(02-22-2022 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 02:31 AM)rtist Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 01:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If Rutgers isn't in the Big Ten, some other school would be the 14th Big Ten school. Which school would that be?

Given the Big Ten's penchant for AAU universities, there are not many options for this alternate reality.

Notre Dame would have been the B1G preference, but they wouldn't want to join.

Iowa State?

Rutgers was added so that the Big Ten could put Big Ten Network on the 2 million cable boxes in New Jersey. Any school from a state that already had a Big Ten member, even an AAU school like Iowa State or Pittsburgh, would not have been added because BTN was already in those states.

Given the BTN motivation, the Big Ten's obvious alternative to Rutgers would have been Syracuse, unless you think UVa or UNC would have moved at that time. Sure, it was Big Ten presidents who got Syracuse forced out of AAU along with Nebraska, but they still have Nebraska in the Big Ten, so why not Syracuse as well.

Whether it was Syracuse, UVa, or UNC, adding any one of them to the Big Ten at the time Maryland joined would have created another vacancy in the ACC. A vacancy that the ACC could have filled with Rutgers.

IMO, if Rutgers wasn't invited to the B1G, then that means the B1G has an entirely different strategy. The 2012 strategy that brought Rutgers in seemed to have two prongs to it - one, adding all those BTN cable boxes in the NYC area, and two, making sure that the ACC wouldn't dominate that northeast corridor centered on New York.

For achieving both of those things via one school, Rutgers was the only viable candidate, with the arguable exception of maybe UConn, depending on how much UConn is regarded as within the NYC orbit. But probably not.

So to me, if the B1G doesn't add Rutgers, then this means it has a complete different mindset. It doesn't care about the NY-area cable boxes, and it doesn't care about contesting with the ACC for New York/northeast corridor supremacy.

If it doesn't care about those things, then I don't think it expands again in 2012. It doesn't add Maryland either because MD was part of the same strategy, just at another end of the northeast corridor. No reason to.

The Big Ten wanted Maryland for a long time. Probably would have added Maryland instead of Nebraska if Maryland's then-leadership had been interested back in 2010.

IMO the Big Ten and Maryland was similar to the SEC adding Texas A&M -- when the opportunity to add them arises, you get it done, and figure out later who else will be added to make the conference membership an even number again.

Exactly.

The Big Ten expansion in 2012 happened because Maryland reached out and wanted to move. After that, it was finding a logical pair with them, which was Rutgers. Too many people in this thread are looking at it as a Rutgers-driven expansion with Maryland coming along when it was really a Maryland-driven expansion and Rutgers came along. If Rutgers wasn’t added, they would have targeted someone else from the East that brought a new market (such as UConn or Syracuse). Any school within the current Big Ten footprint besides Notre Dame (such as Iowa State or Pitt) would have been a non-starter regardless of AAU status.

(02-22-2022 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 02:31 AM)rtist Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 01:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:23 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Visit an alternate reality where the B1G isn't looking to expand into the New York market a decade or so ago. Where is Rutgers?

If Rutgers isn't in the Big Ten, some other school would be the 14th Big Ten school. Which school would that be?

Given the Big Ten's penchant for AAU universities, there are not many options for this alternate reality.

Notre Dame would have been the B1G preference, but they wouldn't want to join.

Iowa State?

Rutgers was added so that the Big Ten could put Big Ten Network on the 2 million cable boxes in New Jersey. Any school from a state that already had a Big Ten member, even an AAU school like Iowa State or Pittsburgh, would not have been added because BTN was already in those states.

Given the BTN motivation, the Big Ten's obvious alternative to Rutgers would have been Syracuse, unless you think UVa or UNC would have moved at that time. Sure, it was Big Ten presidents who got Syracuse forced out of AAU along with Nebraska, but they still have Nebraska in the Big Ten, so why not Syracuse as well.

Whether it was Syracuse, UVa, or UNC, adding any one of them to the Big Ten at the time Maryland joined would have created another vacancy in the ACC. A vacancy that the ACC could have filled with Rutgers.

