WebFire;1325552 wrote:With the addition of Maryland and Rutgers, the B1G will have 4 of the top 17 LOSINGest programs in college football.

gorocks99;1325556 wrote:What?

Maryland is #39 all time with 614 wins. Rutgers is #37 with 623 wins. By winning percentage, Maryland is #70, Rutgers is #79. That's not close to bottom 17.

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/misc/div_ia_wins.php

Ranked by total wins:

1. Michigan
3. Nebraska
5. Ohio State
13. Penn State
28. Minnesota
32. Wisconsin
37. Rutgers
39. Maryland
40. Iowa
43. Purdue
46. Illinois
83. Northwestern
98. Indiana

WebFire;1325564 wrote:Hmmmm...let me check where I read it.

WebFire;1325564 wrote:Hmmmm...let me check where I read it.

WebFire;1325570 wrote:Stat was based on number of total losses.

SportsAndLady;1325568 wrote:Probably Michigan forums

gorocks99;1325571 wrote:Ah, got it. Fairly deliberately skewed to look negative if you ask me, winning percentage is probably the most valid comparison. Maryland and Rutgers are, historically, on par with teams like Illinois, Iowa and Purdue. Indiana and Northwestern lag way behind.

WebFire;1325580 wrote:Agree, winning % is probably best. Though total wins as you presented could be said to be deliberately skewed to be positive.

Even with win %, 71st and 80th (or whatever you posted, either is not great) isn't really anything to brag about.

SportsAndLady;1325558 wrote:And yet no one gives a shit...as the conference will make a ton of money, which is better for all the teams in the conference.

WebFire;1325593 wrote:Count me in the group that thinks college athletics is losing its way. It's all about the money grab now, instead of putting together competitive conferences. Boy, that is tons of fun.

WebFire;1325577 wrote:I see you're adding nothing to the conversation as usual.

SportsAndLady;1325595 wrote:The more money you make as a conference, the more money your members have to "get better"

This is the one time in sports where "it's all about the money" actually benefits everyone (the schools, the fans, and the players).

WebFire;1325598 wrote:Then why don't Minnesota and Indiana get better? Northwestern or Purdue?

SportsAndLady;1325599 wrote:I'm saying the more money the B1G brings in by adding RU and Maryland, the more it will benefits its members.

WebFire;1325598 wrote:Then why don't Minnesota and Indiana get better? Northwestern or Purdue?

gorocks99;1325603 wrote:To be fair, three of those schools (Minnesota, Indiana, and Northwestern) have all completed or announced big facilities upgrades in the recent past. Without recent winning traditions, they'll continue to struggle overall but if they have to struggle they'd rather do it from the top of a mountain of cash.

WebFire;1325609 wrote:Sure, I get why it benefits Maryland and Rutgers. Rutgers pretty much said that's why they are joining. But that doesn't make the programs or the conference better.

gorocks99;1325579 wrote:Thought this was interesting; Penn State sells its soul to join Big Ten: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-EhOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7RMEAAAAIBAJ&dq=penn st sells its soul to join big ten league&pg=6761%2C1859158

SportsAndLady;1325611 wrote:Did you read his post wrong? He said it's benefitting Minnesota, Indiana, NW by 2 of those schools having announced big facility upgrades. That extra bit of money is only going to help, and it can help in a bunch of different ways--this case being facility upgrades.

Not all 14 schools in the B1G are going to be really good all the time. Just natural to have bad teams in your conference. But when you can still make some money and attempt to improve your program it's a lot better than being shitty and broke.

WebFire;1325616 wrote:Ok, no I didn't read it that way. I get what he's saying now. But that goes back to what I said before. As long as they are making money, who cares. I don't like that.

SportsAndLady;1325618 wrote:Right but they're making money, and spending it..to improve their facilities, which in turn improves recruiting, which in turn improves your team.

Illinois, Minnesota, NW...they're not just going to "get good" all of a sudden like a Michigan or Penn State can do. They need money so they can offer what other more well known schools cannot.

SportsAndLady;1325637 wrote:Fuck Web, we didn't add Idaho State and Umass.

I see 2 schools who are 5-2 and 5-1 in bowl games in the last 10 years. We didn't add Texas and Florida, but we added 2 pretty solid programs that will bring the conference more money. What's so watered down about that?

Seriously, were you expecting LSU and Oregon?