Big Ten Expansion: Does Rutgers (Or, For That Matter, Anybody) Actually Deliver New York?
by Adam Jacobi on May 14, 2010 3:00 PM CDT
in Iowa Hawkeyes News
Email
PrintFor weeks and months now, we've been hearing about how Rutgers might be a crucial factor in Big Ten expansion plans, and that it's because Rutgers can put the BTN on televisions in New York City, and helloooo, subscriber fees. Andy Staples put it a little more callously:
But really, why would the Big Ten want to add an athletic department with a football team that has accomplished so little since hosting the sport's first game in 1869? That question comes up a lot from people who don't understand what the expansion is really about. Certainly, Rutgers is a candidate because it's a flagship state university with a great academic reputation. But the most important reason is that Rutgers might help deliver the New York market.
Ahem. We know exactly what this expansion's about, and we think it's a dangerous idea all the same. Staples makes a cursory note of the danger later:
Prediction: As long as the cable companies are willing to play ball, the Big Ten-Rutgers marriage would benefit both parties.
But it's worth examining in more detail than that--especially considering the distribution of the cable networks themselves... and the BTN's history.
Recall, if you will, the arduous carriage process undertaken during the first year of the BTN's existence. Here's the BTN's Mike Hall's version of the early going:
Initially, finding the Big Ten Network on your TV was a chore, even within the eight-state footprint that’s home to Big Ten teams. Cable providers balked at including the network on their packages, but by the summer of 2008, the heavyweight providers — notably Comcast and Time Warner — ended heated negotiations and reached agreement with the network,.
"They fell like dominoes," Hall said. "It was like boom, boom, boom in a matter of days. By the time the second football season came around, it was like we penetrated all of basic cable in the entire Midwest."
Now, we're willing to grant Hall the benefit of the doubt that he just didn't choose his words perfectly and that his words weren't a reflection of deeper, darker intentions at the network. And yet, it sure felt like the Hawkeyes were being held hostage by the network during those negotiations. The very notion of the Hawkeyes not even being on basic cable in Iowa City during the 2007 season seemed, to say the least, perverse.
So the channel has a rather clear history of playing hardball with local cable providers when it comes to maximizing carriage rates and getting on basic cable packages. And fine, that's clearly worked out for them so far. In New York City, though, it'll probably be a different story.
That's because withholding the Scarlet Knights won't do anything in New York. Oh sure, there's the New Jersey market, but according to NewJerseyNewsRoom.com, New Jersey's already covered by Comcast, with whom the BTN already has an agreement. New York, on the other hand...
The Big Ten could increase the cable TV footprint by adding Rutgers which, is in Comcast, Cablevision and Time Warner territory. An increase in a cable TV footprint means more cable TV revenues from subscribers. Comcast can put the Big Ten Network on any of the company's systems outside of the Big Ten and carries the network on systems with the Big Ten territory so New Jersey would get the network if Rutgers joins the conference.
But adding Rutgers does not necessarily mean that the Big Ten will "get" all of the New York market as neither Charles Dolan's Cablevision nor Time Warner, the other big New York area MSOs are locks to take the channel.
Granted, Rutgers fandom doesn't start or stop at the NY/NJ border... but Comcast's service does. And if the Big Ten tries to big-time TWC or Cablevision into picking up the channel--especially at the 70 cents/household rate they've been pulling in the BXI footprint--they're probably going to encounter even more resistance than they got during negotiations with Comcast and Mediacom. And this time around, they're not going to have the ace in the hole of a beloved local team; nobody watches Rutgers.
So if TWC and Cablevision decide they're not gonna pay a lot for this muffler, the Big Ten's pretty much stuck, right? The only thing that could swing the balance in the conference's favor is an emphasis on--you guessed it--national brands like Nebraska, Notre Dame, and/or Texas. Like, come on. Do we really think the NYC cable companies are going to look at the Big Ten plus Mizzou, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and either Pitt or Kansas, then say, "no way, not without Rutgers!" C'mon.
Now, if the Big Ten really wants to get in on the NYC market, we know just the way to do it: stand-up comedy and indie rock. They love that out there! So I'll bust out some zingers, then Hawkeye State and RossWB can wear some hipster pants and sing along with some synthesizers. New York gold, baby. Our going rate is $8 million a year.
[NOTE: Many thanks go to @DonCheech on Twitter for his help on this article; follow him or die violently at our hands.]
134 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If we get NY...
Hello BudLight, good by Rotel!
"Red, it took me sixteen years to get here. You play me, and I'll give ya the best I got."
I don't think BTN wants the alcholol ads
I read in one of the many articles about expansion and the BTN that the network is pretty fiercely protective of its image, which includes not showing alcohol advertisements despite attempts by those companies, hence the Barbosol couple making pancakes.
Booze is out
BT has a policy on that. They won’t take alcohol advertising.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on May 14, 2010 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Surprising
That TV execs actually seem to stick to their principles… I mean, we’re talking about a lot of potential revenue if they allowed alcohol ads on the network…
But this isn't straight-up exec run channel.
The Big Ten has a majority stake in the network.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 17, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I was more or less...
making fun of Rotel. I mean, do you even have to advertise that stuff?
"Red, it took me sixteen years to get here. You play me, and I'll give ya the best I got."
Yes.
How else are you going convince the owners of your average hair salon to stock their cupboards with canned tomatoes and peppers if not for the marketing efforts on a conference-owned sports network? And if you can’t reach the average hair salon owner, what happens to that poor slobbish bastard when he comes desperately searching for queso? I mean, come on people. Think!
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on May 17, 2010 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Rutgers just seems like a boring choice.
As does Connecticut, Syracuse and Pitt (not quite as boring, but boring none the less.)
Notre Dame and Nebraska, with a side of Missouri sounds much more appetizing.
Granted, Rutgers fandom doesn’t start or stop at the NY/NJ border… but Comcast’s service does. And if the Big Ten tries to big-time TWC or Cablevision into picking up the channel—especially at the 70 cents/household rate they’ve been pulling in the BXI footprint—they’re probably going to encounter even more resistance than they got during negotiations with Comcast and Mediacom. And this time around, they’re not going to have the ace in the hole of a beloved local team; nobody watches Rutgers.
So if TWC and Cablevision decide they’re not gonna pay a lot for this muffler, the Big Ten’s pretty much stuck, right? The only thing that could swing the balance in the conference’s favor is an emphasis on—you guessed it—national brands like Nebraska, Notre Dame, and/or Texas. Like, come on. Do we really think the NYC cable companies are going to look at the Big Ten plus Mizzou, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and either Pitt or Kansas, then say, “no way, not without Rutgers!” C’mon.
