(02-24-2015 07:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Much ado over nothing.


The article appears to be an opinion piece being passed on as fact. There are no direct quotes from anybody at Rutgers making any claims other than there are other priorities ahead of basketball facilities. The entire article is based upon second hand information from one person who was there.

You also have to take in account the venue. This was done at a basketball booster function. What better way to give a fundraising drive a boost than telling people who are pushing for something specific for basketball than saying essentially that you would do it but the funding isn't there? Essentially a case of "put your money where your mouth is" to the people calling for the improvements. Even if they can't fund a new arena through donations they could likely build the support facilities and be that much further ahead when the arena gets to the top of the list.

Well aren't you just raining on the dumpster fire with your "reading" and "consideration for the source" and "consideration for context."

The editorial is pretty poor, even for Mr. Politi, its writer. He's public enemy #2 on the Rutgers Rivals board.

(02-24-2015 01:23 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  How is NJIT funding their new arena? It just seems odd that a program that cant even get themselves into a conference can do it & Rutgers cant.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

NJIT announced the facility, but there is no funding. It is looking to raise $50m in private donations to begin the project. I suspect that NJIT will try to hit up the Essex County Improvement Authority for the other $50m in bonds.

(02-24-2015 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What do I care about how Rutgers is in regards to stewardship of the money they receive? The Big Ten got their market, that is what they wanted. All this talk about Rutgers athletics not deserving the position, that is laughable. That was never the point. That is why I have been interested in Rutgers athletics. It would be a case of an example of money turning sports programs around.

Obviously H1, the move was beneficial for both the B1G and Rutgers. That being said, the financials are part of the allure that interests a lot of realignment junkies like us. It's why I find the Maryland situation just as intriguing. Otherwise we'd be on the respective local boards derping about nebulous concepts like 'deserve'.

Quote:The thing is though, these people Vandiver, the ones trying to act as if they are being rational about it, have been talking like this from the very moment Rutgers joined. There still hasn't been enough time that has gone by in order for us to have a rational discussion about whether the money will positively affect Rutgers sports programs. Nothing is presumed, the only people doing that are the ones that are doing it wrong around here.

Clearly it's too early for any concrete analysis, which is why I limited my focus to simply what has happened to date. I don't know the ins and outs of Rutgers and for me, getting answers from folks like Brista, Penguino and you provide invaluable that counterbalance articles like the one mentioned in the OP.[/quote]

(02-25-2015 12:51 AM)madizoned-level2004 Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 07:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Much ado over nothing.


The article appears to be an opinion piece being passed on as fact. There are no direct quotes from anybody at Rutgers making any claims other than there are other priorities ahead of basketball facilities. The entire article is based upon second hand information from one person who was there.

You also have to take in account the venue. This was done at a basketball booster function. What better way to give a fundraising drive a boost than telling people who are pushing for something specific for basketball than saying essentially that you would do it but the funding isn't there? Essentially a case of "put your money where your mouth is" to the people calling for the improvements. Even if they can't fund a new arena through donations they could likely build the support facilities and be that much further ahead when the arena gets to the top of the list.

Well aren't you just raining on the dumpster fire with your "reading" and "consideration for the source" and "consideration for context."

The editorial is pretty poor, even for Mr. Politi, its writer. He's public enemy #2 on the Rutgers Rivals board.

A rational person recognized the article for what it was. You have to realize that the biggest squawkers on this thread are the ones who concerning realignment talk are constantly berating the specks in other schol's eyes while ignoring the plank in their own.

(02-24-2015 07:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 02:28 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 02:18 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 08:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Don't bother speaking logically to these people Krup. They are not thinking logically, they are thinking with their emotions. They hate Rutgers for getting the opportunity that their schools didn't get. That's it.

The problem H1 is that regardless of the B1G payments and when they are supposed to arrive is why is Rugters AD in the shape it's in financially? Former Big East peers from Louisville to UConn to UCF all seem to have their athletic houses in order, yet Rutgers has the largest student fees yet outside of the High Point Stadium, where has that money gone? This isn't hate, I'm just generally curious. If finances are mismanaged in the current economic environment, why is it presumed that getting more money will result in better stewardship?

