(02-23-2015 11:49 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:11 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:08 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:00 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/inde..._mens.html

What is the deal with Rutgers' administration? The sooner Rutgers gets rid of Hermann, the better.

But isn't this the same old story for Rutgers and their basketball program? They were not competitive in the Big East, why would anyone think they would be competitive in the Big Ten?

I, for one, thought with the serious $ upgrade from joining the Big Ten, they may finally be ready to somewhat invest in athletics and facilities. I guess they are forever destined to be at the bottom of any conference they're in.

If UConn had a Big 10 invitation, we'd be expanding the Rent to 50K or 60K right now. We'd have cranes working all over Storrs and East Hartford.

Why does UConn need a Big 10 invite to expand their stadium? Normally schools expand because their fan base has bought every ticket possible and they need more seats.

Just curious?

He did not say UConn needed an invite to expand. He stated UConn would expand with an invite.

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

I think it reflects worse on the Big Ten. What's the actual ROI for this arrangement, then? People said the school wasn't ready for that level, but who's going to tell the conference and its out of touch leadership otherwise?

Under the school's current leadership, Rutgers' place in the B1G will always look like a pig wearing lipstick. And the AD came from a hoops giant and said that?

(02-23-2015 10:25 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:12 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:05 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

The Rutgers athletic department is failing,

Welcome to Realsville.

(02-24-2015 08:02 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

I think it reflects worse on the Big Ten. What's the actual ROI for this arrangement, then? People said the school wasn't ready for that level, but who's going to tell the conference and its out of touch leadership otherwise?

Under the school's current leadership, Rutgers' place in the B1G will always look like a pig wearing lipstick. And the AD came from a hoops giant and said that?

The people who are saying that seem to not understand why The Big Ten picked up Rutgers. It's just people hating Rutgers for the opportunity that they got. Just look who the folks are expressing such similar opinion. It is obvious.

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:25 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:12 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:05 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Football surprised and did pretty good. If football is 80% of the equation, then she should really only receive a small percent of negativity of 20% of the fan base.
WHY worry about the basketball fan base? They aren't worth as much.

Based on Hermann's past comments/actions, she has already alienated the vast majority of the fan-base. The question is why she continues to add fuel to the fire. I've never seen an athletic director care so little about the advancement of his/her athletic department. It's a HUGE problem, regardless of how well the football program is performing.

Football is ALL that matters. You should know this.

For the G5 looking for that elusive P5 invite...yes, you are correct - football is king. For those already with the P5 golden ticket (especially in one the most lucrative P5 conferences) that is not the case. The Big Ten isn't kicking anyone out. The Rutgers athletic department is failing, and they can no longer use finances as an excuse.

If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

Maybe you both should wait until Rutgers is making actual B1G$ before passing judgement. They will be making less than other B1G members for several years a)in order to pay for their equity share of the BTN and, b) because the B1G hasn't renewed their cable deal yet. In addition, they are still paying off the fees to exit the AAC.

There has been no large influx of cash to RU yet.

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.

(02-24-2015 08:23 AM)krup Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:25 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:12 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Based on Hermann's past comments/actions, she has already alienated the vast majority of the fan-base. The question is why she continues to add fuel to the fire. I've never seen an athletic director care so little about the advancement of his/her athletic department. It's a HUGE problem, regardless of how well the football program is performing.

Football is ALL that matters. You should know this.

For the G5 looking for that elusive P5 invite...yes, you are correct - football is king. For those already with the P5 golden ticket (especially in one the most lucrative P5 conferences) that is not the case. The Big Ten isn't kicking anyone out. The Rutgers athletic department is failing, and they can no longer use finances as an excuse.

If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

Maybe you both should wait until Rutgers is making actual B1G$ before passing judgement. They will be making less than other B1G members for several years a)in order to pay for their equity share of the BTN and, b) because the B1G hasn't renewed their cable deal yet. In addition, they are still paying off the fees to exit the AAC.

There has been no large influx of cash to RU yet.

"Rutgers won't get its full piece of the Big Ten revenue pie for another five years, and even when it does, Hermann made it clear that there are priorities more important than fixing the outrageously outdated basketball facilities. It could be 10 years before those are finally addressed."

