What they're saying about Maryland and the Big Ten

I'm mostly out of my element when talking about topics like conference realignment or college athletic department finances, but let me add my two cents anyway about Maryland's departure from the ACC (in 2014). I'm disappointed, and I'll miss the tough games against Duke, UNC, etc. Those games (when competitive) were obviously a joy to watch.

Over the years, I've slowly lost interest in college football, and football is the driving factor in Maryland heading to the Big Ten. I have no doubt that Maryland football will continue to struggle whether they play in the ACC or Big Ten; however, Mark Turgeon and the basketball program should be just fine. And, really, that's what I care about the most. As long as Maryland basketball keeps improving and starts winning lots of games again, it won't matter to me what conference Maryland's in. (Which is important, because they may be in another conference in 20 years.)

As has been repeated elsewhere ad nauseum, the move makes sense for Maryland's athletic department; that influx of cash means they'll be able to do/pay for more things. (Smart things, hopefully.) But that doesn't mean it's a perfect move, either. Important decisions are made all the time, and things eventually change. That's fine, but that also doesn't mean fans and alumni won't miss the ACC or easily forget about it.

Occasional Krem's Sports correspondent Walt Williams (follow him on Twitter) also weighed in on the subject:

"I haven’t come here to tell you that the University of Maryland should have never answered the call of the Big Ten Network and the purported millions that will come with it. I haven’t even come to lament the loss of home basketball games against Duke and North Carolina. That time would have come when the ACC decided to place in motion the conference raiding that began the national game of musical chairs that may ironically lead to its own demise with the addition of Virginia Tech and Miami. I also can tell you that I most certainly haven’t made an appearance to champion the academic benefits of this move. Especially since the university itself can’t do that with a straight face or without coming back to the importance of finances. Yes, the two things I have come here to talk about are the primary motivations of Maryland’s move to the Big Ten: Money and Football.

Looking at the financials, or at least what we’ve heard about them, Maryland is projecting that they will see an increase of 100 million dollars in conference revenue from the Big Ten by 2020. That number, even if it is extremely inflated, is sorely needed to help put Maryland’s athletic department on slightly more stable ground. That money could also be used for student athlete support that is sorely lacking at Maryland and has been for years. Whether Maryland uses the extra money for those modest things or overpaying for overmatched football coaches remains to be seen but we can hope for the best. The only possible hiccup in the financial calculations could be the long term viability of the Big Ten network in its current capacity. That is to say, the long term viability of basic cable as we know it now is tied to the viability of the Big Ten and now Maryland. Is it too far-fetched to think that by 2020 the current model of getting a bundle of networks as a part of your cable package could be jettisoned for a more customer friendly pick and choose model? If not, what would happen to profitability of the network and the Big Ten’s members if profit depended on a large number of individuals actively choosing to have access to the Big Ten network instead of having it forced on them? I believe these are all interesting questions to think about for the future. Right now however, there is no need to say that Maryland or Rutgers would be mooching off of the Big Ten’s success. Both schools by virtue of their television markets are as valuable to the Big Ten as the Big Ten is to them. I may be wrong but I don’t believe Jim Delany and the Big Ten are going to go around and give handouts unless they feel like they are getting something valuable in return. In the case of Maryland that value is probably going to be solely on the demographic side of things as the Terps aren’t likely to do anything of note in football for the foreseeable future.

Looking at the conference switch from the perspective of the Maryland football program, there is nothing I can say except that this probably won’t go well at all. Now I’m not saying that the Big Ten is the best football conference in the country or even close to it. There is no doubt though, that the Big Ten is worlds better at this point than the ACC has been in the past decade or so. Add in the fact that Maryland is at the moment a cellar dweller in the ACC and you get a recipe for long Saturday afternoons starting in 2014. Does anyone look forward to the sight of Randy Edsall attempting to match wits or talent with Urban Meyer, Bill O’Brien, Bret Bielema, or Brady Hoke? I know I certainly do not. Looking at the Big Ten right now the only team Maryland is probably unquestionably above is Illinois. Unless the Big Ten has some sort of starter introductory schedule for bad football teams where Maryland can play Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota twice it's hard to see how Randy Edsall will get a chance to finish out his contract, especially with the new conference money coming in. Of course, that’s if he even makes it to 2014 to begin with.