I see what you did there,
by CrossCyed on May 14, 2010 3:07 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I thought my eyes were going crazy on me there
I couldn’t figure out why random letters seemed to be in bold. Then I read them….
Nice work sir.
by HeroPatriotStanzi on May 14, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Is it strange at all....
….that the newest Big Ten darling Mizzou was skipped over in the Big 12 Bowl selection process by the Clones because they wouldn’t sell as many tickets in Tempe as Iowa State?
and yet...
The Texas Bowl (Missouri v. Navy) had higher attendance figures than the Orange Bowl or the Sugar Bowl.
And the fact the game was on the 1st day of a 4 day weekend...
Instead of the Tuesday after it.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on May 14, 2010 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm a little worried about you.
Impressed. But still…
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on May 14, 2010 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Rutgers makes no sense.
(derived from a previous post) I’m just concerned about the long-term viability of Rutgers. Rutgers was interchangeable with Temple six years ago. What if their recent success is an anomaly and not a trend? I’m thinking of how Conference USA grabbed the Pennington/Moss/Leftwich Marshall Thundering Herd in 2003 and then realizing they just grabbed a teeny-tiny school with no regional relevance and zero endowment.
What about the rest of their athletic programs? How many Rutgers fans turn out for baseball games against Iowa? Soccer games against Michigan State? Is there a core group of Rutgers boosters and fans that maintain some sort of relevance outside of the notably good women’s basketball team?
Buy low, sell high. Give me more of a sure deal in Syracuse or Missouri and the Big Ten can turn their 50,000 football fans into 90,000 Big Ten fans.
The difference is
since then, the Rutgers administration has poured money into the program, while Temple never has.
Disagree.
Good school, good program, good coach, good market (NJ, not NY), good natural rival (PSU).
When the B10 took PSU, they really made the decision to go to New Brunswick. I think that’s okay, if we can’t eliminate a team and go back to being the Big Ten (10).
Mr. Boh Knows ...
"Good program, good coach"
I assume this is just in reference to the fb program, which has seen some limited success as of late. But if offered, Rutgers will be in the Big Ten long after Schiano is gone As a good coach (and I like Schiano and agree that he is a good coach), the program still only been to 2-3 bowl games since 1979 (too lazy to look it up). There is no garauntee that this very short period of recent success continues.
I personally am not a huge fan of this option because I don’t think Rutgers has the history and support to matter to anyone other than alumni. I can play along with the “good academics” portion, but no one in NY/NJ cares unless you are a winner. I just have a hard time envisioning the school being a threat to win the league in the money sports, especially after a 3-5 school expansion.
When the Big East was expanded, Rutgers should have gained exposure in basketball, being in that behemoth conference. Yet, it has been a middling program and shows no signs of changing. Games are played in glorified high school gym with generally little interest. There are certainly some rememblences to PSU, but not enough passion or support that warranted PSU’s offer to join.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on May 15, 2010 12:56 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
1 for 2
Schiano, whether it’s smart or not, appears to be a lifer at Rutgers; if he didn’t jump ship after their Cinderella Season of ‘06 he’s probably in it for the long-haul. To this end, if Rutgers were to get an invitation to apply I would imagine RU would throw every last bit of available money his way in order to give their transition a fighting chance.
You were off on your bowl number but right on with your point. Rutgers has been to five bowls in a row, and before that…one…ever…in 1978…and it was in New Jersey (that selection committee really went out on a limb).
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
5 bowls, huh?
I’m surprised to see that. Opinion on Rutgers’ inclusion remains unchanges. New Jersey sucks.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on May 15, 2010 6:01 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Don't get too excited.
They’re things like the St. Petersburg Bowl, the International Bowl, the Smoke-a-Bowl, etc.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Ah,
the good ol’ Smoke-a-Bowl. I haven’t been there since…
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride." HST
...since you went 4-20?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 17, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Now it all coming back to me.
I think that game was played On April 20th.
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride." HST
"What if their recent success is an anomaly and not a trend?"
I’ll do you one better; during Rutgers’ greatest season in a century, wherein they captured unprecedented NY media attention, had the Empire State building lit up red for a primetime game, brought Greg Schiano and his quaint (and somewhat nonsensical) story about chopping wood into sports consciousness they still did not even win their own league. In fact, they lost twice and it’s not as though they play in the Pac 10 or the ACC or the SEC; they play in the Big East. Rutgers has no tradition of even modest winning. The 1983 Garden State Bowl (gee, wonder how they managed that invite) was their high-point before the last few seasons.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 14, 2010 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions
So when a Big Ten team gets a lot of fan and media attention for a multi-loss season, it’s because there’s a superior football pedigree, but if a Big East team gets similar attention for a multi-loss season, all you’ve got to say is “gosh, who cares? It’s not like the Big East is any good…”
Boy, did you miss the point.
I’m merely stating that the apex of Rutgers football in the modern era (spare me the 9/10 win seasons of the 60’s/70’s; the competition was nearly all current FCS) was a multi-loss, 2nd place finish in a conference that (sorry) is widely considered at the bottom of the BCS. You can take it as a slight to Pitt by extension, but that’s obviously not what I’m insinuating; the “promise” of a Rutgers bringing NYC into the fold is laughable as there is absolutely no heritage on which to build. There are generations of Rutgers alums who have lived their lives in complete ignorance of the fact their school had a football team. It’s for precisely that reason that Syracuse continues to be mentioned as a possibility; at least their fans remember being good and have some tradition on their side. It’s been said other places, and I wholeheartedly agree, that most everyone in the Big Ten wishes Pitt were located in New Jersey because then this whole discussion would be over quickly.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 14, 2010 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Same argument exists for Missouri
Average at best fb program. Sure, Missou was 12-2 in 2007, but for the previous 40 and the 2 years since, the best they do is 4/5 loss seasons.
Lets be honest, its the parent state that makes Missou attractive, not the program.
No argument here;
I couldn’t be more underwhelmed by Missouri. Part of me would only like to see them added if they came with Kansas; a football conference with Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State + a basketball league with Kansas, Indiana, Purdue and Michigan State would be pretty cool.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions
You said it best a couple months ago:
The Big Ten can try to force its way into New York the way the NHL forced its way into Phoenix,
by Internet Legend on May 14, 2010 3:43 PM CDT reply actions
I don't know what you're worried about
The NHL to Phoenix has been an absolute, unqualified success and is clearly the model all expansion plans should follow. Right?
