Fast Forward 10 Years - Was the B1G Admission Worth it?
- Thread starter zazoo2002
- Start date
They are trolls and/or ledger staffers
AT my post time it is up to 14, as posted above they are poisoners of all things Rutgers or typical liberal arts majors who never took any economics courses at RU:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
RU31 is this the base of your distain you wanted to go ACC?
Please note Pitt and Syracuse and even BC have a wonderful rivals site go join one!
At the time, a significant minority of posters on this board (about 20 percent IIRC) preferred the ACC to the B1G.
What in the holy hell is this thread????
I don't mean the replies, but I mean why on Earth would anyone in their right mind think this was a good idea for a thread?
We are not a southern school, we don't belong in the ACC. We are not a MBB, I hope that was very clear to everyone by now.. We don't belong in the ACC.
We are a Northern School, a Football School, a wrestling school with more history than all other FBS schools, we are a member of the AAU and we have a strong focus on Research.
We are basically a Big Ten school in measurable way other than not being in the Mid-West and having a huge influx of money. And that was BEFORE we joined!
Now we are a Big Ten school, the money is coming, we already make more now than we ever did, and we will blow pass most ACC school in a few years in earnings. We will build our facilities and our teams will get bigger and better in due time.
So yes, Fast Forward ten years and Rutgers of today will look bush league compared to Rutgers from ten years from now by all measures in every way possible.
The future is beyond bright, we are not stuck in the Big East or the ACC, we are in the Big Ten, the best conference in the United States. More so the 100% best fit for Rutgers.
I don't mean the replies, but I mean why on Earth would anyone in their right mind think this was a good idea for a thread?
We are not a southern school, we don't belong in the ACC. We are not a MBB, I hope that was very clear to everyone by now.. We don't belong in the ACC.
We are a Northern School, a Football School, a wrestling school with more history than all other FBS schools, we are a member of the AAU and we have a strong focus on Research.
We are basically a Big Ten school in measurable way other than not being in the Mid-West and having a huge influx of money. And that was BEFORE we joined!
Now we are a Big Ten school, the money is coming, we already make more now than we ever did, and we will blow pass most ACC school in a few years in earnings. We will build our facilities and our teams will get bigger and better in due time.
So yes, Fast Forward ten years and Rutgers of today will look bush league compared to Rutgers from ten years from now by all measures in every way possible.
The future is beyond bright, we are not stuck in the Big East or the ACC, we are in the Big Ten, the best conference in the United States. More so the 100% best fit for Rutgers.
It's not just money, but that is a huge factor. While I don't agree with most opinions here about BIG dominance and demise of the ACC, the BIG was a grand slam for Rutgers. ACC would have been a good fit and it's not as weak as many believe, but football drives the bus and BIG opponents are just more attractive.
The Big Ten will be worth it simply because it gets Rutgers Athletics close to break-even monetarily. I want Rutgers Athletics to succeed, but not at the expense of money that should be going to academics.
If you think RU football was nirvana prior to entering the B1G, I would suggest that you look at the historically records of our W-L records against various schools. If you think we would be bathing in 12 win seasons being in the AAC or the Patriot league you are sadly mistaken. Rutgers needs to live up to its potential, period. Beware, don't look at the Princeton W-L record you might not like what you see. Getting invited to the B1G was one of the greatest things to happen to Rutgers University. Delanney(sp) deserves a statue.
Academics is not related to Athletics. Academics is starving for money not because of athletics but because our STATE has been screwing RU for over 10 years.
I am sorry but there is one reason the B1G is the best move>>>> CIC
Now take off your jocks and shoulder pads and see what 90% of the rest of Rutgers sees.
A collaboration with some of the best research brains in the world.
B1G membership has a bit to do with sports, yes; but this consortium will be the biggest boom to our status. There is no $ value you can put on this, 10 years from now our CIC affiliation with the B1G schools along with U of Chicago and John Hopkins will outshine our sports accomplishments.
