DBR Big 10 Fallacies

[Deslok]

Yes, the DBR's statements about the Big 10 footprint ARE inaccurate-- DBR did not say that the Big 10 footprint has a "more slowly growing population than the rest of the country"-- time and again, DBR has stated flatly that the Big 10 footprint states are "declining in population"-- that is simply NOT TRUE. It's not asking a lot of understanding of math and statistics to comprehend the difference between a slower GROWTH rate and an actual DECLINE in absolute population.

Facing falling demographics in the Midwest

Its not asking a lot of understanding of the English language to comprehend the difference between population and demographics. Or at least, thats what this mathematics major would believe until shown otherwise.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Yes, the DBR's statements about the Big 10 footprint ARE inaccurate-- DBR did not say that the Big 10 footprint has a "more slowly growing population than the rest of the country"-- time and again, DBR has stated flatly that the Big 10 footprint states are "declining in population"-- that is simply NOT TRUE. It's not asking a lot of understanding of math and statistics to comprehend the difference between a slower GROWTH rate and an actual DECLINE in absolute population.

Why are you going all Yosemite Sam here? One could interpret the statement "demographics are falling" in any number of ways. I mean, it doesn't merit an argument does it? Unless perhaps you are from a B1G state and are offended somehow?

[Mudge]

Facing falling demographics in the Midwest

Its not asking a lot of understanding of the English language to comprehend the difference between population and demographics. Or at least, thats what this mathematics major would believe until shown otherwise.

No, it's not asking a lot-- so then, maybe DBR could use a phrase that actually means something-- the phrase "falling demographics" is (perhaps purposefully) pretty vague-- what aspect of demographics is falling? It clearly is not the actual population. If the DBR wants to say that the Big 10 footprint's share of the total national TV audience is falling, that would at least be accurate. However, in the past, I believe that they (DBR) have specifically referred to declining population in Midwestern states which, as stated, is not true.

[Mudge]

I'm not going to get into the demographic argument, but I would like to comment on the OP's view of Pat Kennedy and some other coaches.

Not to defend Robinson, but you do understand that Kennedy's success at FSU was built largely on players who could not qualify under the ACC standards at the time. His first two ACC teams were very successful -- with holdover academic non-qualifiers Sam Cassell, Rodney Dobard and Douglas Edwards. Contrary to your assertion that Robinson quickly destroyed "a historically winning" FSU program (one that had just nine 20-win seasons in the 55 years before joining the ACC), the program collapsed under Kennedy before Robinson ever got there -- as soon as his pre-ACC recruits finished (I won't say graduated because I don't know which ones did and didn't graduate). Kennedy's last four FSU teams won 6-5-5-6 ACC games, never finished in the first division and made one NIT appearance in those four years (Robinson made the NCAA in his first season).

And there might be another reason that the DBR never warmed to Kennedy or Haith (the same reason so many had reservations about former FSU coach Hugh Durham -- a cheater so blatant that even Jerry Tarkanien called it a stain on the NCAA when Durham's '72 Seminoles played in the Final Four).

And I don't understand the sneering remarks about Purnell. He was "fair" at Clemson? I have no idea what went on at DePaul, but at Clemson, he only engineered the greatest 4-year run in school history. He inherited a program that had gone 70-84 under the previous Clemson coach and built a consistent winner -- without any hint of cheating. Clemson had never before had back-to-back 20-win seasons ... Purnell won 21-plus in his last four seasons at Clemson. He matched Rick Barnes as the only Clemson coach with three straight NCAA appearances. He engineered six straight postseason tournaments -- and he guided the only back to back ranked (in the final AP poll) teams in Clemson history -- (only two other teams in Clemson history have finished in the final AP top 25). And he left the program in good enough shape that Brad Brownell was able to make the NCAA in his first season at Clemson -- a four in a row streak with Purnell's kids.

Purnell has the best overall winning percentage of any Clemson coach since 1921 and the best ACC winning percentage of any Clemson coach ever.

I'd say that in the context of the Clemson job, that's a little better that fair.

