Talking Ash as a reference point. Ash was 8-32 vs GS 12-19 so far. That’s W-L for you.
Losing hope
- Thread starter ImBadRU
- Start date
I read the article. Are USC and UCLA members of the Big Ten yet? Did Nebraska, Maryland get less to in the beginning?
USC is one of the most prestigious football schools in the nation. The Los Angeles area is much less of a pro football town than New York -- LA actually had no NFL teams for years. UCLA has a record of success (and actually is good now) and had the leverage that USC needed a local partner in order to join. It is no surprise that those schools got a better deal than Rutgers and Maryland did. I'm piling on here, but note that Maryland, which got the same deal we did, is doing better than Rutgers. It's not plausible either to be upset that USC/UCLA are getting a big deal or that the deal we got is why our football program isn't as good as we want it to be.
Rutgers deal was negotiated based on the available facts of 2012, not 2017. If you don’t understand that USC and UCLA were in a much stronger position, then there is nothing more to discuss. Both USC and UCLA are much stronger brands than Rutgers.
I don’t pay attention to this sort of stuff, but didn’t MD get like a gazillion dollar donation from somebody?
No I'm asking you because you most missed the part about Nebraska, Maryland also had 6 year deals, same as Rutgers. The was the way the business was at the time. What don't you understand about that?? You are complaining like it was just Rutgers.
Taking loans had nothing to do with being underpaid. It was paying for firing head coaches and Athletic Directors plus paying for a stadium expansion we didn't need.
In 2014, U.MD. got a $25 million donation from Kevin Plank, an alum and UnderArmour CEO, to expand athletic facilities, including to construct an indoor football practice facility. https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/...-pledges-25-million-to-university-of-maryland U.Md. sports have a better record of success than Rutgers' (remember Boomer Essiason and the basketball teams coached by Lefty Driesell), and success makes it easier to attract large donations.
Yes, is MD or Neb competing for the conference title? It is the way B1G does business because they want to protect the old members and the blue bloods.
Boomer Esiason was 40 years ago. Lefty was 1970s & 1980s. If success during those years drives huge donations, we should still be milking the 1976 Final Four. Come on, now.
Your argument was that adding USC/UCLA is more accretive than adding RU/UMD. That was the point I was responding to, not the question of who had the better negotiating position. Further, RU, UMD and NU were all told from the get go that the buy in was non-negotiable.
Now I understand KW's desire to keep up with the SEC in the expansion I also get why he may have had to waive the buy in to land the Cali schools. However, I draw the line at turning a blind eye to the fundamental unfairness to the three prior entrants.
It's clear the schools feel the same way, as once the deal was announced, there were immediate comments by Pat and others that discussions would be had about making the schools whole.
Dude, take off the aluminum foil hat!
Again, it’s all facts. It’s not a hidden agenda. It’s an open agenda by the B1G.
Don’t know and don’t care. I do wish RU can have a fan base like Neb.
Will never happen. That ship sailed years ago. Too many pro teams in the area. Nebraska only has the college
if you're in a position to give that kind of money, you are old enough to remember the good days, as long ago as they were. Rutgers has had many fewer good old days than U.Md. Driesel took the Terrapins to the NCAA tournament seven times, and that was when the tournament had only 32 teams. Maryland continued its basketball success, going to the NCAA tournament fourteen straight times from 1989-2004 and winning the NCAA title in 2002. Maryland's football team went to bowl games seven straight times (this was before anybody with a .500 record could make a bowl) and got to a BCS bowl in 2001. Rutgers, unfortunately, has squat compared to that.
Last edited:
Add Randy White to the equation.
This might ruffle a few feathers, but RU athletics back then never took advantage of the'76 team to build athletics. Similar, unfortunately, to development office's efforts (or lack thereof) to build the university's general endowment back then.
As great as the entire RU team played in the first half, time of possession was so lopsided against us that the eventual dominance of Michigan was sure to come.
still, it was a glimpse of the future. Good stuff.
still, it was a glimpse of the future. Good stuff.
My cop out of an answer is "it depends on the game".
They, for the most part, play consistently inconsistent, and rarely all 5 are in the plus at the same time.
UM should have had the lead at the half. McCarthy missed a wide open receiver who was end zone bound, thier reliable kicker missed two field goals
Because of our successes in other sports no I wouldn’t. If this was a strictly football question, the answer is a resounding yes
You sure about that? Yes we have more money now, but we certainly have less wins. Heck the big ten conference has been around for 50+ years, we’re in our 8th season in the conference, and are responsible already for losing 25% of the all time shutouts in conference play… from a football standpoint, what has Rutgers gained? Now in other sports the impact is undeniable, you’ll hear no argument from me there
The owner of Under Armor, Kevin Plank, is a Maryland Alum and has donated a TON to Marylands athletic program. I live about 30 min from Maryland’s campus, over the last 5 years it’s transformed into ‘Under Armour University’
Totally skipped over the 2002 National Championship team coached by Gary Williams
You'll have to forgive me: I gave even less of a shit about basketball in 2002 than I do today.