Bingo.

Oh please, don't even try to act now as if THAT was the angle of your original post.

Now, to Vandiver? What do I care about how Rutgers is in regards to stewardship of the money they receive? The Big Ten got their market, that is what they wanted. All this talk about Rutgers athletics not deserving the position, that is laughable. That was never the point. That is why I have been interested in Rutgers athletics. It would be a case of an example of money turning sports programs around.

The thing is though, these people Vandiver, the ones trying to act as if they are being rational about it, have been talking like this from the very moment Rutgers joined. There still hasn't been enough time that has gone by in order for us to have a rational discussion about whether the money will positively affect Rutgers sports programs. Nothing is presumed, the only people doing that are the ones that are doing it wrong around here.

It will be interesting watching UofL and Rutgers over the next 10-20 years. Will the BiG $ improve Rutgers' athletics more than the ACC affiliation will improve UofL's US News reputation?

It may have nothing to do with conference affiliation, institutional likeness, or athletic budgeting. It may come down to the overall health of the states of KY and NJ respectively. Or MD, for that matter.

This whole realignment thing was always interesting to me because I lived right down the road from Villanova when they won the FCS title and then the FBS subject reemerging. Adding what happened up at my alma mater in Happy Valley and across the river in NJ, as well as working for a school that's close to Temple, if you're a college sports fan, which I am, this stuff is inescapable. And it's so interesting.

It's just part of doing business up on this side of the map. Lots of people, but it's shrinking, and the jobs are going away, too. Lots of great schools, but nothing that fits the mold of anything similar to those of the big midwestern land grants. I'd argue even PSU doesn't exactly fit the Big Ten institutionally, even if they didn't fit the Big East or ACC, either. People want to marginalize the Rutgers move as solely for the media contract...uhh...when did PSU get off that island?

It was Rutgers' very own fans over on the Scarlet Nation Rivals board who spoke to the institutional, infrastructural, and administrative instability/unpreparedness before that fateful day changed everything. It's one thing to be passionate about wanting to join the Big Ten, and nobody seemed to want it more than their fans, but when your own alumni and fans see the issues of readiness, even if the Big Ten deems them good enough, it doesn't equate to a fix, you know? And, from what it sounds like, their "readiness" wasn't as firm as some would think it. Clearly, this could take awhile.

So, obviously, it's all in the past, and maybe something can be had from putting three giant universities (which I think is just as much a reason to grab both RU and UMD, because, in that way, they DO fit the Big Ten mold) in a spot where they can fight amongst themselves, but it wouldn't matter if this was Pitt, UConn, and SUNY Buffalo in the Big Ten...big schools in lucrative regions that are losing their ground.

Some in the Big Ten have hinted toward wanting to push down to the southeast. That's not a dumb decision, if that's where the people are going and the jobs are remaining (to be created). Maybe the institutions aren't like what you'll find in the midwest or northeast, but the schools down those parts might be due for something good that these parts have seen set, simply because of an economy and newer and smaller infrastructure (that isn't overburdened by "educational bloat").

(02-24-2015 09:59 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 06:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't hold any ill will towards Rutgers, if it wasn't for them leaving ECU would still be in C-USA. However, you can't tell me that ECU with it's far inferior budget, history in hoops, and pretty much life long apathy towards it can privately raise 17 million for a new practice facility but Rutgers isn't going to do anything for a decade. That's insane and if I were a fan of Rutgers that would completely disgust me.

Bonds, you know how people ask why ECU fans seem to have such strong feelings towards Marshall, and ECU fans respond by saying "You weren't in the same conference as them..."? Well, this is kind of the same case with Rutgers. To truly appreciate the situation, you have to live with them for a while.

But you know, that just me being all self-serving and 'jelly about Rutgers getting the "golden ticket" and all...

