(11-25-2015 02:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...story.html

From the link:



The reckless excess of athletic departments was summed up by former Rutgers president Richard McCormick. There is a constant “competitive pressure toward unbridled spending.” It’s going to take force to control that spending. Real legislative force.

The answer to the question in the title is: The CR gods demand the University of Connecticut be held down in perpituity. Pretty simple really.

(11-26-2015 11:46 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 06:53 PM)goofus Wrote:  Missouri probably was a better cultural fit, better geographic fit, and better competitive fit.

But when Maryland was available to move, Missouri was already in the SEC. And it would be silly for the Big Ten to try to raid the SEC (as silly as for the SEC to try to raid the Big Ten).

(11-25-2015 11:01 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  There are 2 groups on the Rutgers expansion: Big 10 fan boys love it, everyone else just shakes their head. Essentially the argument is that Rutgers was added due to the Big 10's greed. Big 10 folks never quite say it that way, they use code words like "markets", "cable tv homes", etc.

Self-interest is why every conference adds any school. Its not like adding Rutgers was any different in that regard.

(11-25-2015 02:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  No matter how much they justify it, adding them was just a bad decision. They bought into the hot season and potential fad like the Big East did with Tulane.

If we are judging by TV I would argue that Uconn would have been a better addition. They have a national basketball audience, a legendary women's basketball program, and do not have much competition in state. No way they would not have been averaging at least 50k per game in football playing Big 10 teams.

Except the larger part of media value for BBall stays with the NCAA ... the schools get a minority share. The schools get a large majority of the media value from Football. And FB has greater total media value, to boot.

So the extra value available from BTＮ carriage fees for adding Rutgers as the #14 were substantially greater than the conference's share of any incremental value in adding UConn BBall. And while Women's BBall is a breakeven sport at some established powers, adding UConn W BBall is not going to move the needle relative to FB and BBall for any of the 12 Big Ten incumbents.

And set against Rutgers adding more TV value than UConn in terms of the conference share of media value, UConn would have started with "no" votes from That School Up North and from Wisconsin, due to their lesser academic status. Rutgers is #50 CWUR, #64 AWRU worldwide (#33/39 US), UConn #218 CWUR, #301-400 tier AWRU (#90/#103-125 US). Syracuse would have been even more controversial ... it left the AAU as with its change in strategic positioning it would otherwise have ended up getting kicked out .... at CWUR #463, AWRU #401-500 (US #150/#126-146).

Cuse was already off the table...it was off to the ACC. Frankly, the school's best landing spot.

(11-27-2015 12:56 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 11:46 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 06:53 PM)goofus Wrote:  Missouri probably was a better cultural fit, better geographic fit, and better competitive fit.

But when Maryland was available to move, Missouri was already in the SEC. And it would be silly for the Big Ten to try to raid the SEC (as silly as for the SEC to try to raid the Big Ten).

(11-25-2015 11:01 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  There are 2 groups on the Rutgers expansion: Big 10 fan boys love it, everyone else just shakes their head. Essentially the argument is that Rutgers was added due to the Big 10's greed. Big 10 folks never quite say it that way, they use code words like "markets", "cable tv homes", etc.

Self-interest is why every conference adds any school. Its not like adding Rutgers was any different in that regard.

(11-25-2015 02:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  No matter how much they justify it, adding them was just a bad decision. They bought into the hot season and potential fad like the Big East did with Tulane.

If we are judging by TV I would argue that Uconn would have been a better addition. They have a national basketball audience, a legendary women's basketball program, and do not have much competition in state. No way they would not have been averaging at least 50k per game in football playing Big 10 teams.

Except the larger part of media value for BBall stays with the NCAA ... the schools get a minority share. The schools get a large majority of the media value from Football. And FB has greater total media value, to boot.

So the extra value available from BTＮ carriage fees for adding Rutgers as the #14 were substantially greater than the conference's share of any incremental value in adding UConn BBall. And while Women's BBall is a breakeven sport at some established powers, adding UConn W BBall is not going to move the needle relative to FB and BBall for any of the 12 Big Ten incumbents.