So basically this move to the Big Ten comes down to money, security, and football. While the first two should hopefully be taken care of in the short term, the football may take a while to come around. So I’m going to spend time the next 18 months or so warming up to stale beer and bratwurst and trying to learn the difference between leaders and legends. It can’t be too bad, right?"

-----

Here's what some other writers/commentators/former coaches are saying about the move:

- "My gut level reaction is that it will work out badly. Maryland has tried a million ways to be a better football school. It’s not going to happen by moving to the Big Ten (or 14). If you eventually lose Turgeon as coach __he’s exceptional__ then you may go backwards in basketball, too. And will the sports that got erased because of budget be brought back? If restoring those sports isn’t part of the plan, then that weakens the case. This will be an endless debate. We’ll know if it was smart in ... five years ... 10 years? Right now, I’m in the 'lets learn more' stage. But whenever a fait accompli is presented and everything __from first news to 'it’s decided'__ all happens in less than 100 hours, I’m suspicious." -- Thomas Boswell

- "I just see it as part of the collegiate culture. The Big Ten wants that market for TV and Maryland wants more money or else they wouldn’t be making that move. I think it’s money-driven, but I kind of hate to see it because there were some really great rivalries there. I still recall some of the great games we had, and basketball in the ACC was even bigger with Carolina and Duke." -- Bobby Ross

- "I know a lot of people talk about traditions, they talk about, 'What? No more Maryland-Duke? No more Maryland-North Carolina?' Well, ever since a couple of years ago when they limited Maryland to playing both of those schools not twice but once, that took care of that. I really love it when you go to Duke and get knocked off and run out of the place and come back here and beat ‘em at Comcast Center. And Carolina the same way. But I’m looking forward to it. I think academically it’s good, athletically it’s terrific. The money, you certainly can’t turn your back and say, 'No, we want to continue the way we’re going.' And now it gives an opportunity for those sports that were cut, some of them, hopefully all of them, will be able to be brought back." -- Johnny Holliday

- "Tradition has ceased to exist in college athletics, so it shouldn’t even be part of the conversation. There will be a lot more money waiting for Maryland’s budget-strapped athletic department in the Big Ten. The conference is run by Jim Delaney, one of the less savory individuals in college athletics, but also — as he proved by being so far out in front in maximizing TV dollars with the Big Ten Network — one of the smartest. Football would be helped in terms of recruiting and ticket sales and fan interest. Basketball would stay about the same — games against Ohio State and Michigan State wouldn’t stir up the Maryland crowd like the Duke games do, but some would say that’s a good thing. The games would still be sellouts." -- John Feinstein

- "When you look around and see what’s going on — Notre Dame’s personal contract with NBC for football and being able to come into the ACC without football — just watching teams like Nebraska, who you never would think would be a member of the Big Ten — we all have to look at what’s best for the university. If you want to be successful in basketball and football, that takes certain finances to do that. Why would Syracuse and Pitt go to the ACC? Why would Nebraska go to Big Ten? The answer is pretty obvious. We shouldn't feel bad about doing what other schools have done to increase the exposure, to increase the validity of their programs." -- Gary Williams

- "This is again what’s wrong with what’s taking place in intercollegiate athletics. The priorities are completely screwed up. Someone should be looking out for the betterment of the totality of the game of football, the financial bell cow of their beloved intercollegiate athletics, home to all of their student athletes. Instead, they’re in the business of trying to clear markets for regional cable networks and get their financial landscape and footprint out to a different market. It’s just obscene what’s taking place here. One minute they’re shaking hands and talking about what’s great about the sport itself, and then as soon as they get through shaking hands, they go and raid one another’s leagues. It’s situational ethics at its height, at its absolute height." -- Tim Brando

