http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2015/4/19/8413467/rutgers-big-ten-conference-realignment-2014-2015
Yes, there are people who did and still defend the B1G's expansion.
Yes, there are people who did and still defend the B1G's expansion.
Rugers is bad at everything (link)
- Thread starter michigangoblue999
- Start date
That is pathetic. Just awful.
My favorite Rutgers statistic is this: the Scarlet Knights have 6 conference titles in their history. ACROSS ALL SPORTS, IN THEIR HISTORY.
This from a large state-school that has competed, at various times over the last 30 years, in the A-10 (mostly small eastern Private Universities, which don't really fund sports outside of basketball very well), Big East (ditto), and American Conference (a.k.a., C-USA version 2.0, not a powerhouse conference).
Oh well. I can tolerate Maryland, but Rutgers --- Barf.
My favorite Rutgers statistic is this: the Scarlet Knights have 6 conference titles in their history. ACROSS ALL SPORTS, IN THEIR HISTORY.
This from a large state-school that has competed, at various times over the last 30 years, in the A-10 (mostly small eastern Private Universities, which don't really fund sports outside of basketball very well), Big East (ditto), and American Conference (a.k.a., C-USA version 2.0, not a powerhouse conference).
Oh well. I can tolerate Maryland, but Rutgers --- Barf.
I disagree. Maryland may not have a great football program/tradition, but there are great at basketball and many other sports. They will turn out to be a very addition. The CEO of UnderArmor has been donating large amounts of $$$$ to their program just like the CEO of Nike donates to Oregon. They will continue to be a very sports school (good academics as well). They are in a good territory for recruiting for UM as well.
I do agree about Rutgers. That was not a very good decision. It would have been better to add UConn or Pitt or Virginia Tech.
We could have stayed at 12, and it would have been fine. I think the larger territory the conference has, the more TVs and customers you have it translates to more $$$$$ (as long as you add quality schools). Also, it helps recruiting, if you have teams in the east coast (not just teams in the Midwest). The trend seems to be making larger conferences for more stability, ACC- 15 teams, SEC - 14 teams. Also, Syracuse would probably have been better than Rutgers.
More money for the conference is good for YOU in what way? More TV money hasn't lowered ticket prices, resulted in fewer commercials during games, etc.
I love when fans point to more money, even though they aren't getting any of it! I guess we should just be happy that the coaches, ADs, and Jim Delaney are all getting richer!
I love when fans point to more money, even though they aren't getting any of it! I guess we should just be happy that the coaches, ADs, and Jim Delaney are all getting richer!
Well it does mean a larger fan base, more exposure and better facilities (over time) across all of the Big 10 so in theory that should create a better conference with a larger share of top recruits. Since Rutgers has joined the league, the Big 10 has won the NCAA football championship, was runner-up in basketball and sent 2 teams to the final 4. So that must mean Rutgers joining the B1G has been good for the conference right?
Seriously though as long as the B1G teams are playing for and/or winning national championships in the high profile sports AND making more $ doing it; it is hard to make the argument that expansion was bad for the league.
It is what it is --- when the B1G invited Penn State in June 1990, that was the beginning of the "it's all about $$$ era." Duderstadt voted against Penn State back then, but he lost that fight. The dam broke, and eventually the SEC expands, the SWC collapses, eventually the B1G Network, eventually Nebraska, eventually further B1G East Coast expansion, et cetera et cetera.
I do think we see conference contraction eventually (my LONG-LONG term prediction is the B1G eastern schools plus Notre Dame plus a few select ACC schools break off into a 10-12 team conference in the 2030-2035 era. Think something like Michigan, Ohio State, Maryland, MSU, Rutgers, Penn State, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Virginia, Miami FLA, Georgia Tech, North Carolina).
But in the mean-time, complaining about it is like trying to swim upstream. Is what it is. Besides, does Michigan really lose THAT much by not regularly playing the likes of Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota?
I'm saying it's bad for the fan. That's what I am and what I'm most concerned about.
There are too many factors to say it has been good for the league right now. For the fan who loves the traditional B1G rivalries, I think it's bad.
Realistically, this is about the money, pure and simple. Money we as fans don't see, so that's not something I care about.
I have no problem with Penn State and Nebraska. You need 12 teams to have a football championship game, and you weren't going to do better than adding those two teams, given that Notre Dame wasn't really an option.