As for the McDermott vs. Barnes debate -- I can't imagine that anybody wouldn't agree that McDermott was the greater college player. Even in Barnes first two years, he wasn't the player that McDermott was. As a sophomore, McDermott was a consensus first-team All-American ... Barnes made a couple of second and third teams, but not enough to be recognized as even a consensus second team guy.

From that point, McDermott went on to win two more consensus first team All-America honors -as a junior and as a senior - just for comparison, in all its glorious history, Duke has never had a player be consensus first-team All-American for three straight seasons. And, of course, he was the unanimous national player of the year as a senior.

Will Barnes be a better pro? Maybe ... but this is a college site and his college career can't compare to his old high school teammate ... and not just because McDermott stayed four years -- he was significantly better as a sophomore than Barnes was as a soph.

The OP makes a lot of vague charges about DBR. I'd appreciate some specific examples of misstatement and bias. As I've pointed out, there a tangible reasons to denigrate Pat Kennedy and to praise Oliver Purnell. And it's not unreasonable to suggest that Doug McDermott is superior to Harrison Barnes. And while I'm not qualified to delve into demographics, but deslok's stats sound like a pretty good justification of the DBR's snide remarks about the Big Ten's shrinking footprint.

The comments about whether the players on Kennedy's early FSU ACC teams would have qualified to ACC standards (and thus been playing) are debatable-- typically, a non-qualified player sat out for a year, then was allowed to play the remaining 3 years (or 4, if he made sufficient progress)-- having watched Jim Valvano get guys like Chris Washburn and Lorenzo Charles eligible in the ACC, I am/was not impressed with the "higher standards" of the ACC.

However, here are some objective facts that are not difficult to look up about the relative performance of Steve Robinson, Pat Kennedy, and Leonard Hamilton as basketball coaches at FSU (and the historical performance of FSU as a basketball program):

1) Steve Robinson is the only FSU coach since 1948 to have a losing record (64-86, or 43% win rate)-- he had only one winning season, and went to 1 NCAA tourney, and never finished as high as third in the ACC.
2) Pat Kennedy won 61% of his games at FSU (202-131)-- taking 5 teams to the NCAA tourney-- and his first two ACC teams each finished second in the league, and went to the NCAA Sweet 16 and Elite 8, respectively.
3) Leonard Hamilton has won 58% of his games at FSU (219-157)-- and would be at 64%, but for 22 wins vacated later due to an academic ineligibility-- and he has finished third in the league 3 times (and won the league tourney once), while taking 5 teams to the NCAA tourney, making one Sweet 16 appearance.

Overall, even with the 22 vacated wins from 2007, FSU has won 58% of its basketball games, and every coach at FSU (since 1948)-- except Steve Robinson-- has won at least 53% of his games. Robinson is the one outlier in a historically pretty successful program-- yet DBR was always labeling Robinson as the next great coach, while having little good to say about Kennedy or Hamilton.

Here are some objective facts about Pat Kennedy and Oliver Purnell, comparing their time at a mid-major (Iona for Kennedy, Dayton for Purnell), where they made their reputations (to earn their respective shot at a "big school" job), their time at an ACC school, and then their time at DePaul:

1) Kennedy won 67% if his games at Iona (124-60), and made two NCAA tourneys; Purnell won 57% of his games at Dayton (58% if you add in Purnell's Old Dominion record), and made two NCAA tourneys-- advantage Kennedy.
2) Kennedy won 61% of his games at FSU, with best finishes of second in the ACC twice, went to five NCAA tourneys, and made the Sweet 16 and the Elite 8; Purnell won 61% of his games, with best finish of third in the ACC once, and made three NCAA tourneys, losing in the first round each time-- advantage Kennedy. (Oh, by the way, Frank Haith has won 61% of his games, all in major conferences, with a best finish of second, and has taken his teams to 3 NCAA tourneys—which compares favorably with Purnell’s stint at Clemson—as does Hamilton’s time at FSU—see above.)
3) Kennedy won 44% of his games at DePaul, with two winning seasons and one NCAA tourney; Purnell has won 35% of his games at DePaul, with no winning seasons and no NCAA tourneys-- advantage Kennedy.

