think bringing in Rutgers and Maryland was a bad move over the long run, but neither school has shown much so far. Both of those schools have football potential if they get alumni/donors to support them and they make the right coaching hire. Schiano and Locksley are not the right coaches. Look at Iowa. Middle of nowhere with no local recruiting base and from 1961 until 1980, they were bad until they hired Hayden Fry.
So then where’s our BIG invite?? We check 5 of those 6 boxes. All but endowment.
When the Big Ten brought in Rutgers and Maryland, there was a P5. The ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten were just feeding from the Big East buffet and yes, Maryland was the biggest surprise leaving the ACC. I don't think the B1G envisioned a complete consolidation to a P2 and having the Big Ten invite the PAC schools and having the SEC invite Texas and Oklahoma. If they envisioned this is how things would play out, I don't think they would have invited Rutgers and Maryland. Every program has football potential if you have P2 money and hire great coaches. It's been 11 years and Rutgers and Maryland are just barely average programs.
Those choices are readily explainable. You may not like the explanation, but there is no doubt it made financial sense.
Add AAU to the list
If all we have to do to get Iowa State's vote is build a Sally's in Ames then that is a very good deal.
Its all about economics...never really been about winning. And as we enter the new world of the prof paid athlete model - its all about economic capacity and depth.
Need AAU...need a much bigger endowment.... need a football culture that is closer to the B1G. We are making some progress.
I don't see how conferences are going to drop schools. At least not for a long while yet. They would need to fail to meet certain min spending levels on sports, some sort of objective criteria that is not W-L related.
Maryland has had 3 head coaches (plus an interim) since joining the Big 10: Edsall, DJ Durkin, and Mike Locksley. I wouldn't call any of them great coaches. Rutgers has had 3 coaches as well: Flood, Ash, and Schiano. Again, not good coaches. Schiano has not had a winning Big 10 record in any season and he is 13-34 in the Big 10 since he returned.
www.usatoday.com
Shame on Rutgers and Maryland, they should have done better. To be fair, it would be very difficult for any new member no matter their pedigree to become a top 20%-er in that conference with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Oregon, USC... More likely any new member is going to be like Nebraska, or Rutgers