She pretty much spelled it out that even with full shares (in 5 years time), they will be completely ignoring basketball deficiencies.

What is holding Rutgers back is their university leadership - the ill-advised actions and comments keep on coming. It's unfortunate because Rutgers has always had so much potential to be a force in college athletics - even more now that they won the conference realignment jackpot.

Rutgers being added over UConn was all about NY cable market. It's that simple. If you objectively look at the football programs, Rutgers was slightly better since UConn joined the Big East and that is all because of a very good coach in Schiano who isn't there anymore. Rutgers was a top 25 team more than UConn was but UConn won an outright league title which Rutgers never did. UConn did an awful job of playing up the positives of their football program which, at the time of the decision to take Rutgers, were pretty high.

UConn has proven they can come from nothing and win a league (in football) and dominate a league (in basketball). Rutgers had many years to do that but never did. UConn has better facilities. UConn has a more rabid fan base but this is because of basketball.

Again, the decision was about:
1. Cable Money
2. Rutgers branding their football much better than UConn
............
1000. AAU status
1001. "Recruiting territory" (I always laugh at how NJ has this great recruiting base and Connecticut and NYC have nothing... reason being, "states" aren't a determining factor when the states are tiny. There are more than a handful of UConn guys and Connecticut-raised non-UConn guys in the NFL. In the Northeast the states are so geographically small you recruit a region, not a state. If you take the geographical area of Boston-NYC which is about the geographical size of a midwestern state, you are going to find studs and 3-4 star guys to fill out any roster).

Here's the thing though. Rutgers is in the B1G. They aren't going anywhere... it is time for UConn fans to move on.

When UConn was on their way to winning a basketball title last year with the regional final in NYC and tickets going for thousands of dollars while Rutgers was in the midst of yet another black eye in their athletic program, a lot of UConn fans started saying "see what you got".. "we own NY".. etc. Doesn't matter.

UConn needs to have a new plan soon. Having mid-February weekend basketball games with Tulane and Tulsa hurts.. no national TV or exposure is going to start hurting their cornerstone program really soon. If UConn keeps their basketball roster together after this down season, the next two years with the players they have coming back and coming in, they should be a top 10 team. That's really the only guarantee... after that it could fall apart.

(02-24-2015 09:14 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 08:23 AM)krup Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:25 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Football is ALL that matters. You should know this.

For the G5 looking for that elusive P5 invite...yes, you are correct - football is king. For those already with the P5 golden ticket (especially in one the most lucrative P5 conferences) that is not the case. The Big Ten isn't kicking anyone out. The Rutgers athletic department is failing, and they can no longer use finances as an excuse.

If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

Maybe you both should wait until Rutgers is making actual B1G$ before passing judgement. They will be making less than other B1G members for several years a)in order to pay for their equity share of the BTN and, b) because the B1G hasn't renewed their cable deal yet. In addition, they are still paying off the fees to exit the AAC.

There has been no large influx of cash to RU yet.

"Rutgers won't get its full piece of the Big Ten revenue pie for another five years, and even when it does, Hermann made it clear that there are priorities more important than fixing the outrageously outdated basketball facilities. It could be 10 years before those are finally addressed."

She pretty much spelled it out that even with full shares (in 5 years time), they will be completely ignoring basketball deficiencies.

What is holding Rutgers back is their university leadership - the ill-advised actions and comments keep on coming. It's unfortunate because Rutgers has always had so much potential to be a force in college athletics - even more now that they won the conference realignment jackpot.

The thing is, this particular writer knows d**n well what the "priorities more important than fixing the outrageously outdated basketball facilities" are. Rutgers leadership have publicly said that the first priority for the added revenue is to reduce and then eliminate the subsidy the athletic department receives from student fees.

This writer Politi specifically, and NJ.com in general, and have had many articles raking Rutgers over the coals because of the subsidy. To now write an article killing Rutgers because they are dealing with the subsidy and not spending money on facilities is the height of hypocrisy.

(02-24-2015 08:02 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

I think it reflects worse on the Big Ten. What's the actual ROI for this arrangement, then? People said the school wasn't ready for that level, but who's going to tell the conference and its out of touch leadership otherwise?