Yes, Kennedy is now in a downward spiral at low-major (and now Division II) schools, as he ends his career-- but it is hard to argue that Purnell has ever done better at similar competitive levels of the sport than Kennedy did in his heyday-- and it would not surprise me to see Purnell continue to trace a similar downward spiral to Kennedy (sort of Rollie Massimino-like), as his career meanders on.

So, no, I don’t think there are tangible reasons to denigrate Kennedy (or Hamilton or Haith) and yet praise Purnell. I also think FSU’s historical track record is pretty successful (58%) in basketball. And as stated elsewhere, the Big 10’s population footprint is not “shrinking”— there are more people in Big 10 land (both historical and new) than there have ever been. The “best recent player from Iowa” question will have to wait until McDermott gets a chance to show what he can do in the NBA—Barnes is not a flop yet (anymore than JJ Redick is/was), and I am not convinced yet that McDermott will be able to do as well as Barnes in the NBA (which will provide the decisive verdict on this question, because it is a higher level of play). Making the call now would be analogous to saying that Laettner is/was a better player than Shaq, because he had a better college career—the ultimate decision will rest on how each player performs in the NBA.

[Mudge]

Pat Kennedy, Leonard Hamilton, Frank Haith, Steve Robinson, Oliver Purnell: Big 10 coaches.
Doug McDermott, Harrison Barnes: Big 10 basketball players.
All of the above: Big 10 FALLACIES. C'mon, DBR. Time to tighten up your Big 10 game.

I've been wondering when the annual Oliver Purnell/Frank Haith Mudge rant was coming. A sacred rite, to go without it would be to miss Thanksgiving, if Thanksgiving was more about obscure vendettas and not making sense.

It's good to know that you're thinking about me... what with the South Carolina and Maryland (and Haith, to add to the Kennedy and Hamilton) denigration fixations, DBR's editorials should continue to have great appeal to the Queen of not-making-sense.

[Deslok]

Hmmm... is this the UNC spin department on DBR?
Well sure, the post I was responding to didn't say anything like I claimed it did, but I'm sure at some point in the past they said something like I thought they did that time. And besides, they were confusing and I didn't understand what they meant, so their claim couldn't have been right anyway, since I'm not sure what they were saying.
But the situation is all under control now and is exactly like I said it was, despite any evidence to the contrary.

[Olympic Fan]

The comments about whether the players on Kennedy's early FSU ACC teams would have qualified to ACC standards (and thus been playing) are debatable-- typically, a non-qualified player sat out for a year, then was allowed to play the remaining 3 years (or 4, if he made sufficient progress)-- having watched Jim Valvano get guys like Chris Washburn and Lorenzo Charles eligible in the ACC, I am/was not impressed with the "higher standards" of the ACC.

You better bone up on your ACC history. When the NCAA adopted the rules about partial qualifiers (not non-qualified ... who could not get an NCAA scholarship) the ACC first allowed one partial qualifier a year. But by the time FSU entered the ACC, there were NO partial qualifiers. That ruling sent a lot of good NC football prospects to ECU and a gave the SEC a big recruiting edge. FSU's three best players in 1992-93 were partial qualifiers.

Yeah, Pat Kennedy had a better winning percentage at FSU than Robinson -- but that includes the pre-ACC days and those first two years with non-ACC players. I repeat, the program collapsed in his last four years when FSU was 22-42 in the ACC (22-46 if you count the ACC Tournament). No, Steve Robinson couldn't clean up the mess Kennedy made ... and it took Leonard Hamilton (a coach I do admire) six seasons of mediocrity before he finally got things on track.

Of course, all of this ignores the difference between a coach who played within the rules and one who didn't. You are welcome to admire Pat Kennedy -- or Hugh Durham or Jim Harrick or Tates Locke -- if you like, but forgive me if I reserve my respect for coaches who didn't have to bend the rules to win.

