Maryland, a founding member of the ACC, left to join the B1G. That's all you need to know.
-Scarlet Jerry
-Scarlet Jerry
Winning in ACC vs Losing in B1G
- Thread starter zazoo2002
- Start date
Obviously this is an amazing conference but anyone who thinks it's FUN to be an Illinois or Purdue football fan is whiffing that wacky weed out west
Purdue isn't even relevant in its own freakin state..lol
Fertile recruiting ground? In Indy freakin Ana?
Dude, serious....stop strolling down the Venice Beach boardwalk lol
Comparing us to Purdue or Illinois is a freakin insult
Purdue isn't even relevant in its own freakin state..lol
Fertile recruiting ground? In Indy freakin Ana?
Dude, serious....stop strolling down the Venice Beach boardwalk lol
Comparing us to Purdue or Illinois is a freakin insult
This alone ends this discussion and always will. Schools leave the acc. No one leaves the B1G.
Well I had to read it to realize how much I didn't like it. That's how reading works, my friend.
No, I don't have control, which is why I said "consider". I reiterate: consider my suggestion...strongly.
Dude serious . . . you do realize that you sound like an idiot? Do yourself a favor, shut up. It is disgraceful, you sound like an ignorant New Jersey hack. You do understand that Illinois was in the Rose Bowl in 2008 and the Sugar Bowl in 2002? They also beat Baylor in the Texas Bowl in 2010. Purdue was in the Rose Bowl in 2000. Unbelievable.
Last edited:
Wtf are you smoking? Did you just say Pirdue was in the Rose Bowl? 16 freakin years ago? Hahaha
I can name 75 programs at minimum who had more success the past 16 years
Your high buddy!
You must be the stupidest poster on this board. That is the Rose bowl you fool. Has Rutgers ever been to one of the New Year's day bowls in its history? Let's see how many elite bowls have we been to in the last 16 years, how about 30 years, how about ever? What about Illinois, you mentioned them as well you idiot? Again, unbelievable.
So you as a Rutgers fan would be ok with us in the Rose Bowl next year, and then being IRRELEVANT for the next 16?
You obviously don't follow college football cause if you did the name Purdue hasn't been relevant in ages.....unreal
Unreal, is your total ignorance to the history of the conference Rutgers is now part of. Of course, as a B1G member I would take a Rose Bowl every 15 years and minor bowls in between. You obviously are probably a 20 something who doesn't understand the history behind the Rose Bowl and what it means for a B1G or PAC 12 program to play in that game. Let's see how long it takes us to get to our first Rose Bowl, even in a year when it is not in the college playoff rotation. Ask Arizona fans if they would give up all of their Holiday, Fiesta, Sun, etc. bowls for just one Rose Bowl appearance.
You still haven't addressed your comment about Illinois who went to the Rose Bowl in 2008. What a fool. My advise, it may be time for A.A.
ILoveRutgers continues to prove he does indeed not love Rutgers. His only true love is making a fool of himself.
The Rose Bowl is a great Bowl.
Pitt has played in the Rose Bowl 4 times.
All P5 Conference schools will have enough money to allow them to be competitive. It all comes down to their selection of a Head Coach (Great Staff) and Recruiting Proficiency which will determine how successful they will be in their respective conference.
Every Conference will have Top Teams and Bottom feeders.
I think Rutgers (location) is in a good position to be competitive in the B1G with points 1 and 2 mentioned above.
I think Pitt also is positioned (location) to be competitive in the ACC. Narduzzi I believe is a good game day coach and is now proving he is able to recruit in the mid west and also the south.
Couple that with our fertile western Pennsylvania recruiting base.
Rutgers just needs to tap into its NJ players. Too many going to Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Notre Dame etc.
Win and they will come. Lose and they will not.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
And Pitt! In order for RU to be successful it has to beat Pitt in recruiting NJ/NY on a regular basis.