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on May 14, 2010 4:01 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Location is not nearly as important as winning
Granted, the NHL screwed up by allowing the Coyotes arena to be in Glendale (and allowing the new buyers to keep them there) which alienated the entire east valley, but once they were winning and making the playoffs, they magically started selling out games.
It’s correct that hockey in Phoenix makes no sense whatsoever, but people wil still pay to see a winning program.
by HeroPatriotStanzi on May 14, 2010 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions
You won't have to worry about hockey in Arizona after this year.
The team will be back in Cananda next year.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
Winnepeg?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
Thats the rumor.
Since the NHL owns a controls the team, they can do what they want. Something about Canada feeling less than a country with some of there teams missing.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
Was that a veiled King Missile reference?
Detachable Penis—- “I don’t like to be without my penis for too long… it makes me feel like less of a man.”
by Eyeheartfreedumb on May 17, 2010 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think you'd have to "veil" that reference
as no one has heard of that song since 1994.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 17, 2010 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Be honest...
…you had to google to figure out when that song was around.
I bet Jacobi has it on the iPod.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on May 17, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions
No Google needed
I specifically correlate that song with my freshman year of high school because my then-girlfriend thought that song was great.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 17, 2010 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Nobody watches Rutgers?
Don’t you think the graphic you cited is a little distorted by playing three Friday night games? Does anyone watch those who doesn’t follow the teams that are playing? Moreover, a big problem with the entire chart is that not all games are created equal. You have to correct for time slot and opponent.
That graphic also seems to cite the Forbes.com university rankings, which are based on, um, Who’s Who listings and RateMyProfessor.com
Your point about New York City doesn’t really make any sense either, nor is it supported by that link. Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner all have various deals with the Big Ten Network, whether it comes to sports tiers in the NY area or being on basic cable in other parts of the country.
Let me speak clearly
Penn State moves the needle in New York and New Jersey more than Rutgers. Syracuse is a better move.
Rutgers is a better choice than Syracuse
Larger endowment, bigger, state flagship school.
by HawkeyeRecon on May 14, 2010 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions
I ran off to NYC with $200 and a foot locker when I was 17.
I have returned to NYC periodically for such things as work, getting married in the Municipal Building, working, writing, editing, and [xxx].
I have a dependency issue with college football.
I have never been in a ‘Rutgers’ bar in NYC. I do not recall ever seeing a gaggle of ‘Rutgers Fans’ walking down the street.
Rutgers is in New Brunswick, NJ. It’s 45 miles, 90 minutes, and a world away from Manhattan. Saying that Rutgers delivers NYC is like saying that Camden is the next Mamaroneck. The difference between New Brunswick and Manhattan is the difference between Sioux City and Paris (France). New Brunswick is not a suburb with close cultural affinities with the meatpacking district. New Brunswick is Rahway with a good hospital and a university.
Still, I would take Rutgers into the Big Ten because they are a very good B+ public school on par with the Big Ten schools, they reside next to PSU, they represent their state well, and because NJ is a good market. But I think it’s funny that people suggest that Rutgers will deliver NYC. NYC is a city-state, like Firenze in 1520, and they don’t have a college football team other than the Columbia Lions, and those guys play someplace up near the Bronx, and absolutely nobody gives a shit. Go Jets.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
by Bellanca on May 14, 2010 6:18 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree that Rutgers
does not deliver NYC. But it does deliver NJ (along with the PSU support that’s already there) and that’s a bigger (and richer—the demographics do matter) state than any other state the Big XI is looking at other than the white whale of Texas.
And no, I don’t think Syracuse delivers NYC either. I’m not sure they deliver Buffalo.
So I guess what I’m saying is that I’m in complete agreement with you. Rutgers would be a good add, even if it doesn’t get NYC.
by Josh Timmers on May 15, 2010 12:55 AM CDT up reply actions
Moving East. Why?
Just say “No!” to moving the Big 10 eastward. I live on the east coast. Believe me, they don’t understand the rabid passion of a college football fan, let alone the Big 10. The Big 10 is a midwestern conference – PSU pushes the outer limits – and it should stay as such. Belittle me, mock me, call me Nancy, but I’m sticking to my assessment.
I don't have a problem moving east
just not for the fools’ gold of the NYC market. I have no inclination to think that a city that has never cared for a sport will suddenly change their tune because a school that has almost no winning tradition switches to what is estimated to be (at best) the No. 2 league in the country. If the Big Ten wants to expand their TV footprint, they should very seriously be considering catching the ACC off guard and making a play for the DC market by wooing UVA, MD and/or VaTech.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 14, 2010 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions
The DC market has the same problem as NYC
DC is first, foremost and ALWAYS a Redskins/pro town. To the extent that MD/Tech have any following outside their alumni base (and VA Tech has the much larger alumni presence), it is only when a team is doing well. Maryland was popular for about 5 seconds at the beginning of the decade when they went to the Orange Bowl, but that interest disappeared the second they weren’t winning the ACC (and had barely registered in the first place). Tech has a more consistent presence in the consciousness, but is still dependent on being in competition for a national title, the second Tech falls out of contention every year, interest dries up. Plus, Tech is a horrible fit academically for the BXI.
UVA would fit the academics, but it is too blue-blood and doesn’t have any real presence in the DC market, it’s alumni base is too small and tends toward the traditionally Southern so its draw is felt more in Richmond/Tidewater as well as points south.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
I've got family in Bethesda and know DC well.
I’m aware that, much like NYC, it’s not a college town. Yet relative to NYC, it’s a smaller (although still large) city and a greater proportion of its inhabitants are transplants. This is an instance where I could see the “collective strength” idea actually cause enough interest to make inroads on the TV front. How many residents, regardless of the often-times temporary nature of their stay, call Big Ten country home? Again, it would be a gamble, but at the very least Maryland fans are far more loyal to their school than Rutgers (and you’re completely right about VaTech; I knew they weren’t an academic match and yet posted anyway. Maybe it’s the rabies taking hold of me…).
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 14, 2010 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Rabies?
You need to stop hanging around Cyclone Fanatic so much, Kyle.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
But they're coming for us!
They are! They are! It’s for our club hockey team that might move up a notch!
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 14, 2010 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions
You are thinking of this just as football
I think Maryland could get DC market if we are throwing their B-Ball games on the BTN
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
But then we have to put up with Gary Williams
And he, along with Jim Calhoun and Jim Boeheim, comprises the Holy Trinity of Douche.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
How is Nebraska a "national brand"?