What does it matter what Kennedy and Purnell did at mid-majors ... I don't know the difference is situations and competition at Iona and Dayton. I do know that Purnell was a significantly better ACC coach than Kennedy. Put it this way, Kennedy made the ACC in his first two ACC seasons, then finished deep in the second division in his last four seasons. Purnell took over a hopeless program, struggled for a few years, but finished up with three straight NCAA appearances. And he was clean.

And, yes, Christian Laettner WAS a better college player than Shaq ... significantly better. Just as David Thompson was better than Michael Jordan.

This is a college site -- an ACC site ... if you want to argue for O'Neal or Harrison Barnes, find yourself an NBA message board.

I hope JD King continues to prefer great college players, just as I hope he continues to promote successful ACC coaches such as Purnell over failures (at least as an ACC coach) such as Kennedy.

And I don't mind at all the repeated shots at the Big Ten and its desperate efforts to overcome a fading demographic.

[hurleyfor3]

Of course Big 10 Country is a "fading demographic". Because I don't live there anymore.

[Atlanta Duke]

No, it's not asking a lot-- so then, maybe DBR could use a phrase that actually means something-- the phrase "falling demographics" is (perhaps purposefully) pretty vague-- what aspect of demographics is falling? It clearly is not the actual population. If the DBR wants to say that the Big 10 footprint's share of the total national TV audience is falling, that would at least be accurate. However, in the past, I believe that they (DBR) have specifically referred to declining population in Midwestern states which, as stated, is not true.

Well I think it is true for Michigan, which is home to 2 flagship schools of the conference along with what used to be a big market in Detroit

This from the 2010 census

Michigan, whose labor force is heavily dependent on the slumping US auto industry, enjoyed the dubious distinction of being the only state in the nation to see its population decline in the past decade, US Census figures show.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...uck-in-reverse

Michigan does appear to have gained a whopping 6500 residents from 2011 to 2012 (when a stock price crashes I think that is called a dead cat bounce) but according to this link the Michigan population peaked in 2004

http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/CHI/POP/DP00_t1.asp

I grew up in Pittsburgh and take no joy in the decline of the industrial Midwest, but that area of the U.S. is lagging both coasts and the Sunbelt in terms of economic and population growth. Which is why Jim Delany and the Big Ten are aggressively pursuing their goal to get to growing markets

[J.Blink]

The frontpage articles have referred specifically to the Big Ten's declining population at least 4 times in the last year. Over the same time period, the articles have also referred to declining demographics at least 3 times (these results based on a very quick google). I think it's safe to say DBR has been using the terms interchangeably and that any semantics arguments that claim "declining demographics" mean something else are wrong.

I'd give this one to Mudge...

2014/5/1: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...-football-note

"This may be a place where the declining population of the traditional Big Ten schools hurts..."

2014/5/5: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...opening-series

"For the Big Ten's Jim Delaney, it's another chance to get his conference outside of the conference's traditional base, where the population is declining"

3/16/2014: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...6/sunday-notes

"One of the driving forces behind Big Ten expansion is weakness: the populations of those states are declining while the coasts are surging.

6/24/2013: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...acc-post-split

"...faced with declining demographics and a probable corresponding long-term decline in athletic success..."

6/4/2013: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...ne-defends-gee

"What we care about is that the population in the traditional Big Ten footprint is declining." (DBR is "translating" a statement made by the Big Ten commissioner)

5/5/2013: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...-pulled-it-off

"As we said recently, much of what's motivating the Big Ten to expand is [sic] demographics: theirs are declining."

4/23/2013: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...move-stability

"... but the reality is that in the Big Ten's traditional base is in a long-term demographic decline"

[OldPhiKap]

Rust Never Sleeps.