IMO, if Rutgers wasn't invited to the B1G, then that means the B1G has an entirely different strategy. The 2012 strategy that brought Rutgers in seemed to have two prongs to it - one, adding all those BTN cable boxes in the NYC area, and two, making sure that the ACC wouldn't dominate that northeast corridor centered on New York.

For achieving both of those things via one school, Rutgers was the only viable candidate, with the arguable exception of maybe UConn, depending on how much UConn is regarded as within the NYC orbit. But probably not.

So to me, if the B1G doesn't add Rutgers, then this means it has a complete different mindset. It doesn't care about the NY-area cable boxes, and it doesn't care about contesting with the ACC for New York/northeast corridor supremacy.

If it doesn't care about those things, then I don't think it expands again in 2012. It doesn't add Maryland either because MD was part of the same strategy, just at another end of the northeast corridor. No reason to.

But if they truly cared about NY carriage, Syracuse or (unlikely) Buffalo were better options.

(02-22-2022 01:10 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 02:31 AM)rtist Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 01:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  If Rutgers isn't in the Big Ten, some other school would be the 14th Big Ten school. Which school would that be?

Given the Big Ten's penchant for AAU universities, there are not many options for this alternate reality.

Notre Dame would have been the B1G preference, but they wouldn't want to join.

Iowa State?

Rutgers was added so that the Big Ten could put Big Ten Network on the 2 million cable boxes in New Jersey. Any school from a state that already had a Big Ten member, even an AAU school like Iowa State or Pittsburgh, would not have been added because BTN was already in those states.

Given the BTN motivation, the Big Ten's obvious alternative to Rutgers would have been Syracuse, unless you think UVa or UNC would have moved at that time. Sure, it was Big Ten presidents who got Syracuse forced out of AAU along with Nebraska, but they still have Nebraska in the Big Ten, so why not Syracuse as well.

Whether it was Syracuse, UVa, or UNC, adding any one of them to the Big Ten at the time Maryland joined would have created another vacancy in the ACC. A vacancy that the ACC could have filled with Rutgers.

IMO, if Rutgers wasn't invited to the B1G, then that means the B1G has an entirely different strategy. The 2012 strategy that brought Rutgers in seemed to have two prongs to it - one, adding all those BTN cable boxes in the NYC area, and two, making sure that the ACC wouldn't dominate that northeast corridor centered on New York.

For achieving both of those things via one school, Rutgers was the only viable candidate, with the arguable exception of maybe UConn, depending on how much UConn is regarded as within the NYC orbit. But probably not.

So to me, if the B1G doesn't add Rutgers, then this means it has a complete different mindset. It doesn't care about the NY-area cable boxes, and it doesn't care about contesting with the ACC for New York/northeast corridor supremacy.

If it doesn't care about those things, then I don't think it expands again in 2012. It doesn't add Maryland either because MD was part of the same strategy, just at another end of the northeast corridor. No reason to.

But if they truly cared about NY carriage, Syracuse or (unlikely) Buffalo were better options.

I have long seen the argument for Syracuse in the Big Ten. In fact, my very first suggestion for Big Ten expansion way back in 2006 on my blog (even before the BTN was created) was that the league add Syracuse for its exposure in the NY market. However, come on now regarding Buffalo! That's pretty ridiculous no matter what you may think of Rutgers.

In any event, Rutgers DID deliver the NYC/NJ market carriage. Whatever people might have thought (or still apparently think) of the Big Ten plan (and you can see from my blog posts from that time that I was as skeptical as anyone), it absolutely worked exactly as intended. Rutgers and Maryland delivered as much BTN revenue to the Big Ten as a Texas and Oklahoma combo would have delivered. That's how well the Big Ten expansion worked from a financial perspective. It's the single largest reason why, despite mass fan belief, that the Big Ten continues to have a conference revenue advantage over the SEC despite the SEC's tier 1 TV contracts and superior results on-the-field.

(02-22-2022 09:42 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  They might have gotten Louisville's spot in the ACC. Could have been an interesting battle between the football schools and the UNC-UVA-Duke Axis that runs the ACC, and we know how those usually turn out.

I think they would have gotten this spot, too. My understanding was that there may have been interest, but, Rutgers had hitched their wagon to the Big Ten (and Penn State?) years ago, and it wasn’t much of a secret.