And set against Rutgers adding more TV value than UConn in terms of the conference share of media value, UConn would have started with "no" votes from That School Up North and from Wisconsin, due to their lesser academic status. Rutgers is #50 CWUR, #64 AWRU worldwide (#33/39 US), UConn #218 CWUR, #301-400 tier AWRU (#90/#103-125 US). Syracuse would have been even more controversial ... it left the AAU as with its change in strategic positioning it would otherwise have ended up getting kicked out .... at CWUR #463, AWRU #401-500 (US #150/#126-146).

Cuse was already off the table...it was off to the ACC. Frankly, the school's best landing spot.

Yup, the ACC having a bevy of mid to large-sized privates and an up and down the east coast presence was perfect for Syracuse (and BC). Rutgers like Pitt would fit either conference institutionally, but Rutgers probably fits the Big Ten a little better due to sheer size and scope and Pitt although large is not megasized and probably fits the ACC a little better.


And as for UConn, they will find their spot in a P5 league eventually. Its a good school with excellent athletics located in a good spot between New York and Boston. Cincy is the same thing. I don't see either of them hanging out there forever or even particularly long.

The Big Ten added Rutgers because they needed Rutgers to incentivize Maryland to move. And they needed Maryland to appease Penn State. End of story.

Delaney even mentioned this after the addition - I don't have the exact quote, but he said that he did it to pre-empt any attempt by the ACC to get Penn State down the road.

(11-27-2015 04:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big Ten added Rutgers because they needed Rutgers to incentivize Maryland to move. And they needed Maryland to appease Penn State. End of story.

Delaney even mentioned this after the addition - I don't have the exact quote, but he said that he did it to pre-empt any attempt by the ACC to get Penn State down the road.

You think Delany tells you everything when he says something to the press? Yes, he said that because it is a nice story that is very hard to argue against. I mean, what do you say? We don't care if Penn State leaves so we shouldn't have invited Maryland and Rutgers?

No, the real reasons for the additions are much easier for some within The Big Ten culture to argue against so I am sorry but your story is not the "End of Story".

Big10 should have waited a couple years and they could have taken UConn and Temple. UConn and Temple (football and basketball) > Rutgers

(11-27-2015 04:49 PM)TempleOwlsRising Wrote:  Big10 should have waited a couple years and they could have taken UConn and Temple. UConn and Temple (football and basketball) > Rutgers

Let's see where Temple football is in 2 years, but in reality the move to take Rutgers was based on the TV/Cable market. The Big 10 wouldn't have gotten the same boost from Temple or Pitt as they would have from Rutgers.

(11-27-2015 04:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big Ten added Rutgers because they needed Rutgers to incentivize Maryland to move. And they needed Maryland to appease Penn State. End of story.

Delaney even mentioned this after the addition - I don't have the exact quote, but he said that he did it to pre-empt any attempt by the ACC to get Penn State down the road.

Maryland was not added to appease Penn State. And Delaney never said anything about pre-empting an attempt by the ACC to get Penn State down the road.

These moves were about the Big 10 network and moving the Big 10 into two of the biggest media markets out there (2 huge eastern time zone markets at that). These were great moves in hindsight and everyone will see as the Big 10 renegotiates their TV rights.

Why did the B1G add Rutgers?

Because Becky Quick is an alumna of Rutgers and Warren Buffet only lets Becky do his interviews for CSNBC. That's one good reason.

The other might be the alumni base and the market they represent.

Q: What did the B1G add Rutgers again?

A: Because it was the right "Knight."

(11-27-2015 04:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 04:49 PM)TempleOwlsRising Wrote:  Big10 should have waited a couple years and they could have taken UConn and Temple. UConn and Temple (football and basketball) > Rutgers

Let's see where Temple football is in 2 years, but in reality the move to take Rutgers was based on the TV/Cable market. The Big 10 wouldn't have gotten the same boost from Temple or Pitt as they would have from Rutgers.

Temple's recent rankings in Philly contradict that. Temple's got one of the best media markets in the US, and we've been pulling ratings comparable to many of the top teams in the country.

But let's give it a few years and see what happens. IF Temple has continued success, I think they'll be snatched up by another conference in the near future.

(11-27-2015 04:49 PM)TempleOwlsRising Wrote:  Big10 should have waited a couple years and they could have taken UConn and Temple. UConn and Temple (football and basketball) > Rutgers

The Big Ten didn't have a couple of years to wait ... Maryland was available at that time, they needed a #14 school at that time.