- "They play the games that the ACC plays -- they play soccer, they play lacrosse -- it makes sense for them to find a league that played the same games. Does anybody in the Big Ten play lacrosse? Of course it saddens me. I'm actually shocked by this. I'm absolutely blown away." -- Gene Corrigan, former ACC commissioner

- "The Big Ten Network is a money-making machine, and the conference actually made more money last year than even the SEC. Last fall, when I spent a day with the Indiana football program, they informed me that they'd been able to upgrade their facilities almost entirely with money procured from their Big Ten Network share. But that's what makes this so frustrating for those of us who actually give a damn about the product: Speaking to Rittenberg, [Big Ten Commissioner] Delany appeared to characterize the conference's football woes as a short-term concern, as something that could be attributed to an influx of new coaches and the consequences of immoral behavior at Penn State and Ohio State. He made no real acknowledgement of the long-term statistics, of the Big Ten's 34-52 bowl record since 2000, of the fact that the Big Ten has won 37 percent of its nonconference games against nationally ranked teams since Ohio State won the national championship in 2002. The top of the conference is largely shaky, and the bottom has never been worse: I imagine Purdue and Minnesota and Illinois would struggle to finish .500 in the MAC. But honestly, I don't even know if competitiveness is a real priority anymore, as long as the money keeps flowing." -- Michael Weinreb

- "As a former student-athlete at the University of Maryland and a supporter of the Athletic Department, I would like to congratulate Wallace Loh, Brit Kirwan and Kevin Anderson on reaching this agreement with Jim Delany and the Big Ten Member institutions. The ACC has been a great partner to Maryland throughout the years, however joining the Big Ten now provides new and exciting opportunities for our beloved University. The positive financial impact of this move has been well-documented; however, enhancing the experiences for all of our student-athletes and our campus as a whole is the most important consideration. I look forward to this new chapter for Maryland and I am excited for our future. Go Terps!" -- Kevin Plank

- "But I realize that what I feel nostalgic about is something that was lost a long time ago.... Syracuse and Pitt are coming to the league and that means that going forward, Maryland was guaranteed in basketball two home-and-homes: with Pitt and Virginia. Now I don’t mean any disrespect to Pittsburgh, but they don’t mean any more to Maryland than Maryland means to them. And that was supposed to be our rival, going forward? And speaking of rivals — or, not our rival — so many Maryland folks now are lamenting the loss of what we would call The Duke Game. And let’s remember, folks: that’s a school that doesn’t see Maryland the way Maryland sees them. But besides that larger point, in the immediate future, there’d be far more years in basketball where you would not have a home game against Duke than years that you would." -- Scott Van Pelt

- "But the first question the conference hasn’t quite answered here is, why should these schools care about making more money? Money is obviously vital to college athletics as a threshold question. If you’re running an athletic department, you need to bring in enough revenue to fund your operations. But beyond that threshold, you don’t need more money. Universities are nonprofit institutions. There are no stockholders. At some point, more revenue simply means that athletic directors need to find more things to spend their windfall on.... The superconference experiments failed because you can’t manufacture tradition, and tradition is the only thing college football has to offer. Without tradition, college football is just an NFL minor league. Big Ten football mainly consists on a week-to-week basis of games like Michigan versus Minnesota and Illinois versus Wisconsin. Those games have meaning to the fans in ways outsiders can’t grasp. The series have gone on for a century. They often have funny old trophies. Every game is lodged into a long historical narrative of cherished (or cursed) memory. Replacing those games with some other equally good (or, as the case may be, not good) program is like snuffing out your family dog and replacing it with some slightly better-trained breed. It is not the same thing. And that deep well of sentiment, not the conferences’ ability to exploit a series of local cable cartels, is its ultimate source of value." -- Jonathan Chait

- "But the reality is that it is a GREAT move for Maryland (and, arguably, even more for Rutgers), and -- yes -- it is entirely about the money.Maryland athletics is in terrible shape financially. Joining the Big Ten and its ATM of a cable network will help immeasurably. From the Big Ten's standpoint, expanding the footprint is mandatory in a 'super-conference' world, and it is most ideal to do it in big markets like DC and NYC. I have no patience for people griping 'What about the tradition!?' Those people don't have to finance college athletics. You can lament the end of the Maryland-Duke rivalry while agreeing the move makes sense." -- Dan Shanoff

Some quotes/paragraphs were combined to save space.