It wasn’t a surprise they were on the B1G short-list for that twelfth spot that eventually resulted in Nebraska. Even from some Rutgers folks: they were on a course for Big Ten consideration, but needed to do a lot of work for readiness. It must have been enough (if just at that time).

But, even in this scenario, if Maryland bolts, someone else is getting spot #14. If that’s not Rutgers, who is it? Because Pitt, Cuse, and Missouri, if these guys were ever on the list, but were claimed to a point where moving again would have been cost-prohibitive or ridddled with legal issues from current/new conferences.

Was it ever discovered/confirmed which school applied and got turned down by the Big Ten around that time? One that “didn’t fit?” Whispers out there were UConn and FSU, but it was never revealed, iirc. So, Rutgers had it over whoever that was, I guess.

(02-22-2022 01:28 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 09:42 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  They might have gotten Louisville's spot in the ACC. Could have been an interesting battle between the football schools and the UNC-UVA-Duke Axis that runs the ACC, and we know how those usually turn out.

I think they would have gotten this spot, too. My understanding was that there may have been interest, but, Rutgers had hitched their wagon to the Big Ten (and Penn State?) years ago, and it wasn’t much of a secret.

It wasn’t a surprise they were on the B1G short-list for that twelfth spot that eventually resulted in Nebraska. Even from some Rutgers folks: they were on a course for Big Ten consideration, but needed to do a lot of work for readiness. It must have been enough (if just at that time).

But, even in this scenario, if Maryland bolts, someone else is getting spot #14. If that’s not Rutgers, who is it? Because Pitt, Cuse, and Missouri, if these guys were ever on the list, but were claimed to a point where moving again would have been cost-prohibitive or ridddled with legal issues from current/new conferences.

Was it ever discovered/confirmed which school applied and got turned down by the Big Ten around that time? One that “didn’t fit?” Whispers out there were UConn and FSU, but it was never revealed, iirc. So, Rutgers had it over whoever that was, I guess.

The Big Ten likely received a call from everyone not in the SEC or Pac-12 at that time (whether it was true interest or at least to gauge what the Big Ten's plans were).

That being said, it would be nuts to me if the Big Ten would have turned down FSU (whether AAU or not). The search for demographic growth outside of the Midwest was a very large driver of the long-term plans for expansion. Nebraska had the national brand and large fan base, so it made sense to take them as school number 12. However, that still left the Big Ten's demographic issues unaddressed. Rutgers and Maryland alleviated it that somewhat, although it's still a long-term risk for the Big Ten to not have any presence in the Sun Belt states.

(02-22-2022 12:23 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Visit an alternate reality where the B1G isn't looking to expand into the New York market a decade or so ago. Where is Rutgers? Remember, they had already slipped into the AAC for a season, do you think they remain there or find a life raft into, say, the ACC?

If the B1G doesn’t take Rutgers, then I’ll also assume that the B1G-Maryland marriage is also off the table.

Rutgers would probably spend time in the AAC. Louisville and UConn would also be in the AAC.

When OU and Texas announce their departures from the B12, the new B12 would look very different. Although football would not be as good, adding a foursome from the northeast would solidify the new B12 as a power conference. Rutgers goes to the new B12 along with Louisville, Cincinnati, and UConn. They join with West Virginia and Iowa State in the northern division.

If we are going to pretend that the Rutgers & Maryland to the Big 10 add never happened, then Rutgers probably spends a decade in a conference that looks like this:

AAC East: UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Cincinnati, USF, UCF
AAC West: Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Navy*

Now the divisions are fluid and maybe ECU is in there instead of Tulane but generally speaking, that’s what I see occurring prior to the Texas/Oklahoma move.

That also means that C-USA and the SBC look a little different too.

When the Big 12 goes to reload, I see Louisville being at the top of their list, probably displacing Houston, or perhaps having 5 strong candidates, they go to 14 and give someone like USF or Memphis the nod.

With Louisville and Rutgers in the AAC, I’m not sure there’s the push to add Wichita St. I’m also not sure if UConn joins the Big East when they did—maybe they don’t announce that move until 2021 or 2022.