[Mudge]

Well I think it is true for Michigan, which is home to 2 flagship schools of the conference along with what used to be a big market in Detroit

This from the 2010 census

Michigan, whose labor force is heavily dependent on the slumping US auto industry, enjoyed the dubious distinction of being the only state in the nation to see its population decline in the past decade, US Census figures show.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...uck-in-reverse

Michigan does appear to have gained a whopping 6500 residents from 2011 to 2012 (when a stock price crashes I think that is called a dead cat bounce) but according to this link the Michigan population peaked in 2004

http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/CHI/POP/DP00_t1.asp

I grew up in Pittsburgh and take no joy in the decline of the industrial Midwest, but that area of the U.S. is lagging both coasts and the Sunbelt in terms of economic and population growth. Which is why Jim Delany and the Big Ten are aggressively pursuing their goal to get to growing markets

As noted in my first post, that tiny blip down in Michigan's population is the ONLY data point that corresponds to DBR's contention-- and even that has now begun to be reversed by an (admittedly also tiny) blip up in the other direction-- but every other state in the huge Big 10 footprint is now at an all-time high-- and the net effect is for the league's total population to also be at an all-time high.

[Mudge]

You better bone up on your ACC history. When the NCAA adopted the rules about partial qualifiers (not non-qualified ... who could not get an NCAA scholarship) the ACC first allowed one partial qualifier a year. But by the time FSU entered the ACC, there were NO partial qualifiers. That ruling sent a lot of good NC football prospects to ECU and a gave the SEC a big recruiting edge. FSU's three best players in 1992-93 were partial qualifiers.

Yeah, Pat Kennedy had a better winning percentage at FSU than Robinson -- but that includes the pre-ACC days and those first two years with non-ACC players. I repeat, the program collapsed in his last four years when FSU was 22-42 in the ACC (22-46 if you count the ACC Tournament). No, Steve Robinson couldn't clean up the mess Kennedy made ... and it took Leonard Hamilton (a coach I do admire) six seasons of mediocrity before he finally got things on track.

Of course, all of this ignores the difference between a coach who played within the rules and one who didn't. You are welcome to admire Pat Kennedy -- or Hugh Durham or Jim Harrick or Tates Locke-- if you like, but forgive me if I reserve my respect for coaches who didn't have to bend the rules to win.

What does it matter what Kennedy and Purnell did at mid-majors ... I don't know the difference is situations and competition at Iona and Dayton. I do know that Purnell was a significantly better ACC coach than Kennedy. Put it this way, Kennedy made the ACC in his first two ACC seasons, then finished deep in the second division in his last four seasons. Purnell took over a hopeless program, struggled for a few years, but finished up with three straight NCAA appearances. And he was clean.

And, yes, Christian Laettner WAS a better college player than Shaq ... significantly better. Just as David Thompson was better than Michael Jordan.

This is a college site -- an ACC site ... if you want to argue for O'Neal or Harrison Barnes, find yourself an NBA message board.

I hope JD King continues to prefer great college players, just as I hope he continues to promote successful ACC coaches such as Purnell over failures (at least as an ACC coach) such as Kennedy.

And I don't mind at all the repeated shots at the Big Ten and its desperate efforts to overcome a fading demographic.

Even without Kennedy's record for the pre-ACC years at FSU, his winning % at FSU (58%) is comparable to Purnell's at Clemson-- and he did more in the ACC-- finished higher in the league, went further in the NCAA tourney, went to more tourneys, etc... just generally did more, despite his weak later years.

As for Robinson, if his failure was because he "couldn't clean up the mess Kennedy made", then why was Robinson's best year (his only winning season and NCAA tourney team) his first team-- with the players/program that he had just inherited from Kennedy? Doesn't make any sense.

You keep lumping Kennedy in with proven unethical coaches and cheaters, such as Locke and Harrick (I don't recall the proof on Durham)-- please explain why you are doing so-- in my search for NCAA violations by Kennedy, I haven't found this. Maybe Kennedy cheated, and it wasn't proven-- if so, I would be interested in your data.

What I don't know (that you seem certain of, despite numerous data points to the contrary) is that Kennedy was inferior in the ACC to Purnell-- I think the data says otherwise-- but I certainly don't think an impartial observer would ever argue that the data supports a conclusive or overwhelming decision in favor of Purnell over Kennedy...