Other tha in the minds of its fans how has Nebraska been relevant at all on the national level this century? In the last 15 years for that matter. The kids playing at Nebraska right now probably don’t even remember the “glory days.”
I agree that Rutgers won’t bring the NYC market by itself, I think it will take a combination of at least two and probably three teams, such as Rutgers, Syracuse, and Boston College – tap into some of that natural Mass vs NY hatred.
Something else to consider is that Rutgers might start to develop a better following if they were seen to be playing better competition. If they were in a conference that was something other than the door matt of FBS football. If they could compete for a bowl game that was on the level of what the Big Ten would be able to offer their reputation and “street cred” around the area would likely improve. If Rutgers were facing an Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU, OSU, Michigan on a regular basis it could well develop a fan base that has been left with little more than the chump-of-the-week during the season and sloppy seconds come bowl time.
by the_iowa_hawkeye on May 14, 2010 10:14 PM CDT reply actions
Easy
you could ask a casual (not a diehard, mind you) college football fan to name ten teams and chances are a good many would list Nebraska. They are a brand name in the sport and one of the 5 winningest programs in history. Sure, there are kids playing at Nebraska who couldn’t remember the glory days, just as Oklahoma kids couldn’t when Stoops arrived or USC kids when Pete Carrol arrived or Alabama kids when Nick Saban arrived… Will Nebraska ever recapture their past glory? I don’t know, but they have a much better chance at it then, say, Michigan State. They would be a very valuable addition to the conference.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 14, 2010 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Right.
It’s not that Nebraska is mediocre now (and let’s be real, it’s not like they’re that much worse that Iowa, if worse at all), it’s that their national reputation—whether you think it’s deserved or not—equals sweet sexy ratings. It’s the reality of the situation.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on May 14, 2010 11:20 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Does No Texas Or Notre Dame = Failure?
should the Big Ten fail in luring either Texas or the Irish, any new 14- or 16-team realignment would stand considerably shy of college sports’ first true super conference. An amalgam of Missouri, Nebraska, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Connecticut, Rutgers or Maryland disappoints more than excites
Drew Sharp – Detroit Free Press
He goes over the top on the Big Ten bashing, but he makes a good point. If they are going to add more than one, then one of them needs to be a blockbuster. And the Lone Star Division he talks about? Sweet God, do not let that happen.
I say if TX isn’t interested, just add Nebraska and call it a day.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
I say that if Texas and ND both balk
but Nebraska is on-board, go for 14; I still think the situation is ripe to exploit.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 12:33 AM CDT up reply actions
It depends on your definition of "failure"
After all, considering the amount of money that’ll come from the championship game and the BTN in the wake of expansion, the BXI can certainly be better off than this year. And as has been mentioned before, Delany’s not making any moves if he’s not sure they’re home runs. The prospect of not expanding at all has been kept on the table for a reason, and that reason is that the primary focus of expansion is to bring more money per school into the university.
And for that reason, I think that unless the BXI gets at least a favorable forecast of carriage rates from the NYC cable providers, they will not add Rutgers.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on May 15, 2010 12:59 AM CDT up reply actions
+1 add Nebraska, have a CC, and show everyone how awesome it is.
Then maybe down the road Notre Dame may see the light.
by HawkeyeRecon on May 15, 2010 1:05 AM CDT up reply actions
This whole "deliver the NYC market" is so over the top
nothing can deliver the NYC market. NYC is not one single market. It is, as Bellanca said, a city-state with all the complexity of London/Paris/ and Los Angeles combined. There is no such thing as “the” media either yet we (me included) throw these terms around all the time like they mean something. The point of adding Rutgers is that it changes the geography of the Big Ten, it adds a very good school academically, a school with all upside, and a state with ample football resources that happens to be a stone’s throw from a major media market. The point of adding Rutgers is not to change the world, it is to acquire an asset that is part of a broader plan…a school that with time will be quite valuable for many, mnay reasons.
NYC has a lot of Big Ten alums (Michigan alone has some absurd % of their entire alum base here) and tons of college football fans are in NYC and living here I can tell you we are completely ISOLATED form the Big Ten. Adding Rutgers changes that.
Finally, the arrogance displayed on this site about Rutgers as a viable football program is stunning. Before Hayden Fry did his charity act by coming to Iowa in 1979, Iowa was one of THE worst programs in America—from 1906 to 1980 Iowa had all of 6 seasons in which they won more than 6 games. From 1962 – 1980 they had ZERO winning seasons. One coach over the course of 10 years completely erased that miserable, dare I say, embarrassing history. And that kind of turnaround is done in college football all the time. Rugers is sitting on FAR greater resources in which to build their program into something special than Iowa ever was and far greater resources than Missouri or even Nebraska could ever dream of. The notion that Rutgers is unreliable is just uninformed. Rutgers faculty for over 50 years wanted to join the Ivy League, they held money and resources (thorugh faculty voting) hostage. They did everything they could to ensure Rutgers would not become a football school. That all changed in a well documented internal fight some 10-12 years ago and football won. They have embarked on being a major football program since at a stunning pace, and they are not turning back.
Get over the notion of Rutgers being a shock to the system and start thinking of it as a piece of a puzzle. A very valuable piece.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
Slightly misleading stats there...
Iowa was one of THE worst programs in America—from 1906 to 1980 Iowa had all of 6 seasons in which they won more than 6 games.
Considering no one played more than 7-8 games until 1945, “only” winning 6 games isn’t really that big of an indictment.
They have embarked on being a major football program since at a stunning pace, and they are not turning back.
In nine years, Schiano’s achieved double-digit wins once, won no conference titles, and played in zero big-time bowls. Using the teams you cited, Fry led Iowa to two double-digit win seasons, two conference titles, and two Rose Bowl appearances in his first nine years, and Snyder led Kansas State to two double-digit win seasons and a Fiesta Bowl appearance. And they managed to do that despite competing in states with far weaker natural resources and in arguably much stronger conferences (at the very least, the Big 8/12 and Big 10 back then had stronger teams at the top than the Big East has featured). And as Brian Kelly showed at Cincinnati, it’s not as if the Big East isn’t ripe for lightning-quick turnarounds… Schiano has Rutgers on the right path and they’ve certainly improved but at this point they’re basically at the same level as, say, Michigan State.
