(05-22-2014 11:47 AM)jayrutgers Wrote:  Please tell me when Rutgers has ever had the funds to pay for upgrades in facilities or coaches before now.

You say that like schools across the country were making 20-30 million while Rutgers made 2-3. The playing field was fairly level the past ten years. If schools like Uconn, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, etc from the Big East had the ability to upgrade facilities why didn't Rutgers?

(05-22-2014 12:00 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You say that like schools across the country were making 20-30 million while Rutgers made 2-3. The playing field was fairly level the past ten years. If schools like Uconn, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, etc from the Big East had the ability to upgrade facilities why didn't Rutgers?

Rutgers can't walk the dog without tipping the doorman twice.

(05-22-2014 12:06 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:00 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You say that like schools across the country were making 20-30 million while Rutgers made 2-3. The playing field was fairly level the past ten years. If schools like Uconn, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, etc from the Big East had the ability to upgrade facilities why didn't Rutgers?

Rutgers can't walk the dog without tipping the doorman twice.

It is much cheaper to build things in say, Louisville or Syracuse, than it is in NJ. And actually, you might have to tip the doorman's brother, son, nephew and godfather before they let you take out the dog........

(05-22-2014 12:00 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:47 AM)jayrutgers Wrote:  Please tell me when Rutgers has ever had the funds to pay for upgrades in facilities or coaches before now.

You say that like schools across the country were making 20-30 million while Rutgers made 2-3. The playing field was fairly level the past ten years. If schools like Uconn, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, etc from the Big East had the ability to upgrade facilities why didn't Rutgers?

Because they always thought anything less than the Big Ten was the breadline.

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)penguino Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:06 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:00 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You say that like schools across the country were making 20-30 million while Rutgers made 2-3. The playing field was fairly level the past ten years. If schools like Uconn, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, etc from the Big East had the ability to upgrade facilities why didn't Rutgers?

Rutgers can't walk the dog without tipping the doorman twice.

It is much cheaper to build things in say, Louisville or Syracuse, than it is in NJ. And actually, you might have to tip the doorman's brother, son, nephew and godfather before they let you take out the dog........

This is certainly true. Beyond that, the fact that RU's athletics are heavily financed via student fees probably doesn't help. It's also hard to maintain fan interest in an area like NYC where there are a number of competing entertainment options.

(05-22-2014 01:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:13 PM)penguino Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:06 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:00 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You say that like schools across the country were making 20-30 million while Rutgers made 2-3. The playing field was fairly level the past ten years. If schools like Uconn, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, etc from the Big East had the ability to upgrade facilities why didn't Rutgers?

Rutgers can't walk the dog without tipping the doorman twice.

It is much cheaper to build things in say, Louisville or Syracuse, than it is in NJ. And actually, you might have to tip the doorman's brother, son, nephew and godfather before they let you take out the dog........

This is certainly true. Beyond that, the fact that RU's athletics are heavily financed via student fees probably doesn't help. It's also hard to maintain fan interest in an area like NYC where there are a number of competing entertainment options.

There is a New Jersey south of New Brunswick. This fixation on points north...I wonder if that's the problem. Because I see a LOT of "R" stickers on cars around these parts, in SEPA, near Trenton, Camden, through the Pine Barrens and down to the shore points. The "sleepy" part of the Philly DMA that the media seldom covers. Rutgers is a big school, and NJ a respectably sized state...it's insane to believe the central-south has not contributed to RU, or won't in the future. It sounds more like an institutional approach to that of a gold-digger. They wanted the big money up north, not the blue collar and ag-sector of the south. But, I get the feeling it's been from that "overlooked" region that's been true to the school all this time. And if that's so, I feel bad for them...because they helped RU "get there," and for their work, they'll get PSLs (that's actually a way to price certain people out), increased season ticket prices, and upped parking fees...just to see some Big Ten schools?

What I hope doesn't happen is in 6-7 years when Rutgers is finally getting some of that full share cash, that people start asking for other sports, programs, and facilities, and Rutgers says "that's not financially viable," and try to push booster organizations or other fundraising pursuits. If/when that happens...one has to ask Rutgers: WTF does Big Ten money even do that Big East/AAC couldn't? Same old ****. Same old ****.

(05-20-2014 07:47 AM)MJG Wrote:  Rutgers is a unique situation joining the top revenue conference with less than great athletic history. I tried to word that without taking a stab at Rutgers. I hope they do well it would be good for college football.

The Question is what other schools are candidates for a similar opportunity.

Buffalo being AAU makes sense.
New Mexico
Colorado State

I am sure others are out there with everything except the recent athletic success.

I guess UCONN and Cinncy would not qualify for this because of to much success in athletics. Stony Brooke probably would if the school committed to athletics.

To weigh in on the question, Temple, by virtue of sitting in the 4th largest media market could be a candidate for ACC consideration. The school has to wake up a fair sized piece of that market before anything would happen. Unlike Rutgers, who performed well for a couple of years in FB and building a fan base, Temple would need to become the 'Boise of the East' (i.e. several 10 win seasons in a row) to cause eyes to gaze over there. The other part of the ACC is that there is no room at the inn right now. The Maryland situation will clarify things.

I won't say never, because stranger things have happened. The chances of Temple to the ACC are minimal. Still under some conditions it would make sense to bring in UConn and Temple for the ACC to get to 16 and really lock up the east coast. The conditions would have to be out side powers forcing the ACC to act in self preservation. Maybe as a result of the B12 imploding, causing another round of realignment and fear that the ACC is about to be raided. That was the motivation to the expansion to 14.

(05-24-2014 07:08 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  I won't say never, because stranger things have happened. The chances of Temple to the ACC are minimal. Still under some conditions it would make sense to bring in UConn and Temple for the ACC to get to 16 and really lock up the east coast. The conditions would have to be out side powers forcing the ACC to act in self preservation. Maybe as a result of the B12 imploding, causing another round of realignment and fear that the ACC is about to be raided. That was the motivation to the expansion to 14.

Syracuse an the ACC had been talking off and on (roughly every 5 years) since 1991, back when the ACC was only 8 teams. Based on that, I think that your analysis of the expansion to 14 is wrong, unless you're referring to UL. Then you might be right.

Beyond that, I don't see any scenario where Temple and UConn join. I would like to see UConn, Georgetown, and Villanova as non-football members, but that won't happen (no matter how much sense it would make).