Remember we are an academic university not a semi-pro football camp
Now take off your jocks and shoulder pads and see what 90% of the rest of Rutgers sees.
A collaboration with some of the best research brains in the world.
B1G membership has a bit to do with sports, yes; but this consortium will be the biggest boom to our status. There is no $ value you can put on this, 10 years from now our CIC affiliation with the B1G schools along with U of Chicago and John Hopkins will outshine our sports accomplishments.
Remember we are an academic university not a semi-pro football camp
Rutgers didn't have the option of going to the ACC. The ACC didn't invite Rutgers. And without a network like the BTN, the ACC didn't have a way to monetize Rutgers. If the ACC didn't invite UConn, with their championship level MBB and WBB programs, they weren't going to invite Rutgers, with a terrible MBB program and a middling FB program which post-2006 was just marginally better than UConn's FB program.
The choices for Rutgers were to accept the Big Ten invite or remain in the American conference.
This is a perfect example of a thread that should have been immediately deleted. I can't believe people are actually responding seriously.
Simply amazing that 18 "fans" have voted "no." This may have been the easiest "yes" response in the history of polls. All-time. Anywhere.
BTW (to the OP) - most sane people realize that this class is what it is, was in trouble long before Ash took over, and wasn't helped at all by recruiting issues caused by the previous regime as well as the on-and-off field issues the program faced this past season. I think we're already off to a nice start with the 2017 class and it will continue this way!
BTW (to the OP) - most sane people realize that this class is what it is, was in trouble long before Ash took over, and wasn't helped at all by recruiting issues caused by the previous regime as well as the on-and-off field issues the program faced this past season. I think we're already off to a nice start with the 2017 class and it will continue this way!
Last edited:
I'm sure quite a few people voted "no" just to get others all riled up. Thought definitely crossed my mind.
In 10 years I'll be too focused on how hard I'm laughing at UCONN, for having to demote their football program down to FCS.
Not amazing to me. There are many posters from other Rivals sites coming here these days and there seems to be a core group of about 8-10 RU Malcontents (or trolls) who seem to post for more for reaction purposes.
I would rather be in the ACC. We would be more competitive in football. The road trips are easier and in more interesting places. Despite all the major enthusiasm in this thread and others, I still think the 49-7 beatings will catch up to us and get old. The tradeoff for me would be the wrestling program, which would not have had the same opportunity as the B1G. $$$$
Last edited:
The answer is an obvious yes - because even if FB never really gets off the ground - the extra money will ensure that the other sports do. Even BB will eventually see an increase because of Big Ten TV dollars.
And honestly - if FB cant get off the ground in the Big Ten East, why would you think that it would do anything in the AAC. We were already cutting football spending before we got into the Big Ten - that was with Big East BCS money and some on field success. Theres no way we could have sustained the level of spending we had without the BCS money and with increasingly bad teams annd half filled stadiums making the political pressure to cut costs unbearable.
But I dont buy the framing. Rutgers can get off the ground any time it wants by buying a bigger name coach. Too many recruits around for that not to work. Its more likely that we have money for a great coach in the Big Ten than the ACC or AAC.
Why do you think we would be any more competitive in the ACC? Remember 2013 in the AAC? And what I said above about spending also applies to the ACC. The ACC is going to be making $20 million less per team than the Big Ten. That $20 million (plus extra money from all of the incidentals of playing PSU, Michigan, OSU, etc) is whats going to make us revenue neutral. In the ACC we would either have to not invest in Olympic sports or not invest in the major sports. Either one is not a great situation.
I can't believe this question was even a remote possibility of any other answer than a resounding yes
So I wont comment further
So I wont comment further
Yeah, I think the no votes are votes for "Why so serious?" or "Lemme have some fun with this!"
Nah. In 10 years UConn will be fine. They will have gratefully accepted an ACC invite, to replace one of several defections as the GOR expires.
I will concede that there is a question of whether they can hold out for the intervening 10 years. My guess is yes.