I guess one point to complaining about the expansion is that it might make the league think twice about expanding again, especially if the options are as lackluster as the last round of expansion.
There are too many factors to say it has been good for the league right now. For the fan who loves the traditional B1G rivalries, I think it's bad.
Realistically, this is about the money, pure and simple. Money we as fans don't see, so that's not something I care about.
I have no problem with Penn State and Nebraska. You need 12 teams to have a football championship game, and you weren't going to do better than adding those two teams, given that Notre Dame wasn't really an option.
I guess one point to complaining about the expansion is that it might make the league think twice about expanding again, especially if the options are as lackluster as the last round of expansion.
trash talking from a Rutgers fan? We all know we sucked in football last year. What sucks for you guys is that was a decent year for you, but historically bad for us.
Another thing worth considering....Brian Cook believes that as cable becomes "unbundled," only the people who care about sports on TV are going to have to pay for them. Right now pretty much everybody has to pay for them, which isn't fair. In a fair world. the ESPNs and Foxes are getting way less subscription money, which means the B1G will be getting less, too. Trying to expand the "footprint" to the entire east coach might end up being the stupidest thing the Big Ten ever did.
I think this would be a great thing. Why should people who don't care about sports on TV pay for it? That gets a ton of money out of collegiate sports, which gets them back to their roots. We all love Michigan football for things other than the fact that the B1G makes a lot of money.
I think this would be a great thing. Why should people who don't care about sports on TV pay for it? That gets a ton of money out of collegiate sports, which gets them back to their roots. We all love Michigan football for things other than the fact that the B1G makes a lot of money.
There are going to be some serious lobbyists against cable unbundling --- the TV conglomerates chief among them. Unfortunately, they will all be in the same bed together on this one: Disney (ESPN) + FOX + NBC + CBS all allied together.
There was a big WSJ article the other day, about how ESPN just sued Verizon over a smaller cable package Verizon is proposing.
We'll see. Unbundling is definitely a good thing for the consumer and a bad thing for the likes of the B1G Network (and by extension, the B1G schools). Unbundling will happen in the LONG-term, but I think in the intermediate-term (the next 10-20 years), we don't see much happen in that regard. Too many deep-pocketed folk vested in the status quo.
I think you're wrong. Technological leaps can happen very quickly. People are canceling cable altogether at a rate that has to be alarming to the cable companies. They'll do what they need to in order to survive: unbundle. The way people watch TV will be totally different in 10 years, if not five.
In any case, the B1G is stuck with Rutgers and Maryland for as long as they are a league, so whether things go to hell in five years or twenty, adding them was stupid.
In any case, the B1G is stuck with Rutgers and Maryland for as long as they are a league, so whether things go to hell in five years or twenty, adding them was stupid.
I was pretty surprised net neutrality passed, against the wishes of the likes of AT&T and Comcast --- so I may well be wrong on this one. Big goliaths lobbying together against things don't always win, but they will be a hell of an obstacle.
My cable was cut 3 years ago. All you need is a robust i-net connection and in my case, an XBMC box. I'm good.
I've said this before, but the addition of Maryland and Rutgers is one of the worst decisions this conference has ever made. It's what happens when you leave decision making to suits instead of people who know sports. We know that great competition brings in viewership (SEC). Delaney's strategy of bringing in viewership without adding competition is stupid. Nobody is excited to play Rutgers or Maryland. Maryland's greatest accomplishment on the field was fielding the fattest coach ever, and the last time Rutgers was relevant, electric light wasn't available yet (seriously!). You're never going to convince New Yorkers to care about Rutgers no matter what conference they're in.
Bottom line, NJ has better high school football than Mi - recruits are part of the lifeline. Culture changes. A school like Oregon was meaningless 20 years ago, yet in the past decade they've gone in the complete opposite direction of Michigan, and we all remember them beating you in back to back years, esp that 38-7 or something like that beat down in the Big House. Wisconsin was very mediocre before Alvarez. Both Wisconsin and Oregon also have inferior hs football compared to NJ.
It simply takes the right coach and culture. Rutgers has not had the opportunities to excel in the right conference. If Schiano was still their coach, they'd be the team every major program or so called blue blood in the BIG would loathe to play each year.
It simply takes the right coach and culture. Rutgers has not had the opportunities to excel in the right conference. If Schiano was still their coach, they'd be the team every major program or so called blue blood in the BIG would loathe to play each year.