I also think it matters what the two did as they came up the career ladder (before the got to the ACC), in order to compare them (and Kennedy did better)-- and it most certainly matters who did better at the exact same school-- where the results aren't close-- again, Kennedy did better-- and the data is conclusive.

As for the McDermott/Barnes comparison, DBR didn't say McDermott is/was the better college player (from Iowa)-- they just keep saying he is the better player, period-- and I think that is far from proven.

[Atlanta Duke]

As noted in my first post, that tiny blip down in Michigan's population is the ONLY data point that corresponds to DBR's contention-- and even that has now begun to be reversed by an (admittedly also tiny) blip up in the other direction-- but every other state in the huge Big 10 footprint is now at an all-time high-- and the net effect is for the league's total population to also be at an all-time high.

What you call a blip has been a source of existential despair among officials in Michigan, but I agree the overall Big Ten market is not losing population. Presumably not anything to put in the Chamber of Commerce publications.

But if DBR is pursuing a "vendetta" against the Big Ten by stating its expansion plans are driven by the need to move into more vibrant markets it is not alone

This article in the Chicago Tribune, presumably no hotbed of anti-Big Ten zealots, noted the same population trends that Deslok noted in his earlier post

The additions of Maryland and Rutgers would be largely about one word: demographics.

Delany studies population shifts. According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, Michigan's population shrunk 0.08 percent from April, 2010 to July, 2011. It ranked 49th among U.S. states. Ohio was 47th. Illinois 42nd. Pennsylvania 41st. Wisconsin 37th. Indiana 34th.

The District of Columbia had the nation's largest growth rate, at 2.7 percent.

This is long-term thinking.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...en-network-btn

And here is a Grantland article by a Penn State graduate

Those of us who still bother to pay attention to Big Ten football have seen it coming for quite some time. The demographics are working against us. The population is shifting south, where high schools practice in the spring and construct $60 million stadiums; Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have all shed electoral votes since 1980, while Florida and Texas have gained them. Only Ohio State (and perhaps Michigan, to a lesser extent) seem positioned to be nationally competitive by recruiting locally. ...

http://grantland.com/features/on-urb...yland-rutgers/

And here is Jim Delany himself noting the long term competitive disadvantages facing the Big Ten

"We've been blessed in many ways by the economy and density of the population in the 20th century," Delany told reporters at the Big Ten spring meetings. "In the last 20 years there has been a clear shift of movement into the Sun Belt. The rates of growth in the Sun Belt are four times the rate in the East or the Midwest. That has demographic meaning long term for the economy, for jobs, for recruitment of students, for recruitment of athletes, for recruitment of faculty, for tax base."

http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/05/d...n_south_m.html

So I respectfully submit your premise that DBR is on its own bitterly biased island by pointing to long term problems within the traditional Big Ten geographic footprint is misplaced

[sagegrouse]

In the piling on category, DBR asserts that Congress has set the minimum age of enlistment at 18. Nope, 17. Here's the scoop from military.com:

You must be at least 17 years old (17-year old applicants require parental consent). You must (with very few exceptions) have a high school diploma. You must pass a physical medical exam. For each branch, there are slightly different enlistment requirements [which relate to maximum age and test scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test]

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

In the piling on category, DBR asserts that Congress has set the minimum age of enlistment at 18. Nope, 17. Here's the scoop from military.com:

Actually... as long as we are breaking down semantics and particukars, that isn't exactly what it says. From the front page article:

In the case of military service, the Congress has decided people can serve at 18.

The fact that the minimum age to enlist is 17 does not make it inaccurate tonsay that people can serve at 18. The minimum drinking age is 21. I am much older than that, and I can legally be servee alcohol.

Has practice started yet?

[phaedrus]

What you call a blip has been a source of existential despair among officials in Michigan, but I agree the overall Big Ten market is not losing population. Presumably not anything to put in the Chamber of Commerce publications.