I’m not hugely opposed to Rutgers, but it’s a vote based almost solely on potential, not present-day value. That’s a risk, one that may or may not pay off. Does the Rutgers of today + displaced B10 fans in NYC/NJ get BTN on more lucrative channel tiers or allow BTN to charge higher ad rates? If so, bring ‘em aboard. But I’m skeptical about that. The struggles the NFL has had in getting the NFL Network on expanded basic cable tiers out there makes me very nervous about the BTN’s chances of success, since they’re selling a far less desirable product.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
you're forgetting that
for the first few years Schiano had to rebuild from an awful former head coach, and the Big East’s bowl tie-ins blow.
by On the Banks on May 15, 2010 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Meh.
Snyder inherited a team that had won one game in the three preceding years COMBINED and was in a pretty talent-deficient state. And he had to deal with Nebraska, Colorado (actually very good then) and Oklahoma (diminished but still good then).
The bowl tie-in point is fair, but I specifically listed only BCS bowls for that reason. I understand there’s a big drop-off between the Big Ten’s 2/3/4 bowls and the Big East’s 2/3/4 bowls.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Not only is Kansas pretty talent deficient
but its talent is split between two large state schools in an area where most young boys grow up dreaming of playing basketball. New Jersey is far more populous and has a greater high school football presence on the national scene (Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Penn State have long raided the state for top-notch talent). That Rutgers has never been able to exploit this perhaps speaks to larger problems.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions
I remember
hearing, when Snyder retired the first time, ESPN trying to put some context to what he had done at K-State. To that end, it was mentioned that when Snyder first got the job, the “high” expecations people had were that he would make K-State on par with TEMPLE. The job he did there is truly remarkable..
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Which really warrants (yet another)
look at the Hayden Fry coaching tree. It’s been well documented that Fry has touched the careers of a number of coaches who not only found success, but did it against largely difficult odds. Fry himself worked a bit of a miracle with the Iowa football program. The only coaches I can think of who were in some way influenced by him who didn’t have to engineer some sort of major turnaround are Bog Stoops and Bret Bielema. That he not only gave these men the tools to lead but to also build is remarkable.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Stoops: I think you're wrong here.
The worry with Rutgers is that, the past few years aside, they haven’t been relevant in the college athletic scene in anything but women’s BB, which ain’t exactly going to pay the bills.
In FB they’re doing okay, but they don’t exactly have the history or heritage that Iowa had, even before Hayden made us good again. We had some down years, but during that time Iowa B-ball and wrestling were national powers, and even baseball and swimming and gymnastics had some success.
I just don’t see that from Rutgers. And while I don’t have strong objections to them joining the B10, I’m not sure that, athletically, a few good seasons of FB and a decent women’s B-ball team are enough. No matter how you slice it, Rutgers is not a “name” university athletically, like Syracuse, Pitt, Mizzou, Nebraska, or any of the other names being bandied about.
It reminds me a little of us and ISU, where people try and spin how it benefits us to play them in FB every year, when logic dictates it’s the opposite by a wide margin. Rutgers would benefit far more than the B10 if they joined, with the NY TV audience allure being only theoretical. If you’re a B10 alum already living in NYC, Rutgers isn’t going to make you more likely to watch the BTN.
"If you want to become a man--come to Iowa" All American IOWA LB PAT ANGERER, whose best friend is a dog.
by The Director on May 15, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Rutgers is a much more appealing add on
than Missouri. Rutgers, to make the point again, was making no effort to be good at football for almost 100 years. It is only for the last 8-10 years that they have made that effort. They had no facilities. Now they are building them at breakneck speed. Schiano is not Hayden Fry or Bill Snyder and he will go down in history as a trasitional figure IMO. He will be succeeded by a stong coach because if you can lock up NJ in recruiting you can play with anyone in the nation. I still think he will get them to BCS bowl game if they stay in the Big East. He will not take them to that so-called next level though. For the record, over the last 5 years Rutger has only two fewer wins than Missouri. Missouri adds no cache whatsoever IMO and is too close to Iowa and Missouri from a geographical standpoint. I think delany is looking at geography.
Again, Rutgers is part of a puzzle. I do not think in a million years the Big Ten ONLY adds Rutgers. They add Rutgers and…
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
I meant to write
“is too close to Iowa and Illinois from a geographical standpoint.”
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
"They add Rutgers and..."
BOISE STATE!!! I, for one, welcome our new overlords from OBNUG and look forward to working with them in their efforts to completely take over the Big Ten.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Wait
He will be succeeded by a stong coach because if you can lock up NJ in recruiting you can play with anyone in the nation.
Doesn’t this become even harder if they’re in the Big Ten? Winning should be harder because there will be a few more good teams to deal with and while being able to tell a recruit he can play in the BXI may be an advantage, contending with other BXI coaches competing for kids in NJ (and they would certainly ramp up their efforts there if NJ becomes a part of the Big Ten footprint) would certainly be a disadvantage. Their path to the top seems much harder if they join the Big Ten than if they just stay in the Big East and wait for the pixie dust to run out at Cincinnati and Bill Stewart to clock mismanage West Virginia into mediocrity.
Again, Rutgers is part of a puzzle. I do not think in a million years the Big Ten ONLY adds Rutgers
I’m still a little dubious, but I agree that Rutgers + some other East Coast team(s) is the only plausible formula for eastward expansion.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I think Schiano
is there for a good many years to come but when his work is done, and if Rutgers is in the Big Ten, it will be a plum job. Most certainly.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
Misleading?
Okay, I’ll show it another way….
Wins 283
Losses 338
Ties 26
Winning percentage .457
During that same time frame Rutgers has .618 winning percentage.
Northwestern? .419
Iowa State won more games in that time span. Only Northwestern and Indiana won fewer games in the Big Ten. Of teams that actually played full schedules, only 9 teams fared worse than Iowa over that time span from a percentage standpoint. Rice, New Mexico State, Tulane and Vanderbilt were seeing more winning seasons during that time span.
Iowa’s winning ways is historically contemporary. Iowa had some nice moments during that span, but was otherwise less than mediocre.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
SMA, you have to admit
your stat about Iowa and 6 wins was misleading; many schools played very short seasons i.e. a 5-2 campaign could be a very good year.