I don't really sense all the jelly stuff from anyone, more a lot of people wondering why can't Rutgers invest in basketball. If ECU with a shoe string budget and complete and total apathy towards hoops can privately raise 17 million for a practice facility Rutgers should have zero problem doing the same. Their budget and resources were vastly superior to ECU's even prior to getting the B1G invite. Like I said I have zero opinion of Rutgers, actually glad they left as it benefitted ECU, but if I were a Rutgers fan I'd be disgusted if they said it would be at least a decade before anything was done.

(02-25-2015 12:57 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 09:59 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 06:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't hold any ill will towards Rutgers, if it wasn't for them leaving ECU would still be in C-USA. However, you can't tell me that ECU with it's far inferior budget, history in hoops, and pretty much life long apathy towards it can privately raise 17 million for a new practice facility but Rutgers isn't going to do anything for a decade. That's insane and if I were a fan of Rutgers that would completely disgust me.

Bonds, you know how people ask why ECU fans seem to have such strong feelings towards Marshall, and ECU fans respond by saying "You weren't in the same conference as them..."? Well, this is kind of the same case with Rutgers. To truly appreciate the situation, you have to live with them for a while.

But you know, that just me being all self-serving and 'jelly about Rutgers getting the "golden ticket" and all...

I don't really sense all the jelly stuff from anyone, more a lot of people wondering why can't Rutgers invest in basketball. If ECU with a shoe string budget and complete and total apathy towards hoops can privately raise 17 million for a practice facility Rutgers should have zero problem doing the same. Their budget and resources were vastly superior to ECU's even prior to getting the B1G invite. Like I said I have zero opinion of Rutgers, actually glad they left as it benefitted ECU, but if I were a Rutgers fan I'd be disgusted if they said it would be at least a decade before anything was done.

Well, to hear some here, you might have a program out or over-spending its budget across numerous years. It wouldn't matter if they pulled more than the NJIT's and ECU's if they burned through it faster than they made it.

I'm curious of the "what if" had Rutgers been told to wait a few more years by the Big Ten, or just let go for consideration for good. Just how bad is/was it there? Shuttering multiple programs bad?

(02-25-2015 10:42 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 07:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 02:28 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 02:18 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The problem H1 is that regardless of the B1G payments and when they are supposed to arrive is why is Rugters AD in the shape it's in financially? Former Big East peers from Louisville to UConn to UCF all seem to have their athletic houses in order, yet Rutgers has the largest student fees yet outside of the High Point Stadium, where has that money gone? This isn't hate, I'm just generally curious. If finances are mismanaged in the current economic environment, why is it presumed that getting more money will result in better stewardship?

Bingo.

Oh please, don't even try to act now as if THAT was the angle of your original post.

Now, to Vandiver? What do I care about how Rutgers is in regards to stewardship of the money they receive? The Big Ten got their market, that is what they wanted. All this talk about Rutgers athletics not deserving the position, that is laughable. That was never the point. That is why I have been interested in Rutgers athletics. It would be a case of an example of money turning sports programs around.

The thing is though, these people Vandiver, the ones trying to act as if they are being rational about it, have been talking like this from the very moment Rutgers joined. There still hasn't been enough time that has gone by in order for us to have a rational discussion about whether the money will positively affect Rutgers sports programs. Nothing is presumed, the only people doing that are the ones that are doing it wrong around here.

It will be interesting watching UofL and Rutgers over the next 10-20 years. Will the BiG $ improve Rutgers' athletics more than the ACC affiliation will improve UofL's US News reputation?

It may have nothing to do with conference affiliation, institutional likeness, or athletic budgeting. It may come down to the overall health of the states of KY and NJ respectively. Or MD, for that matter.

This whole realignment thing was always interesting to me because I lived right down the road from Villanova when they won the FCS title and then the FBS subject reemerging. Adding what happened up at my alma mater in Happy Valley and across the river in NJ, as well as working for a school that's close to Temple, if you're a college sports fan, which I am, this stuff is inescapable. And it's so interesting.