-----
1) would much rather be in the big 10
2) a lot of people think we will never compete there because they cannot see beyond the teams we field now.... Look to Michigan state as a team that was thought could never compete......
------
And while having the most money is certainly helpful, it is not the determining factor as to who wins, and when....
if RU has a few decent seasons revenue will jump..... It will go up anyway in the big 10
this is similar to saying:
- nicest house or nicest car in a middle class neighbor hood vs lower end house / car in an upper class neighborhood
So would you like to be the person who owns an Acura TLX in a working class blue car collar neighborhood where most people own Chevy's, Ford's, Toyota's, VW's, Honda's, Chrysler's, and Hyundai's or own the same TLX in an upper class neighborhood where your neighbors own Benz's, Audi's, Land Rover's, and Porsche's?
Right now Rutgers is the Acura in a neighborhood where Ohio St is a Porsche, Michigan is a Land Rover / Jaguar, and Penn St is a BMW / Audi. Maryland would be a Lincoln / Cadillac.
- nicest house or nicest car in a middle class neighbor hood vs lower end house / car in an upper class neighborhood
So would you like to be the person who owns an Acura TLX in a working class blue car collar neighborhood where most people own Chevy's, Ford's, Toyota's, VW's, Honda's, Chrysler's, and Hyundai's or own the same TLX in an upper class neighborhood where your neighbors own Benz's, Audi's, Land Rover's, and Porsche's?
Right now Rutgers is the Acura in a neighborhood where Ohio St is a Porsche, Michigan is a Land Rover / Jaguar, and Penn St is a BMW / Audi. Maryland would be a Lincoln / Cadillac.
FSU Clemson, Louisville, ND are very good programs right now. So are Mich st Ohio st and Wisconsin. Michigan is on its way back. Penn st is not at their level IMO. They havent been a elite program for awhile except for a couple for a11-2 seasons in the last 2000's. I like what Northwestern is doing. Can Syracuse follow Northwestern's model? Just like Michigan, Miami will get back to elite status. Too much talent and tradition there. Lets see what Fuente does with VT. Pitt seems to be heading in the right direction. Can UNC keep up?
There is something to be said with the bolded.
But then when you realize ^^^this^^
The only thing I got after that is...THREAD/
Have we had more success than Purdue or Illinois? We have one shared conference title in the BE in the past 20 years. Illinois has an outright B1G title and Purdue has a shared B1G Title and Illinois recruiting class is ranked higher than ours and Purdue isn't much worse. Sounds like parity right now.
It took ONE solid 5-year stretch and ONE magical season to go from perennial Bottom Ten candidate to a team that expects to go bowling year after year.
I think if Ash can stay competitive this year against the big boys, a bunch of Jersey kids will stay home.
He doesn't even need to win -- he just needs to be able to show recruits that they won't be embarrassed here. If there's one thing I've learned having spent my entire life in NJ, it's that while we appreciate the underdog, no one likes being associated with a loser.
For a good stretch, Rutgers was just that -- a loser. Schiano's run changed the perception -- you can go to Rutgers and be proud of it. You saw it with the players. You saw it with the student body. And -- from the amount of block R's on cars, you saw it with the general populace.
Flood's run saw a backslide in the overall perception of Rutgers football. While he may have tried his darndest to sustain Schiano's momentum, we are what our record says we are. And against top competition, we were losers. Not only that, but we were losers who got absolutely curb-stomped. There's just no way to sugar coat that when pitching to potential recruits.
Let's revisit my observation earlier: No one here likes being associated with a loser. Let alone an 18 year-old who has been told he's been a winner since he was 8.
But remember, NJ appreciates the underdog.
If Ash can show his team plays with passion and toughness, those two traits also resonate well with New Jersey folk. And if Ash can keep these games against the big boys close and respectable, I think more kids stay home realizing that they can be the difference makers that eventually put us over the top.