Another misleading stat, the .618 winning percentage. Go ahead, scroll through years of their seasons, they played a straight-up 1-AA/FCS schedule. They routinely lost almost every game they played against teams we think of as D1 while racking up wins against the Bucknells and Lehighs of the world. They may have had Ivy League aspirations in the classroom, but a major state university has no business going up against that kind of competition. On the flip side, Iowa played a Big Ten conference slate and then played nothing but major programs (this is way before the cupcake era); when Iowa went winless in ’73 their non-con included a Penn State team that would finish undefeated, an eventually 9-2 UCLA and an 8-win Arizona. The following year they played Penn State and USC teams that would finish with 10 wins each (in the 11 game era). Comparing the two, in any way, is misleading.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 15, 2010 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Kyle
You need to study the history of Rutgers. You just do. It made ZERO effort to be a major football program. The faculty would not allow it to get one dime more than they got. Rutgers is a state university but has always been focused on academics and this is not unusual for state schools in the Northeast at all. The University of Massachusetts (UMass) was and is that way. The University of Connecticut only recently, like Rutgers, entered the football committment business. Syracuse and Boston College which have some historical relevance are private. Public education in the Northeast is COMPLETELY different than in the rest of the U.S. when looking at sports and academics and budgeting. The best program in the Northeast for many, many years was the United States Military Academy. It is entirely different in the Northeast, historically and culturally at these schools. I don’t know why I have to explain this to be honest.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
"I don’t know why I have to explain this to be honest."
Man, the condescending/exasperated tone of your response would be better received if Rutgers was up there with Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan or even Army in the pantheon of college football programs (they played the first game, good for them). However, as is many people’s problem with Rutgers, they have been largely irrelevant for over 100 years. So given that almost no one outside (and from what I understand, inside) New Jersey knows much about RU’s history, supplying foundational information is important. So that’s why you need to explain (but you’re new to the whole argument thing, so I’ll give you a pass…).
Look, I’ll back-off of the “Rutgers had no excuse for scheduling Cornell every game” rhetoric, as it was in line with their budgeting/philosophy. What I will not back off from is that you’re comparing two entirely different sets of data. I am actually not making the argument that Iowa is a great historical power, I’m just calling you out for using a winning percentage that would mean equally much if it were 1.000 or .000 due to an entirely different set of competition. Your Northwestern/Iowa comparison is far more appropriate when trying to make your point about Iowa’s place in history.
Look, SMA, anyone that’s been on this site for more than a week knows you’re a thoughtful, passionate guy who does his homework. We’re all on the same side (Hawks fans) and ultimately want what is best for our program. You are in the unenviable position of trying to convince a fanbase who is very skeptical about something that they are missing the boat on Rutgers. It’s hard work when you’re the overwhelming minority and you have a few things working against you; you live in the East (which paints you as perhaps a bit biased regardless of whether it’s true) and you are supporting a candidate that is still, for all intents and purposes, an unknown.
I am actually not dead-set against Rutgers. Although I never see them bringing NYC into the fold, NJ is still a nice market and one that would create a positive windfall for the league. What I worry about is that, despite what you’re saying about an increased commitment to football from the RU administration, they would have a couple major factors working against them:
- They do not have the deep, cross-generational fanbase that can prop many programs up through lean years i.e. if the Knights were to have back-to-back seasons of 4-8 followed by a nice 9-3 campaign, I doubt you’d see a great improvement in attendance/interest, whereas most Big Ten programs would see a sudden spike (if there was a great decrease in the first place) in that scenario.
- To piggyback on that sentiment, they would be trying to build upon that tradition before having been fully able to develop consistent success at a lower level; if the best finish in Big East history included losses to West Virginia and still-developing Cincy, further program growth could be greatly stifled if they were forced into playing tOSU, PSU, Michigan (since it will be at least 3 years until they are in-conference, UM should be better by then), Iowa, Wisconsin and (presumably) Nebraska. In fact, those latter three programs could cause some problems from an RU recruiting standpoint as they have old ties to the area that could only strengthen through year-round exposure.
- For all the talk about Downstate New Jersey being completely different than the NYC market, I’m still not convinced that they’re all that different than the East Coast as a whole when it comes to college football. The University of Maryland comes to mind; they have really good support for most sports but not exactly what I would consider a passionate fanbase (basketball greatly excepted) because that state is wrapped up in two major pro football franchises. New Jersey essentially has three such distractions when taking Philly into consideration.
These are my concerns and, despite any arguments that you can make, it’s all just conjecture on both sides for now. In the end, I would not mind seeing Rutgers in the conference but I would really need some “sure things” to come with. For me this is really almost more about Missouri; an RU addition would be far more palatable if it were coming with Nebraska and Notre Dame. Nebraska and Missouri, however, makes more of a thud than a splash.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 16, 2010 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
We'll just have to let this one play out.
only Nebraska and Notre Dame strike me as realistic additions who possibly could contend for the conference championship immediately…and I think both of those programs are one the downturn in terms of history…as is Pittsburgh. Missouri may be on the upswing, I can’t tell. If they join the Big Ten though they probably will suffer initially due to their out-of-state recruiting base being in Texas. Syracuse is absolutely on the downturn. One team left…and they seem on the upswing.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
Maybe just add 3 for now.
Let me be clear up front — I’m a ND-hater. So for me the biggest benefit to raiding the Big East will be the indigestion it causes Irish fans. Their poaching of the Big East discontinues when the conference dissolves.
Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse have academic credentials they can offer as well as being AAU members. Syracuse and Pittsburgh have some history of football achievements. All four schools being considered have problems filling their stadiums. And although Wannstedt seems like he is now the premier coach in the Big East — I would counter that it’s Randy Edsall who’s about to break out in the college coaching ranks. Schiano as far as I’m concerned has been an underachiever in the Big East.
But all of that is secondary to the most important consideration. Adding five teams has to create an economic advantage right from the get-go to continue this dominant position the BTN has put us in. I don’t think Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn can deliver the NYC market. And Pittsburgh is a market the conference already has covered. I do think that Rutgers can deliver the New Jersey market which is not small by any means.
ND is not interested. And after all the crap they’ve said recently about the Big Ten — FU Irish.
Texas. I don’t know that there is sufficient interest in Austin. Plus, regardless of what the Texas legislature says, A&M does not fit in the Big Ten. Also, I think a big reason for Missouri and Nebraska’s interest is to disassociate themselves from Texas. Big Ten expansion wouldn’t be happening if not for the Texas shenanigans within the BXII and the subsequent resentment.
So my vote is for Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers with Rutgers being a provisional member for 5-7 years. Sorry Scarlet Knights but you’re going to have to prove you belong in this club.
My sources in Texas-
indicate that the Texas legislature doesn’t care if Texas and tAM split up, as long as both go to major conferences.
Also I find it amusing that one of the reasons Missouri wants to leave the Big 12 is because they got passed up for a bowl bid a couple times… this because a bowl thought a Iowa state team with two more losses would out travel them… do they think this will improve in the B10?!