It's just part of doing business up on this side of the map. Lots of people, but it's shrinking, and the jobs are going away, too. Lots of great schools, but nothing that fits the mold of anything similar to those of the big midwestern land grants. I'd argue even PSU doesn't exactly fit the Big Ten institutionally, even if they didn't fit the Big East or ACC, either. People want to marginalize the Rutgers move as solely for the media contract...uhh...when did PSU get off that island?

It was Rutgers' very own fans over on the Scarlet Nation Rivals board who spoke to the institutional, infrastructural, and administrative instability/unpreparedness before that fateful day changed everything. It's one thing to be passionate about wanting to join the Big Ten, and nobody seemed to want it more than their fans, but when your own alumni and fans see the issues of readiness, even if the Big Ten deems them good enough, it doesn't equate to a fix, you know? And, from what it sounds like, their "readiness" wasn't as firm as some would think it. Clearly, this could take awhile.

So, obviously, it's all in the past, and maybe something can be had from putting three giant universities (which I think is just as much a reason to grab both RU and UMD, because, in that way, they DO fit the Big Ten mold) in a spot where they can fight amongst themselves, but it wouldn't matter if this was Pitt, UConn, and SUNY Buffalo in the Big Ten...big schools in lucrative regions that are losing their ground.

Some in the Big Ten have hinted toward wanting to push down to the southeast. That's not a dumb decision, if that's where the people are going and the jobs are remaining (to be created). Maybe the institutions aren't like what you'll find in the midwest or northeast, but the schools down those parts might be due for something good that these parts have seen set, simply because of an economy and newer and smaller infrastructure (that isn't overburdened by "educational bloat").

I appreciate your perspective!

(02-25-2015 04:26 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I appreciate your perspective!

FWIW, I think Rutgers will make better money, but Louisville, assuming they keep the kind of folks around like they have now, will be better with theirs. I think Louisville's had to operate with a slight little man complex for some time there, trying to carve their spot into the majors, so they have the infrastructure in place...Rutgers comes off like this is uncharted territory for them, even if it's not.

Rutgers football haven't been the same since 1869. Heck, that was the peak for Rutgers' athletics.

Hopefully, the Scarlet Knights pull it together, they are making chivalry look bad and I need an Eastern BIG 10 team to root for.

I found the article refreshing.

Rutgers has pursued a path of huge spending and has generally led the country in use of institutional revenue. The program has either been investing heavy to improve its lot in life or there has been essentially no control exercised over athletics. Take your pick of interpretation.

The university's contribution to athletics on an annual basis, excluding all other revenue sources, would be one of the higher G5 budgets.

I think it is entirely reasonable to focus on reducing the size of institutional support.

Rutgers hoops last made the NCAA Tournament the last time AState hoops made the tournament. There has been one 20 win season in three decades.

I look at what Rutgers has done with its football program and facilities and it seems apparent that Rutgers has gone down the path the fan base wants, if there were real fan pressure it would have already happened.

With the direction intercollegiate athletics and the college economy are headed, kicking the can down the road on a project that isn't likely to have a fast cost recovery period is smart business.

(02-27-2015 09:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I found the article refreshing.

Rutgers has pursued a path of huge spending and has generally led the country in use of institutional revenue. The program has either been investing heavy to improve its lot in life or there has been essentially no control exercised over athletics. Take your pick of interpretation.

The university's contribution to athletics on an annual basis, excluding all other revenue sources, would be one of the higher G5 budgets.

I think it is entirely reasonable to focus on reducing the size of institutional support.

Rutgers hoops last made the NCAA Tournament the last time AState hoops made the tournament. There has been one 20 win season in three decades.

I look at what Rutgers has done with its football program and facilities and it seems apparent that Rutgers has gone down the path the fan base wants, if there were real fan pressure it would have already happened.

With the direction intercollegiate athletics and the college economy are headed, kicking the can down the road on a project that isn't likely to have a fast cost recovery period is smart business.

I completely agree. Also, once the Rutgers financial house is in order, there's no reason that a building boom cannot then occur. I think the Rutgers administration must feel they cannot ask for money from donors without first reducing their annual sports subsidy--perhaps big donors do not want to give until that time.