Terps fall to Memphis

At times this season, Maryland simply looked overmatched against various teams. And that's exactly what happened on Saturday in the Terps' matchup with Memphis.

Freshman Tyreke Evans scored 19 points, and Doneal Mack hit five three-pointers as Memphis cruised past Maryland 89-70. Five Tigers scored in double figures, and as a team, Memphis shot over 58 percent from the field and made 10 of 19 three-pointers.

For all of his trash talk, Greivis Vasquez played moderately well with 18 points, five assists, and three rebounds. Adrian Bowie scored 11 points, and Eric Hayes chipped in with 10.

But the story of the game was Maryland's inability to stop Memphis on offense. Nothing Maryland did -- man-to-man, 3-2 zone, press, trap, etc. -- seemed to do anything to slow down the Memphis attack. It also didn't help that the Terps lost the rebounding battle 33-23.

But even though Maryland's season is over, the Terps still did something that only two other ACC schools, Duke and North Carolina, can say they accomplished this year: win an NCAA Tournament game. Boston College, Florida State, Wake Forest, and Clemson all lost to lower seeds in the tournament in the first round, and all four of those teams can claim to having better overall talent than Maryland. So Gary Williams deserves a ton of credit just for getting Maryland into the tournament this year.

As for a quick look at the 2009-2010 season, the only player that Maryland loses, at least for right now, is senior Dave Neal. Of course, Vasquez could decide to turn pro; he'd probably be taken in the second round if he left. But if everyone returns and Maryland gets some help in the frontcourt from incoming freshmen James Padgett, Jordan Williams, and (possibly) Lance Stephenson, there's no reason why they shouldn't be back in the tournament next season.

AP Photo/Charlie Riedel

Dave Neal's screen

Hopefully Nolan Smith is OK. Still, it was a great screen by Neal -- plus he hit a three right afterwards.

Duke tops Maryland, 78-67

Maryland, trying to ride a wave of momentum and complete an improbable two-game stretch against No. 3 North Carolina and No. 7 Duke, fell behind late in the second half when Gerald Henderson and Kyle Singler hit consecutive three-pointers. Ahead 66-60, Duke took the lead for good.

The Terps could've used more from its best player, Greivis Vasquez, in the second half, but he picked up his fourth personal foul with 18 minutes left in the game. Because of the foul trouble, Vasquez was limited to 22 minutes (10 points, six rebounds, five assists) in the game. Sean Mosley also missed a few minutes in the second half after apparently twisting his ankle.

Landon Milbourne (19 points), Adrian Bowie (14 points), and Eric Hayes (10 points) all had solid games. Dave Neal had an OK night with six points, but he did have one bone-jarring screen on Nolan Smith, who didn't return to the game afterwards.

Unfortunately, Cliff Tucker didn't contribute much, as he had just four points in 19 minutes on one-of-five shooting. Apparently he can only score points against North Carolina; he hasn't scored more than 14 points against anyone else this season.

Duke might have been in trouble if not for the play of Henderson -- 19 points, eight rebounds, three assists, and four blocks. Henderson got Duke going with a thunderous dunk early in the second half, and he also played pretty good defense and made some timely blocks. He stepped up for Singler, who didn't have one of his best games.

Even with the loss, Maryland still controls its NCAA Tournament chances. The Terps' three remaining games are: at NC State, home against No. 14 Wake Forest, and at Virginia. With the way Wake Forest has been playing, all three games are winnable.

The loss to Duke hurts, as it always does, but there's still plenty of work to be done. Now isn't the time for panic.