Under the school's current leadership, Rutgers' place in the B1G will always look like a pig wearing lipstick. And the AD came from a hoops giant and said that?

The ROI is that the BTN is now widely carried on cable in the NYC market. The only school that would have provided on larger ROI on that front is Texas. Arguably the biggest question in Big Ten expansion was whether Rutgers (or any other school) could deliver the NYC market for BTN purposes. If it didn't, then it would be a waste of an expansion slot. If it did, then it would be the most profitable move that the Big Ten could make outside of adding a monster like Texas or Florida. Rutgers could be terrible on-the-field and on-the-court for the next decade, but they delivered on the one metric that they were brought in to deliver on: NYC market cable households.

What are the costs of having Rutgers in the B10? Splitting revenues more ways, ticket sales, etc.? I have no idea honestly. It's just pretty clear they're not adding money other than the theoretical market payout for BTN.

It makes no sense for Rutgers to wait 10 years to build a new basketball arena. If anyone has ever been to the RAC, as I have, they will tell you it is one of the worst D1 facilities in the country. It is definitely not a Big 10 caliber facility and is probably among the worst basketball facilities of all P5 schools.

It is not like they are not going to have that money coming in at some point. Why not borrow against your future earnings and build a new arena. At the very least, they should get started on planning one.

I actually really like what they've done with their football stadium. I enjoyed my visit to Piscataway. I had been there about a decade earlier and the difference was like night and day. That is only going to improve now that they will have a steady diet of fans from places like Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan filling their stadium and adding to their atmosphere.

I understand that they want to get rid of the subsidy and they should. Wirh the money that Will soon be flowing through that athletic department, there is no reason for them to be accepting a university subsidy.

However, that basketball arena is in really poor shape and they need to address it. Also, it is too far gone to be renovated. They need to build a new one that is befitting of a Big 10 program.

(02-24-2015 09:55 AM)krup Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 09:14 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 08:23 AM)krup Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:25 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  For the G5 looking for that elusive P5 invite...yes, you are correct - football is king. For those already with the P5 golden ticket (especially in one the most lucrative P5 conferences) that is not the case. The Big Ten isn't kicking anyone out. The Rutgers athletic department is failing, and they can no longer use finances as an excuse.

If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

Maybe you both should wait until Rutgers is making actual B1G$ before passing judgement. They will be making less than other B1G members for several years a)in order to pay for their equity share of the BTN and, b) because the B1G hasn't renewed their cable deal yet. In addition, they are still paying off the fees to exit the AAC.

There has been no large influx of cash to RU yet.

"Rutgers won't get its full piece of the Big Ten revenue pie for another five years, and even when it does, Hermann made it clear that there are priorities more important than fixing the outrageously outdated basketball facilities. It could be 10 years before those are finally addressed."

She pretty much spelled it out that even with full shares (in 5 years time), they will be completely ignoring basketball deficiencies.

What is holding Rutgers back is their university leadership - the ill-advised actions and comments keep on coming. It's unfortunate because Rutgers has always had so much potential to be a force in college athletics - even more now that they won the conference realignment jackpot.

The thing is, this particular writer knows d**n well what the "priorities more important than fixing the outrageously outdated basketball facilities" are. Rutgers leadership have publicly said that the first priority for the added revenue is to reduce and then eliminate the subsidy the athletic department receives from student fees.

This writer Politi specifically, and NJ.com in general, and have had many articles raking Rutgers over the coals because of the subsidy. To now write an article killing Rutgers because they are dealing with the subsidy and not spending money on facilities is the height of hypocrisy.

I agree with you on this. NJ.com for the past few years has been very tough (and up until now, fair in my opinion) on Rutgers administration and particuliarly the student subsidy. They look petty for now shifting the focus onto the RAC's embarassing status after the school has zeroed in on the subsidy.

With that being said how does any Rutgers fan have any hope for the future with Hermann leading the department, though?

(02-24-2015 10:24 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  It makes no sense for Rutgers to wait 10 years to build a new basketball arena. If anyone has ever been to the RAC, as I have, they will tell you it is one of the worst D1 facilities in the country. It is definitely not a Big 10 caliber facility and is probably among the worst basketball facilities of all P5 schools.