But if DBR is pursuing a "vendetta" against the Big Ten by stating its expansion plans are driven by the need to move into more vibrant markets it is not alone

This article in the Chicago Tribune, presumably no hotbed of anti-Big Ten zealots, noted the same population trends that Deslok noted in his earlier post

The additions of Maryland and Rutgers would be largely about one word: demographics.

Delany studies population shifts. According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, Michigan's population shrunk 0.08 percent from April, 2010 to July, 2011. It ranked 49th among U.S. states. Ohio was 47th. Illinois 42nd. Pennsylvania 41st. Wisconsin 37th. Indiana 34th.

The District of Columbia had the nation's largest growth rate, at 2.7 percent.

This is long-term thinking.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...en-network-btn

And here is a Grantland article by a Penn State graduate

Those of us who still bother to pay attention to Big Ten football have seen it coming for quite some time. The demographics are working against us. The population is shifting south, where high schools practice in the spring and construct $60 million stadiums; Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have all shed electoral votes since 1980, while Florida and Texas have gained them. Only Ohio State (and perhaps Michigan, to a lesser extent) seem positioned to be nationally competitive by recruiting locally. ...

http://grantland.com/features/on-urb...yland-rutgers/

And here is Jim Delany himself noting the long term competitive disadvantages facing the Big Ten

"We've been blessed in many ways by the economy and density of the population in the 20th century," Delany told reporters at the Big Ten spring meetings. "In the last 20 years there has been a clear shift of movement into the Sun Belt. The rates of growth in the Sun Belt are four times the rate in the East or the Midwest. That has demographic meaning long term for the economy, for jobs, for recruitment of students, for recruitment of athletes, for recruitment of faculty, for tax base."

http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/05/d...n_south_m.html

So I respectfully submit your premise that DBR is on its own bitterly biased island by pointing to long term problems within the traditional Big Ten geographic footprint is misplaced

Unfortunately for the Big Ten, Maryland and New Jersey are not exactly North Carolina and Texas when it comes to population growth. In fact, Maryland and New Jersey correspond pretty closely to Minnesota and Wisconsin in terms of relative growth.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Unfortunately for the Big Ten, Maryland and New Jersey are not exactly North Carolina and Texas when it comes to population growth. In fact, Maryland and New Jersey correspond pretty closely to Minnesota and Wisconsin in terms of relative growth.

And living 20 miles north of NYC and thus subject to the NYC media, I can assure you that nobody (well, almost nobody) in the New York area (which is what they are after) cares a d*** about Rutgers sports.

[NSDukeFan]

And living 20 miles north of NYC and thus subject to the NYC media, I can assure you that nobody (well, almost nobody) in the New York area (which is what they are after) cares a d*** about Rutgers sports.

But that will change when their natural rival Nebraska comes to town.

[Atlanta Duke]

Unfortunately for the Big Ten, Maryland and New Jersey are not exactly North Carolina and Texas when it comes to population growth. In fact, Maryland and New Jersey correspond pretty closely to Minnesota and Wisconsin in terms of relative growth.

I do not think Jim Delany is going into Maryland for the Cumberland and Hagerstown markets. Metro DC is a growing market (5% population increase from 2000-2013) and is the #9 TV market. Given its size it would appear DC is a more attractive market to enter than North Carolina. Of course UNC alum Delany was rumored to covet UNC-Chapel Hill as well until the ACC devised a better strategy to discourage poaching.

I agree with the post above that the Big Ten is delusional if it thinks it can crack the primary interest in pro sports in the Philadelphia and NYC markets by adding Rutgers. UConn has a major following in metropolitan New York - UConn also has a bundle of national championships. But the appeal of Rutgers is not the State in which it is located but the media markets at either end of I-95 as you enter and exit New Jersey. Philadelphia (#4 TV market) and New York City (#1) offer a lot more viewers than Minneapolis-St. Paul and Milwaukee.

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

Add to that 5 of the 10 counties with the highest median incomes being in metro DC while 2 out of the top 10 are in New Jersey and the move East pretty clearly seeks out better markets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-u-s-counties/