AP Photo/Rob Carr

One more Gary Williams post

With this post, three of my last five blog entries have been about Maryland basketball and Gary Williams. For some reason, I'm extremely intrigued by the intense debate going on about whether or not Williams should focus more on recruiting or just stick to his guns and do as he always has.

But I'm not the only one that's interested. I've read a few articles on the same topic, with varying opinions, and I've heard several discussions on sports talk radio. Just about everyone has a take on this issue; some are on Williams's side, and some thinks he needs to change and do whatever he has to to get more talent to College Park. To me, the whole thing is fascinating.

I know that Williams isn't the only college basketball coach who refuses to cheat when he recruits, but he does seem to be the only one who holds a grudge against AAU coaches and almost completely refuses to deal with them at all.

Anyway, Washington Post writers Steve Yanda and Eric Prisbell recently put together a fantastic three-part series on Williams and the apparent decline of Maryland basketball in the last several years. Part one deals with the decline, part two examines recruiting and the shady world of AAU basketball, and part three looks at the possibility of a solid 2010 season for the Terps.

In my view, part two is the best and most informative of the three. In part two, a few coaches give their opinions on Williams and the dilemma at hand, and the Rudy Gay recruiting controversy is discussed. Unfortunately, Yanda and Prisbell kind of mailed in part three instead of hammering home many of the points made in the previous two articles. They could have interviewed some former Maryland players and compared their experiences being recruiting by Maryland and Williams to the examples of Deron Williams, Matt Walsh, Josh Boone, Scottie Reynolds, Joe Alexander, and Malcolm Delaney in the first article.

Nonetheless, all three articles are well done and provide great analysis to anyone who wants to learn more about Williams's philosophies on recruiting or gain some insight on the overall topic.

My least favorite group of sports fans

Anyone who watches or discusses sports regularly knows the kind of fan I'm about to describe. All of a sudden, team X starts to win a few games in a row, or they win a close game on national TV. Then, out of left field, you see one of your friends or maybe even some random guy or girl you know jump on that team's bandwagon and claim he or she has always been a fan.

There's been a perfect example the last couple weeks. As Maryland tore through the rest of their ACC schedule down the stretch run, people started talking about them again. There were columns on ESPN about their chances and how the team has grown up and matured. Lots of fans around the area started getting excited about Terps basketball again, and some students even started making groups on Facebook to talk about not only their chances, but to name their pools after the Terps since they'll be back in the NCAA tourney. I have no problem with that. I think it's great for them to be back in the big picture this year.

The problem I have occurred after Maryland lost a disappointing and confusing game against Miami. I'm not going to talk about why they lost the game. They shouldn't have, and it was ugly to watch. But they lost. Suddenly, there was talk about how overrated Maryland was. People who had been cheering for them or wearing their clothes or whatever wanted to jump the Terp ship. Why... because they lost 1 game? Give me a break. They hadn't even lost a single game for over a month.

Look, it's already disappointing for people to watch their teams when they aren't playing their best or they just can't beat a team that isn't as good as them. Everyone reading this knows that Maryland is better than Miami. Everyone reading this, especially AJ, knows that Georgetown is better than ODU. But for some reason, Maryland lost to Miami twice this year and somehow ODU beat the Hoyas. Teams lose. Rarely, if ever, does any team go undefeated in any sport. But how can you start cheering for a team again and then randomly choose to dislike them again within a matter of days? I'm not talking about being mad that they lost. I'm talking about jumping off the bandwagon completely or at least temporarily until they win the next day.

There aren't any rules about this sort of thing though. Everybody can choose to love a team one day and then hate that same team the next. It's hard for people to be loyal sports fans. Everyone wants to be a Yankees fan, or a Mavericks/Heat/Suns fan, or a Patriots fan these days. People want to look cool when a team they "like" does well. Maybe some people feel they get cool points for it.

Well you know what, I don't want to hear about it. Pick a team and stay with them. It's still possible to enjoy teams that aren't your favorites. Sports and crazy games, especially during March Madness, are still fun to watch no matter what.

You just don't get to claim allegiance to those teams.