(11-27-2015 07:30 PM)TempleOwlsRising Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 04:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  Let's see where Temple football is in 2 years, but in reality the move to take Rutgers was based on the TV/Cable market. The Big 10 wouldn't have gotten the same boost from Temple or Pitt as they would have from Rutgers.

Temple's recent rankings in Philly contradict that. Temple's got one of the best media markets in the US, and we've been pulling ratings comparable to many of the top teams in the country.

Except they don't ... the Big Ten already has a carriage fee between the in-market and regular out-of-market fee in Philadelphia, so the carriage fee boost from adding Temple would have been much smaller.

Larger than from Pitt, but still substantially smaller than from Rutgers.

(11-28-2015 02:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The Big Ten didn't have a couple of years to wait ... Maryland was available at that time, they needed a #14 school at that time.

Yes, the window of opportunity with Maryland was the defining aspect of the situation and that had very little to do with making Penn State happy. It was about cutting off that 20 million or more from the exit fee.

I think Penn State's presence in the conference was about the extent of the importance of PSU in that UMD pickup. You had Big Ten men in the school at Maryland. PSU was kind of the geographical bridge to make the move justifiable on UMD's end. The issue to PSU, and to virtually any further eastern expansion, was the sense of isolation. PSU was an outlier in that conference. Other schools would feel the same. Now, PSU isn't, and I suspect Rutgers just doesn't care. Maryland...who knows. But, what Alvarez said about Penn State and eastern expansion, it's ripe for interpretation. Probably because, it was a very broad, open-ended statement.

It wasn't like Penn State was saying "Maryland and Rutgers or we walk." Heck, to know when these conversations were really starting to happen, Penn State's leadership was actually assisting in the western front, with then-president Spanier working the lines between UNL and the conference. By the time it came to members 13 and 14, nobody knew what was going to happen with Penn State. Heck, Rutgers and Maryland could have been east coast insurance in case the Nitts had to shutter for a time.

Maryland was a right time, right place sort of thing. The Big Ten wanted them for a very long time, and when they made themselves available, the Big Ten moved on it. Rutgers was lucky nobody else was ready to move at that cadence. No way is Rutgers a sure thing when someone like Virginia is also available.

(11-26-2015 11:31 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Have you ever been to Stony Brook? Yeah I didn't think so...Stony Brook's best case scenario is the MAC...and that is a stretch.

Not to be a dink, but have you lately? There were seven or eight years between trips out that way. I don't know of an institution of that kind of pedigree to grow so fast. Check out their fundraising campaign, too. It sounds like they're measuring what their ceiling really is, and it seems to indicate they might be in a better spot than Buffalo.

Didn't read the thread, but the answer is simple: Rutgers (and Maryland) are singular public flagship universities in relatively large population states with great research. That's what B1G schools are. They fit right in.

(11-28-2015 03:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Didn't read the thread, but the answer is simple: Rutgers (and Maryland) are singular public flagship universities in relatively large population states with great research. That's what B1G schools are. They fit right in.

And they are both in the AAU. Athletics was an afterthought.

(11-28-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 11:31 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Have you ever been to Stony Brook? Yeah I didn't think so...Stony Brook's best case scenario is the MAC...and that is a stretch.

Not to be a dink, but have you lately? There were seven or eight years between trips out that way. I don't know of an institution of that kind of pedigree to grow so fast. Check out their fundraising campaign, too. It sounds like they're measuring what their ceiling really is, and it seems to indicate they might be in a better spot than Buffalo.

Little fan support, a somewhat weekend suitcase student base, no sports tradition, tiny FB stadium, in a pro market, with numerous competing SUNY State Flagship wannabees and located out on the Island...yeah that is formula for success.

Once the Ivy's de-emphasized...Syracuse became the state flagship as much as anyone can be downstate. Upstate NY there is no competition across the area. SUNY Buffalo has some support in Buffalo...but that is a Bills/Sabres town.

The flagship of New York, even if neither is 100% public, is Cornell (the land grant) or Syracuse.

Cornell is private, therefore is not the public flagship of New York.