The 20 people who said no have to be Penn State fans. Have you been to a men's basketball game at RU recently? Because that's what the stadium would look like in our games against Tulsa and SMU even if we were 10-0.
All your points make sense. It's just been a long road for this fan and I just have to deal with it. Thanks. $$$$
Yeah, let's skip the prize so we can avoid the tax.
sarcasm, your meter is off
Last edited:
See this chart from Forbes. Each school in the AAC last year earned about $17 MM less than what each school in the ACC earned. And the ACC schools earned about $12 MM less than the SEC. (After the Big Ten negotiates its new TV deal, it is expected to pay each school as much as, or more than, the SEC.) It is really hard to be "fine" for 10 years when you are making $15 MM to $30+ MM less in conference distributions than the schools you are trying to compete against.
Upstream, you may be right. But if so, then every G5 is in jeopardy, no? And perhaps they are. But unlike most G5s, UConn does IMO have light at the end of the tunnel. Problem is, it's a ten year tunnel. But I think UConn has the will and the resources to hang in there until they get the ACC offer.
People are too fixated on money. I completely understand that the ACC did not invite us. But if the choice was made available to Rutgers the ACC would have been a better fit. With that said, I am very grateful that the Big Ten invited us to join their conference.
Yes. That's what I'm saying. The AAC is probably the strongest of the G5 conferences, and UConn is one of the teams best positioned in the AAC. If UConn is going to struggle to keep up with the P5 for 10 years, so will every other G5 team.
-------
I subscribe to the undocumented theory that the ACC might have been interested in RU, but if the Big 10 was already in the process of
looking and probably inviting us, we may have been stalling the ACC off....
I would wager, given the choice, that RU would have selected the Big 10 if offers were issued at the same time.
At one time, I thought that the ACC was potentially interested in Rutgers, but knew if they invited Rutgers, the Big Ten would immediately also offer Rutgers and Rutgers would go to the Big Ten. But on reflection, it seems unlikely that the ACC was ever interested in Rutgers at all (and the concern about not inviting Rutgers because it would accelerate Rutgers' invitation to the B10 seems meaningless, since Rutgers was invited to the B10 only 14 months after the ACC invited Pitt and Cuse).
- Without a TV network, the ACC had no way to monetize inclusion of Rutgers.
- If the ACC were interested in Rutgers, they probably would have reached out to Rutgers in Sept 2011, when they invited Pitt and Cuse.
- If the ACC were interested in Rutgers, the primary reason would be to lock up the northeast, a reason that would also apply to UConn. But when looking to replace Maryland in Nov 2012, the ACC looked to Louisville over UConn.
Maybe the ACC should have been interested in Rutgers. But there is zero evidence that they ever gave any consideration to Rutgers.
I read that as him understanding and illustrating your point, but could be wrong.
ETA: Just saw his response - looks like that's how he meant it.
If the ACC and Big Ten both offered I still think RU would have jumped at the opportunity to join the Big Ten.
The Big Ten is large state universities. The ACC is not. RU has far more in common with Big Ten schools than ACC schools with the exception of geography.
The Big Ten is large state universities. The ACC is not. RU has far more in common with Big Ten schools than ACC schools with the exception of geography.
Because money is, uh, kind of important.
Also, the ACC wasn't a better fit no matter what. You're one of the very few that continue to pretend it was.
Other than that, spot on!
Where is the $20+ million coming from? Where was the $35 million from the previous year coming from? In this day and age, universities have a hard time getting money. Public pensions are being underfunded while infrastructure is in disarray. How politically-savvy is it to ask more money for Rutgers while $20 million is going to fund volleyball, gymnastics or wrestling? $20 million can fund a department or tow, buy lab equipment or build a new dorm.
In what universe is ACC a better conference? It's arguably the most unstable conference of the P5.
Even if we are a cellar dweller for the next 50 years I'd rather be in the first college athletic conference in the country.
Even if we are a cellar dweller for the next 50 years I'd rather be in the first college athletic conference in the country.