I think if Ash can stay competitive this year against the big boys, a bunch of Jersey kids will stay home.
He doesn't even need to win -- he just needs to be able to show recruits that they won't be embarrassed here. If there's one thing I've learned having spent my entire life in NJ, it's that while we appreciate the underdog, no one likes being associated with a loser.
For a good stretch, Rutgers was just that -- a loser. Schiano's run changed the perception -- you can go to Rutgers and be proud of it. You saw it with the players. You saw it with the student body. And -- from the amount of block R's on cars, you saw it with the general populace.
Flood's run saw a backslide in the overall perception of Rutgers football. While he may have tried his darndest to sustain Schiano's momentum, we are what our record says we are. And against top competition, we were losers. Not only that, but we were losers who got absolutely curb-stomped. There's just no way to sugar coat that when pitching to potential recruits.
Let's revisit my observation earlier: No one here likes being associated with a loser. Let alone an 18 year-old who has been told he's been a winner since he was 8.
But remember, NJ appreciates the underdog.
If Ash can show his team plays with passion and toughness, those two traits also resonate well with New Jersey folk. And if Ash can keep these games against the big boys close and respectable, I think more kids stay home realizing that they can be the difference makers that eventually put us over the top.
Purdue under coach Tiller. I think rutgers fans would be happy with this in the B10
Purdue Boilermakers (Big Ten Conference) (1997–2007)
1997 Purdue 9–3 6–2 T–2nd W Alamo 15 15
1998 Purdue 9–4 6–2 4th W Alamo 23 24
1999 Purdue 7–5 4–4 T–6th L Outback 25
2000 Purdue 8–4 6–2 T–1st L Rose† 13 13
2001 Purdue 6–6 4–4 T–4th L Sun
2002 Purdue 7–6 4–4 T–5th W Sun
2003 Purdue 9–4 6–2 T–2nd L Capital One 19 18
2004 Purdue 7–5 4–4 T–5th L Sun
2005 Purdue 5–6 3–5 8th
2006 Purdue 8–6 5–3 T–4th L Champs Sports
2007 Purdue 8–5 3–5 T–7th W Motor City
2008 Purdue 4–8 2–6 T–8th
Purdue: 87–62 53–43
1) Ask your friend if he would trade conferences
2) ask him if he would pick B1G or ACC as a Ucan't destination
3) Ask him who give more money B1G, ACC or their long term conference(Maybe forever) AAC
4) Ask him if Ucan't want AAU status
5) Ask him if he wants Ucan't CIC collaboration
6) Ask him if he want B1G Network or AAC or ACC non network to showcase their sports.
7) Ask him the most important question after graduation who would you want to network with the AAC school members like Memphis, Tulsa, USF, ECU, UCF, (OK Navy/Tulane OK) or the B1G
For the record our first year we end up in the middle in FB. Yes this past season was devastating losing our secondary 1 week before the start of the season. We will be back in the middle at the end of 2016
The initial post was about football and not anything else so I will focus this just on football... RU is in a good spot if they are willing to be patient.. Right now you are fifth best in the division (along with Maryland).. Obviously the program is in a tough stretch... Firstly you must move ahead of Maryland and IU and put quite a bit of distance perceptually between you and the bottom feeders.. Next you must get closer to PSU again perceptually... Out recruit them in NJ and steal a few philly area players and then beat them on the field time and time again.. College football is full of historic perceptions which are tough to break.. PSU is still viewed as a college football power .. If RU as a program can move into that area behind OSU and UM they have the chance to be very successful.. However if you are buried for too long at the bottom of your division you will wish you were in the ACC despite the ESPN 2 games with PSU and MSU and the ESPN games with UM and MSU... Many of you look down at the ACC without taking an accurate look at your own program.. Historically speaking many ACC teams have a better history than RU and thus nationally have a better rep.. Vtech, UNC, Gtech, Syracuse, Pitt, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, all are better traditionally.. I didnt add Duke because they are just a recent thing and as I stated before it takes awhile to build up a solid rep.. I hope RU does well and I think they can but it wont happen overnight.
bottom line; to play in the big boys neighborhood, will have to play the big boys. In the big ten you will have to play the schools of the big ten, to be a player in the big ten you have to beat the teams in the big ten. We just need to get ready to win....