It is not like they are not going to have that money coming in at some point. Why not borrow against your future earnings and build a new arena. At the very least, they should get started on planning one.

I actually really like what they've done with their football stadium. I enjoyed my visit to Piscataway. I had been there about a decade earlier and the difference was like night and day. That is only going to improve now that they will have a steady diet of fans from places like Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan filling their stadium and adding to their atmosphere.

I understand that they want to get rid of the subsidy and they should. Wirh the money that Will soon be flowing through that athletic department, there is no reason for them to be accepting a university subsidy.

However, that basketball arena is in really poor shape and they need to address it. Also, it is too far gone to be renovated. They need to build a new one that is befitting of a Big 10 program.

Your post makes a lot of sense, i am responding to the part I bolded.

The second Rutgers announced plans for a new BB facility based on future earnings, the media (including Politi who wrote the article generating this thread) would start with the articles mentioning the subsidy, including interviews with students who have to deal with increased tuition, professors who want wage increases, and even opportunistic Trenton politicians using the announcement as a sign that state funding of Rutgers (which is already constantly decreasing) should be cut further.

Unfortunately, because of the political and media climate in NJ I think Rutgers needs to eliminate the subsidy (if just for symbolic reasons) before talking about major capital expenditures on athletics.

(02-24-2015 10:40 AM)krup Wrote:  Unfortunately, because of the political and media climate in NJ I think Rutgers needs to eliminate the subsidy (if just for symbolic reasons) before talking about major capital expenditures on athletics.

I agree. Perhaps this has been discussed, but don't they have the largest subsidy in all D1? If not, it's close to it.

And since they're also merging their med school, perhaps the president and board just don't have the appetite to have too many things in motion,

(02-24-2015 08:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 08:02 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

I think it reflects worse on the Big Ten. What's the actual ROI for this arrangement, then? People said the school wasn't ready for that level, but who's going to tell the conference and its out of touch leadership otherwise?

Under the school's current leadership, Rutgers' place in the B1G will always look like a pig wearing lipstick. And the AD came from a hoops giant and said that?

The people who are saying that seem to not understand why The Big Ten picked up Rutgers. It's just people hating Rutgers for the opportunity that they got. Just look who the folks are expressing such similar opinion. It is obvious.

And Julie Herman is the worst offender.

(02-24-2015 10:47 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 10:40 AM)krup Wrote:  Unfortunately, because of the political and media climate in NJ I think Rutgers needs to eliminate the subsidy (if just for symbolic reasons) before talking about major capital expenditures on athletics.

I agree. Perhaps this has been discussed, but don't they have the largest subsidy in all D1? If not, it's close to it.

And since they're also merging their med school, perhaps the president and board just don't have the appetite to have too many things in motion,

Rutgers has the largest power conference subsidy by a longshot.

(02-24-2015 08:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 08:02 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If B1G $ can't save Rutgers, then shame on Rutgers and lesson learned.

B1G $ isn't a cure and doesn't make your grass green.

I think it reflects worse on the Big Ten. What's the actual ROI for this arrangement, then? People said the school wasn't ready for that level, but who's going to tell the conference and its out of touch leadership otherwise?

Under the school's current leadership, Rutgers' place in the B1G will always look like a pig wearing lipstick. And the AD came from a hoops giant and said that?

The people who are saying that seem to not understand why The Big Ten picked up Rutgers. It's just people hating Rutgers for the opportunity that they got. Just look who the folks are expressing such similar opinion. It is obvious.

Well, there's definitely haters. There's most definitely concerned NJ residents, too. And it's no different in other states. To see what it takes to prop up some of these systems...while the money matter is overstated, just how much so is concerning. And when folks flip on the subject, that's even more so. At one time, all this money was like a panacea. For a school who wasn't rubbing out much, then gets a big payday...to hear this, you can't help but feel duped.

(02-23-2015 09:00 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/inde..._mens.html

What is the deal with Rutgers' administration? The sooner Rutgers gets rid of Hermann, the better.

Do you believe that Hermann is not doing what her superiors want her to do? Because if she is, then whoever succeeds her will most likely behave exactly as she has. And if she is not, how does she keep her job?