Also, put me down as a believer in Rutgers. The argument about their recent change of philosophy and substantial investment in Athletics being the primary reason I don’t worry about their history. Also, from an Iowa perspective, I’d rather add a team that is below us in the totem pole if its all the same… Outside of Texas and maybe Maryland, they are the best team to select for the Big Ten. They add the most eyeballs with just New Jersey, further open up a new fertile recruiting ground and will at rock bottom make the BTN more popular in NYC whether or not they can get us on basic cable.
I still really like the idea at making a hard run at MD.
I think a PSU/RU/UMD/Pitt (I’m pretty much off the Syracuse train) pod would be outstanding for rivalries and ratings.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 17, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Mizzou would get passed over the same
but they’d get paid better for it
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on May 17, 2010 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions
I didn't disagree that Iowa was poor for most of that time period.
But the stats you used were unquestionably misleading. Just as propping up Rutgers’ .619 winning percentage here is also misleading. It’s not remotely an apples/apples comparison.
And yet most of those schools might still trade records with Iowa during that timeframe purely because the nice moments were very, very good. There wasn’t much middle ground with Iowa football in those days — some great peaks and some very low valleys, but not much in-between. Would Iowa State trade a few more total wins for Iowa’s success of the ’20s and ’50s and renowned players like Kinnick and Jones? They might — their most celebrated run from that period is, what, three consecutive 8-win seasons in the mid-70s and a Peach Bowl loss?
Again, I’m not disputing that for a huge chunk of that timeframe Iowa was terrible. They absolutely, positively were. But total wins is really only one means of looking at a program and it can give a limited view. If you get more wins by going 5-4ish most years while your neighbor mixes in a few 8-9 win seasons with a lot more really lousy seasons (1-3 wins), which success do you want? Maybe some people would choose comfortable mediocrity, but there’s something to be said for being able to experience the peaks, even sparingly. (For the record, I’m very glad this hasn’t really applied to Iowa under Fry/Ferentz; they’ve made the really good seasons more frequent and made the down seasons less godawful, with a few notable exceptions. I’m just trying to contextualize the history a little bit.)
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Ross
I am trying to make the point that all the people on this site looking down their nose at Rutgers need to understand that before Hayden Fry, Iowa had two 5 year periods of peaks in 70-some years. I don’t think it is a hard sell to say that Iowa football was mediocre. Other than Indiana and Northwestern, every Big Ten team was historically more successful. So to say that Rutgers, who made no institutional attempt to win at football until 10 years ago is so beneath Iowa is total bullshit by everyone on this site. It just is. Iowa is not Michigan or Penn State or even Michigan State or Purdue. We are a nice program that found its real footing thanks to a single head coach. To say that rutger cannot do that or is not currently doing that is just sticking one’s head in the sand.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
You got the new Stupid Phone?!?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 16, 2010 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions
So to say that Rutgers, who made no institutional attempt to win at football until 10 years ago is so beneath Iowa is total bullshit by everyone on this site.
I think you’re misreading skepticism for some sort of generalized contempt for Rutgers football.
We are a nice program that found its real footing thanks to a single head coach. To say that rutger cannot do that or is not currently doing that is just sticking one’s head in the sand.
I think people are justifiably skeptical until they see more positive results. One 11-win season doesn’t really do it when they’ve followed it up with three seasons with 4 or more losses. In two of those seasons they lost four games in the Big East alone. And this is despite certain natural built-in talent advantages that they should theoretically be able to exploit more easily with an improved program.
And I would go back to the risk factor in terms of staking so much importance on a head coach, whether it’s Schiano or his hypothetical replacement. Rutgers’ success is going to be entirely tied to their coach for the forseeable future. As a brand, they have almost no intrinsic value. Whether that’s because as an institution they weren’t even trying to be good at football is ultimately irrelevant — it is what it is. Nebraska has immense value even after being dragged through the mud with Callahan because they have years of stored-up respect and popularity… which can be easily tapped into again when they get back to big-time results (as we saw this past year). Rutgers doesn’t have that so we’re putting our stock in Schiano building them to a high level (he’s not there yet) or his hypothetical replacement doing that — and forgive me if I’m skeptical of replacement coaches when we’ve seen countless coaches come in to seemingly “sure thing” situations and muck things up.
People were skeptical of rebuilt programs like Iowa and Kansas State until they strung together multiple high-level seasons. Rutgers has had one.
More importantly to the purposes of this debate, I think people are also very skeptical of the Rutgers fanbase. Which is apparently not an entirely baseless concern; it’s even shared by some of the locals. My fear is that they’re another Minnesota — a fanbase easily distracted by multiple pro sports options (and in NJ you have 3x as many distractions on that front) that only really cares if their team is having an exceptional season. But maybe it’s moot if BTN gets on expanded basic throughout New Jersey anyway and Rutgers is part of an expansion with some heavy-hitter programs — maybe that’s enough to make it work for the BXI.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I think Stoops remains wrong on this one, and Ross and Kyle are right.
In the broad strokes: the B10 as a conference has TREMENDOUS history and tradition in multiple sports, even if some individual members struggle from time to time. Football, B-ball, wrestling, hockey (kind of…), women’s field hockey, volleyball—they’re relevant. In baseball not as much as they used to be, but still out there pitching.
When it comes to NW, it’s moot. THEY’RE ALREADY IN. If the contest was between NW and Rutgers to join, it might be a dogfight. But that ain’t the point. NW is IN. They’re in the frat. And it’s a great frat. Looking at Rutgers as a ‘pledge," I don’t see much being brought to the table athletically compared to the rest of the frat’s history. We ain’t kicking NW out! They may historically suck, but they’re OUR historically sucking frat bro, and we ain’t kicking him out. Maybe they’re lucky to be in, and maybe not, but it’s a moot point.
What’s not moot is that Rutgers is a Johnny-come-lately to big-time college FB, trying to join the most storied conference in college sports. That makes some of us nervous. I’d bet that less than 5% of the populace knows their nickname! That’s not arrogance or condescension on my part, that’s simply fact: Rutgers is not a “name” college athletic university, not yet.
I think the B10 can do better than that, and I think they will. Like I said in an earlier post, Rutgers stands to benefit much much more than the B10. With a team like ND, I think the benefits are much more equal, even debatable. Same with Nebraska or Mizzou.
That’s my hesitancy.
"If you want to become a man--come to Iowa" All American IOWA LB PAT ANGERER, whose best friend is a dog.
by The Director on May 16, 2010 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Please
do not call the Big 10 a frat. Ever again.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Umm, it's an analogy.