Traditionally=a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting:
Well you were not around on the turn of the last century but the school with the most national championships in Football was the university of Pennsylvania Not Bama and the other NC champs like Harvard and Yale you see this trend. That said as a perception this new century there is parity, as an example what was Oregon in 1999 a non-football power school.
The point that must be made as an attempt to level the field 85 scholarships and a clearing house to keep a even field for everyone.
So what does that leave you with Coaching is the factor between the winners and the losers
Case in point you call Louisville a traditional power it was going in that direction in FB until their hot coach left for the pros. Now he is back and you can see the difference in the perception Kragthorp (sp) was a disaster.
Coaching makes the difference look at traditional power that lose their coach they tend to fall back to the rest of the bunch. Ex Nebraska, PSU is going thru the pain of fall back into the pack now. so traditional powers is only a mental view winning and losing, in a parity environment . So understand new century traditional power will flow and change with winning coaches more then the name of a school
Fun fact: there actually has been one school that "left" the B1G (not counting Chicago). Any guesses? It wasn't of their choosing either.
Michigan.They were voted out in 1907, only to rejoin in 1917.
Yeah, they do. Their attendance is twice what Rutgers draws. Unless you are going to claim that Wisconsin sells it tickets a lot cheaper than Rutgers, that's going to be double the money.
Here is a look at Big Ten attendance numbers, according to the CBS Sports article.
Michigan: 110,168
Ohio State: 107,244
Penn State: 99,799
Nebraska: 89,998
Wisconsin: 78,014
Michigan State: 74,661
Iowa: 63,142
Minnesota: 52,355
Rutgers: 47,723
Maryland: 44,341
Indiana: 44,314
Illinois: 41,342
Purdue: 37,508
Northwestern: 33,366
http://btn.com/2015/12/18/michigan-football-leads-nation-in-attendance-this-year/
The problem with your theory is that it doesn't take into account how this happens. Oregon is a good example. The reason Oregon is a power is because of Nike. Nike money is what gave them the resources to hire Mike Bellotti and Chip Kelly. Nike money is also what gave Oregon the resources to build the top notch facilities they have. Facilities are also important in attracting good coaches. If a school doesn't have good facilities, good coaches tend to shy away from those schools, because they will have tougher time attracting recruits.
The other thing that matters here is your resources in relation to the teams you play. Oregon, by virtue of Nike, has more resources in relation to most of the teams they play. Maybe somebody like Southern Cal matches them, but not most of the teams they play. Well, that was my point about the Big Ten. The good coaches are typically going to pick the schools like Ohio St or Michigan and co. That's because the Ohio Sts and Michigans have more resources then the other schools in the league. That's why schools like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, are perennially in the lower half of the conference. They simply have a harder time attracting better coaches and recruits than Ohio St/Michigan because they have fewer resources. Of course, it's possible for those dynamics to change. It's just not likely.
And that's my point. Let's say each ticket is an average of $50. For Wisconsin, that's $3.9 million per game. Over a season, that's $27.3 million. For Rutgers, that's $2.4 million per game, and $16.7 million over a season. That's a difference of $10.6 million a year, just off of football tickets. That's a rather significant difference. If Rutgers was getting $10 million more than Syracuse, you would be bragging about how big of a difference that is, and how it means Syracuse can't compete with Rutgers. Ok, well same argument applies here.
Yes I missed my point by picking Oregon. So lets take MSU last century and part of this one they were middle of the pack and yes Rutgers beat them this century But a great coach Mark D made them a top desired school without the big money. As just big money does not make it see Maryland. But great coached do make it; another example is Wisconsin and Berry made and is keeping them relevant.