——

All of this is of course assuming that the Big 10 didn’t make a different move in 2013 or at some point after. Maybe other ACC schools get on board with Maryland, and a chunk of the ACC joins the Big 10 while others join the SEC. Maybe the Big 10 has more wiggle room to work with and they go to 16 with Oklahoma, Texas, and 2 others.

(02-22-2022 12:23 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Visit an alternate reality where the B1G isn't looking to expand into the New York market a decade or so ago. Where is Rutgers? Remember, they had already slipped into the AAC for a season, do you think they remain there or find a life raft into, say, the ACC?

So the answer depends on if the BIG didn't expand at all, or did it take somebody else instead of Rutgers.
If the BIG didn't expand at all, then Md is still in the ACC and Ville is not. In that scenario, we both probably wind up stuck in the AAC until the SEC grabs OU & UT from the B12. My guess is we both end up in the B12 with Cincy and UH.
If the BIG expanded, but left Rutgers out for a second ACC school (say Pitt), my guess is we get the invite to the ACC to back fill.

The ACC or AAC.

(02-22-2022 12:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Rutgers was added so that the Big Ten could put Big Ten Network on the 2 million cable boxes in New Jersey. Any school from a state that already had a Big Ten member, even an AAU school like Iowa State or Pittsburgh, would not have been added because BTN was already in those states.

Given the BTN motivation, the Big Ten's obvious alternative to Rutgers would have been Syracuse, unless you think UVa or UNC would have moved at that time. Sure, it was Big Ten presidents who got Syracuse forced out of AAU along with Nebraska, but they still have Nebraska in the Big Ten, so why not Syracuse as well.

Whether it was Syracuse, UVa, or UNC, adding any one of them to the Big Ten at the time Maryland joined would have created another vacancy in the ACC. A vacancy that the ACC could have filled with Rutgers.

IMO, if Rutgers wasn't invited to the B1G, then that means the B1G has an entirely different strategy. The 2012 strategy that brought Rutgers in seemed to have two prongs to it - one, adding all those BTN cable boxes in the NYC area, and two, making sure that the ACC wouldn't dominate that northeast corridor centered on New York.

For achieving both of those things via one school, Rutgers was the only viable candidate, with the arguable exception of maybe UConn, depending on how much UConn is regarded as within the NYC orbit. But probably not.

So to me, if the B1G doesn't add Rutgers, then this means it has a complete different mindset. It doesn't care about the NY-area cable boxes, and it doesn't care about contesting with the ACC for New York/northeast corridor supremacy.

If it doesn't care about those things, then I don't think it expands again in 2012. It doesn't add Maryland either because MD was part of the same strategy, just at another end of the northeast corridor. No reason to.

The Big Ten wanted Maryland for a long time. Probably would have added Maryland instead of Nebraska if Maryland's then-leadership had been interested back in 2010.

IMO the Big Ten and Maryland was similar to the SEC adding Texas A&M -- when the opportunity to add them arises, you get it done, and figure out later who else will be added to make the conference membership an even number again.

FWIW, I think Maryland is a great addition to the B1G. Big state flagship, long athletic history, good academics, a major force in a lucrative market and near the epicenter of political power. What's not to like?

So OK, you've convinced me about them.

I agree, Maryland is an asset for any conference with a presence in the east. I never heard any talk about it, but I would have been happy to see them in the SEC. I would have loved to see the SEC invite FSU & Maryland together after we tried (and failed) to stop the increase in ACC exit fees, prior to the GoR.

The B1G's weakness is their strict adherence to an antiquated model, but one they love. The SEC's weakness is in fear of gaps.

I laughed when everyone harped on the B1G's need of contiguity in 2010, because though it was noted that the SEC practiced this as well nobody grasped how much more the SEC held this notion sacrosanct. The SEC is contiguity orthodox. Maryland reached out to SEC and B1G about the same time, a few years prior to their actual move. It was the second school of import the SEC essentially shelved because though it may have been an eventual target of interest it wasn't contiguous, and North Carolina (the state) was more interesting.

In '90 Arkansas was committed and viewed as a natural bridge not only to acquiring Texas but in eventually picking up the DFW market. South Carolina was the bridge to North Carolina because Tennessee didn't have the same allure and history with them. We always viewed Kentucky as an asset in this regard. But in '90 Va Tech expressed interest and we considered them too far as well.

