The caption to the photo says " In June, Rutgers announced an upgrade that would include improved restrooms and a new elevator tower on the east side of the stadium," implying these are deficiencies that are going to be fixed.
As far as the quality of the facilities/amenities, ummm, yeah, that is a pretty big part of what they are comparing between stadiums.
They're not going to say Rutgers Stadium is nice because it has nice architecture; it doesn't. Prior to the expansion, they may have given the stadium props for being in a natural ravine, with the cannon under a tree on a hill in the open end-zone. But right now the inside of the stadium is mostly a generic bowl. There is pretty much nothing unique or outstanding about it. And it doesn't have size or history to brag about, compared to other Big Ten stadiums.
So really all that is left to rank Rutgers Stadium higher than other Big Ten stadiums is facilities and amenities. When you have a stadium that has porta-potties on the concourse because there is only one men's room with 18 toilets serving 10,000 fans on the lower level west sideline, it is kind of hard to claim the stadium has good facilities/amenities (especially when the stadium had a $100 million renovation less than 10 years ago).