Ask him who cared about UConn sports 5 years before they hired Jim Calhoun?
Who will care about them 5 years after his departure?
The hypocrisy of a guy that draws a pay check from UConn suggesting programs can't move up is breathtakingly ignorant.
Actually, despite the fact that I posted that to be a smart ass that Rutgers attendance is about 61% of what Wisconsin draws, the revenue (according to this report) is about 47% of what Wisconsin makes (note, this doesn't include Northwestern as they are a private school, or Penn State because they're special little snowflakes who don't need to respond to FOIA requests. Also, this is 2014 data, compared to the 2015 attendance I posted):
Football ticket sales
1. Ohio State - $47,091,663
2. Michigan - $46,108,503
3. Nebraska - $34,121,726
4. Iowa - $21,042,903
5. Wisconsin - $18,660,405
6. Michigan State - $17,671,810
7. Minnesota - $14,024,130
8. Purdue - $9,628,594
9. Illinois - $9,236,799
10. Rutgers - $8,767,194
11. Indiana - $6,585,484
12. Maryland - $6,392,258
http://www.chicagofootball.com/2015...artments-rank-in-spending-profit-pay/a2quusm/
Your comparing apples to oranges...if RU with the B1G PR machine had been in as long as UW i'm pretty sure we'd double the fanbase and stadium size we have today...i doubt Wisconsin HS FB has a third the talent and likely far less in the relatively sparse state and its hardly a media center....NJ has twice the population in a state probably the size of 4 or 5 counties there...surrounded by other major media and population centers NYC/Philly....Md has similar advantages....
I didnt say Louisville was a traditional power only that they have a better tradition than RU... Traditional power doesnt ebb and flow as you say.. PSU is a big time traditional power and having done anything for many years.. Nebraska is another one.. Being a traditional power makes it easier to climb to the top again.. Look at UM... at no point during RRods years or Hoke did they lose their blueblood status.. not even close.. One good hire later and they are right back near the top.. Agree completely with coaching but more importantly a commitment to athletics from the top..Urban Meyer would not be as successful at Pitt or RU as he is at OSU...
Actually, not accurate on Michigan St. They won national championships in the 50s and 60s. That built a fan base for them that contributes significant resources to the program. If you look at the financial figures the other poster listed, Michigan St is in the upper half of the Big Ten. That's my whole point. They have resource advantages over a lot of other Big Ten teams. That's why Mark Dantonio ends up at Michigan St instead of Indiana.
So my estimate was pretty accurate. Wisconsin gets nearly $10 million more in ticket sales that Rutgers.
No, there is no apples to oranges. You have to compete with the situation as it is today. Saying that Rutgers would have more money now if they had already been in the Big Ten doesn't change the reality that they don't. Making that handicap allowance doesn't chance what actually has to be accomplished to win, which is my whole point. Schools like Wisconsin have more money, and thus can spend more on coaches and facilities. Being in a larger state doesn't really matter. What matters are the people who actually buy tickets and contribute to the program. That's where the resources come from. The Big Ten payouts are the same for everybody, so that's a wash. The difference is how much the schools can self-generate, and schools like Wisconsin generate more. The problem with the idea that New Jersey has more talent is that this talent is exposed to these other schools that have these superior resources. Those schools can come in and steal that talent. My point is, leveling the playing field and winning in the Big Ten is more difficult than some people are acknowledging.
1) You won't be playing Nebraska and Wisconsin every year.
2) You might be surprised how frugal Wisconsin is with its football money. They spend, but not on a level with Ohio State or Michigan.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
***Ask The Experts Presented by American Financial Network’s Greg Ginn***- Latest: needmorecowbell
-
-
Basketball Big Ten announces 2024-25 Home / Away B1G Opponents
- Latest: Scarlet dollar