If you would like to contribute your own analogy, go right ahead! Maybe your experience with frats wasn’t positive, but as far as analogies go, I think it holds its water: when you’re in the group, you’re one of the group, and sink or swim it’s us against the world.
As for me, I wasn’t in a frat in college, but I do recognize an apt analogy when I see one. And I think the frat analogy is apt.
"If you want to become a man--come to Iowa" All American IOWA LB PAT ANGERER, whose best friend is a dog.
by The Director on May 16, 2010 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
I prefer
secret society.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 17, 2010 2:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Yep.
The Big Ten is much more powerful than the Masons ever were…
wait… shit… I guess the Masons are gonna kill me now.
Master of the convoluted IOWA cheers!
by EnergizerHawk on May 17, 2010 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions
The Glen Masons!
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 18, 2010 3:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Ugh... that's the second time the Greek system has come up in this thread...
…I think someone just date-raped me (it was him officer, the one in the white hat).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on May 17, 2010 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Put me down...
as a add just Nebraska vote. The Conference Championship game is going to be worth north of 10 million. For every team we add after 12 the value of this game goes down per member. This means 12 is the best money option, unless the next ones you add are for sure slam dunks.
Other advantages:
If we add Nebraska, we destabilize the Big 12… Maybe Colorado bolts for the Pac 10 (they want out, but they don’t want to be the first one) Also I read that the big twelve needs about 4 votes to veto any motion put forth by member schools i.e. I motion that we share all revenue equally. Those four votes have been aTm, UT, OU, and NEBRASKA… this is because those are the only schools who benefit from the deal (they bring the cash in by playing on prime time)… no matter who they add, I can guarantee that it will not be a school that would vote with the big boys. This would further destabilize the Big 12, pushing Texas out to richer pastures…
After everyone sees the HUGE amounts of dough the B10 rakes in by adding Nebraska, there will be blood in the water, and we may be surprised by who we have a shot at to fill out the final 2-4 teams.
I believe that everyone on here is missing the BIG PICTURE.
Adding Rutgers is just a way for the Big Ten to get C. Vivian Stringer to coach in the Big Ten again. If she won’t come to us, we’ll go to her.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
Beware
Outing Delaney’s master plan like that can be hazardous to your health.
by benvious on May 15, 2010 12:52 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Oh, it's far worse
Would that he had been banned. No, we have it on good word that Delany’s attack drones firebombed his house and every structure in a 5-block radius. WHY ISNT THE MEDIA REPORTING THIS??///
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on May 15, 2010 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Why.
I think you know why. You’re just smart enough not to say anything.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on May 16, 2010 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions
So your saying its to late to accept J.C. as my saviour?
Or should I just start praying to my golden statue of Delaney.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
Jake Christensen?
Oh, that other guy…
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 16, 2010 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Johnnie Cochran
It worked for O.J.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Both notable choices. I was thinking Jackie Chan.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
Julia Child.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 16, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Ugh, no thanks.
I’ve had to see that look from his eyes plenty of times in the Wrigley outfield.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 16, 2010 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions
This is the better Cusack
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 16, 2010 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Oh...
…that’s just Ducky.
/instant rimshot’d
by Eyeheartfreedumb on May 17, 2010 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Just screw New Jersey
We don’t need the Situation in the Big Ten.
I was watching the news and they were talking about the immigration laws in Arizona, and how it might affect tourism. The guy said “tourism is important to this state.” At this point, I wondered what state is tourism not important to? What states do people not visit and just flee from instead?
New Jersey. Fuck that pos state.
Light a man a fire, he'll stay warm for a day.
Light a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NJ is FAR more interesting than Indiana
just saying. But midwest bias runs rampant on this site so I see where you are coming from.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
NJ gets a ton of tourism
Atlantic City, the beaches etc.
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
But that's a mistake
Why spend money to travel to a nice beach that’s in New Jersey when you could go further South to Virginia Beach or the Outer Banks?
Light a man a fire, he'll stay warm for a day.
Light a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Iowa
is not exactly a tourist destination. It has some wonderful places to pause if you’re passing through, but lets be real here.
I’ve been to NJ but not the tourist spots and not for long enough to have an informed opinion. Except Newark, that is literally the armpit of America. Oh, the people can be a pain in the ass when they get their Jersey attitude on but you just need to be a dick right back to them and they chill out.
Rutgers is a gamble. They have huge potential, but it isn’t clear they’ll ever reach it.
Facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable. - Werner Herzog
Take that back! You dare say that Iowa isn't a tourist destination?
Why just yesterday I witnessed a Wisconsin liscense plate on I-380. And they were headed south. Explain that! They were obviously headed towards a tour of Quaker Oats or possibly Blank Park Zoo.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
Fixed
Except Newark Houston, that is literally the armpit of America.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 16, 2010 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions
No
Houston is bad, Newark is a God-foresaken dump. And while southern NJ is completely different from northern NJ, I always found it incredibly amusing, and indicative of the state in general, that as you go north on 95 from DE to NJ, there is a huge chemical plant right away on the Jersey shoreline/border.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Iowa has some wonderful places to pause...
…BUT THE FIELD OF DREAMS JUST WENT UP FOR SALE!!!!
So now you must amend that statement to read, “It has two wonderful places to pause…”
by Eyeheartfreedumb on May 17, 2010 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions
He's almost certainly retarded.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Doesn't jNWU
deliver NY because they’re all part of the Armani Army?
"Next week's no good for me. The Jonas Brothers are in town."
Two cents...
…I wasn’t trying to join a side up above, but it seems that if Rutgers just decided to fund their athletic program a decade ago they may not be fully committed to this thing (If they happen to slide for a few years are we sure they won’t pack it in and say “woops, that was a fun experiment”?). In the northeast colleges do seem to fund things much differently than anywhere else. In fact, many small colleges in new england have dropped their football programs altogether since the recession started (a link to a story about Northeastern dropping their football team was posted on this site just a few months ago).
How do we take seriously a team that played the first ever college football game, and them for the next 100 years said “hey, we did that once” whenever football was mentioned? And on that thought, this means that the only alums who really care about quality Rutgers football (because they watched it) were born around the time that Saved By The Bell came on television (and I don’t mean Miss Bliss). I’m just saying there aren’t a lot of alums out there who will be terribly disappointed if they slide back into obscurity (Can you imagine the Nebraska or ND alums being so flippant and non-challant while watching bad football? Is that what we want in the BXI—another jNW?).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on May 17, 2010 3:21 PM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