The real question is if the payout Rutgers delivers from the NYC/NJ market is as significant as the Big Ten projected, then why wasn't Rutgers the ACC's number one target for expansion in 2011? Who advised the ACC and ESPN to take two small regional schools (one a private school and the other a pseudo-public school) over a state flagship?

(02-22-2022 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, if Rutgers wasn't invited to the B1G, then that means the B1G has an entirely different strategy. The 2012 strategy that brought Rutgers in seemed to have two prongs to it - one, adding all those BTN cable boxes in the NYC area, and two, making sure that the ACC wouldn't dominate that northeast corridor centered on New York.

For achieving both of those things via one school, Rutgers was the only viable candidate, with the arguable exception of maybe UConn, depending on how much UConn is regarded as within the NYC orbit. But probably not.

So to me, if the B1G doesn't add Rutgers, then this means it has a complete different mindset. It doesn't care about the NY-area cable boxes, and it doesn't care about contesting with the ACC for New York/northeast corridor supremacy.

If it doesn't care about those things, then I don't think it expands again in 2012. It doesn't add Maryland either because MD was part of the same strategy, just at another end of the northeast corridor. No reason to.

The Big Ten wanted Maryland for a long time. Probably would have added Maryland instead of Nebraska if Maryland's then-leadership had been interested back in 2010.

IMO the Big Ten and Maryland was similar to the SEC adding Texas A&M -- when the opportunity to add them arises, you get it done, and figure out later who else will be added to make the conference membership an even number again.

FWIW, I think Maryland is a great addition to the B1G. Big state flagship, long athletic history, good academics, a major force in a lucrative market and near the epicenter of political power. What's not to like?

So OK, you've convinced me about them.

I agree, Maryland is an asset for any conference with a presence in the east. I never heard any talk about it, but I would have been happy to see them in the SEC. I would have loved to see the SEC invite FSU & Maryland together after we tried (and failed) to stop the increase in ACC exit fees, prior to the GoR.

The B1G's weakness is their strict adherence to an antiquated model, but one they love. The SEC's weakness is in fear of gaps.

I laughed when everyone harped on the B1G's need of contiguity in 2010, because though it was noted that the SEC practiced this as well nobody grasped how much more the SEC held this notion sacrosanct. The SEC is contiguity orthodox. Maryland reached out to SEC and B1G about the same time, a few years prior to their actual move. It was the second school of import the SEC essentially shelved because though it may have been an eventual target of interest it wasn't contiguous, and North Carolina (the state) was more interesting.

In '90 Arkansas was committed and viewed as a natural bridge not only to acquiring Texas but in eventually picking up the DFW market. South Carolina was the bridge to North Carolina because Tennessee didn't have the same allure and history with them. We always viewed Kentucky as an asset in this regard. But in '90 Va Tech expressed interest and we considered them too far as well.

I definitely never bought into any Big Ten requirement of continuity even in 2010 - it was one of the first things that I wrote about regarding conference realignment and why Texas was the key school for everyone.

That being said, having a contiguous footprint does have an overall holistic benefit in keeping the overall conference ties stronger. The SEC footprint after expansion makes sense as a Southern conference (whereas it was a pure Southeastern conference before) and the Big Ten footprint after expansion makes sense as a Northern conference (whereas it was a Midwestern conference besides Penn State before). In both cases, that aids in creating a stronger overall bond with synergistic network effects.

That's also why I don't buy the notion that the Big Ten would add, say, USC and UCLA. Sure, their market looks great on paper, they're perfect academic fits and they have top tier athletic brands, but when there's that large of a physical gap between USC/UCLA and the rest of the Big Ten, that also ends up creating a large psychological gap between them that makes it easier for everyone involved to treat it like a shotgun marriage than a true long-term union. The Big Ten would likely need to outright merge with most or maybe even the entire Pac-12 in order to bridge the physical and psychological gaps between them and USC/UCLA, in which case the existing Big Ten schools likely wouldn't get any more economic benefit compared to simply staying put with the status quo.

I actually probably underrated the desire for continuity a bit in a my expansion analysis circa 2010. It wasn't the outright reason for any "go/no go" decision, but it plays into what makes a conference into a true cohesive group with an overall brand as opposed to simply a collection of teams with no connectivity beyond football ability.

(02-22-2022 03:06 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  The real question is if the payout Rutgers delivers from the NYC/NJ market is as significant as the Big Ten projected, then why wasn't Rutgers the ACC's number one target for expansion in 2011? Who advised the ACC and ESPN to take two small regional schools (one a private school and the other a pseudo-public school) over a state flagship?

The BTN was (and still is) a revenue-generating vehicle that allowed the Big Ten to directly monetize the addition of Rutgers (and Maryland, for that matter) in a way that the ACC simply couldn't because they were (and still are) solely reliant on third party ESPN rights fees. That's really what Jim Delany set up brilliantly - the Big Ten is able to monetize 2nd and 3rd tier rights via the BTN in a very different manner compared to everyone else (even with the SECN and ACCN as those are still based upon third party ESPN rights fees). This means that large market schools that aren't marquee first tier football schools (such as Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, etc.) are still generating a lot of conference-related value (which is why the equal revenue sharing of the Big Ten doesn't bother Michigan and Ohio State because those other members are the ones that allow UM/OSU to access mega-market money from NYC/Chicago/DC). So, no matter what anyone else gets paid in first tier rights fees (including the SEC), the Big Ten is also getting a much larger amount for its second and third tier rights fees on top of their own already high first tier rights fees.

(02-22-2022 03:06 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  The real question is if the payout Rutgers delivers from the NYC/NJ market is as significant as the Big Ten projected, then why wasn't Rutgers the ACC's number one target for expansion in 2011? Who advised the ACC and ESPN to take two small regional schools (one a private school and the other a pseudo-public school) over a state flagship?

You know not every conference is same.

1. The BIG had a BTN and the ACC didn’t have the ACCN then. The BIG wanted the NY and DC area local cable providers carry the BTN. The ACC didn’t have that need.

2. The ACC wanted schools with some football histrory and brand. Pitt and Cuse had them and Rutgers didn’t. The BIG didn’t have as strong need to get a football school as the ACC did.

3. The ACC is more open to smaller private schools. The BIG likes big public schools. For example I don’t see the BIG would accept BC. On the other hand, the ACC had accepted BC BEFORE Pitt and Cuse.

The ACC no question

I think Rutgers would be in the AAC now and even after 2025. The ACC still wouldn't take Rutgers over BC VT Miami Pitt Cuse Louisville or ND. The only one of those that is even a question is Louisville and at the time Louisville left the AAC, they had better football, basketball and a much greater ability to generate money.

With respect to Pitt and Cuse, the B1G wanted a state flagship that was AAU and could bring the NY market the ACC was always more interested in Cuse going back to the early 90's. With the ACC taking Cuse, they already have the NY market for the upcoming ACCN and the ACC needed a big state so that the in state revenues for the ACCN would be profitable and Pitt fit that bill.

Now would the B12 take Rutgers over any one else they took? Probably not. Why because they didn't take UConn and UConn has much better Men's and Women's basketball. The B12 doesn't have a conference network to profit from a large population base.

Now in 2025 I expect the B12 to add Memphis and Boise state as that plan was leaked out when they added the other 4. Would Rutgers be added over Boise State or Memphis? Maybe but it's not guaranteed that the B12 will expand to 14 after Texas and Oklahoma leave.

If the Big Ten isn't looking to move into the NYC market (or adjacent to it anyway), then I'd agree with whoever said they wouldn't be looking to add Maryland either. Maybe ESPN then tells the ACC to add Rutgers in addition to Pitt and Syracuse for a 15-team circuit? Either that or Rutgers (and Louisville, incidentally) stays in AAC purgatory.

I know three 5-team pods wouldn't have flown (and still don't fly) under NCAA CCG rules, but here it is anyway:

Boston College, Miami-FL, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Virginia Tech, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Maryland
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest

If the Big Ten decides Syracuse is a better inroad to the NYC market than Rutgers, then history is the same except Rutgers and Syracuse swap leagues.