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.

(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.

Its all about the TV's…and easy football wins. I KID RU people! MD is is right there with you this year.

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.

Jim Delany.

The TV's argument is a decent one, but I think you could add a school like Syracuse and get the same amount. Because that is about all that Rutgers adds.

But Delany is from New Jersey. Rutgers really feels like a personal quest under the guise of "TV expansion."

Maryland and Rutgers are just hot garbage in the B1G when you have to play Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State every year.

Maryland is at least a valuable add for basketball though.

No other school would go to the B1G?

(11-25-2015 04:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  No other school would go to the B1G?

A-hem.

If they really wanted NYC, they should have just asked Penn State to play more NYC (East Rutherford) games or added UConn and done the same. Heck, with large fan and alumni bases there, they could have had them play each other. Syracuse also could have done that.

A "Big Ten Classic" involving anyone would have done that. And I get that adding RU just meant getting on basic cable for their channel but it may have not been worth adding a team which otherwise adds little. RU hasn't been to the Tournament since 1991 and they played in the Big East for goodness sake.

I was thinking along the lines that while Rutgers adds $ to the B1G, they could also be a tool/catalyst to limit other schools/conferences spending on sports. Poster Child.

My opinion won't matter for squat, but I think the Big Ten thought that it could draft off PSU/Rutgers and the northeastern markets the same way just biting the bullet and tapping Pitt and being done with it without a school minutes away from NYC.

Models, projections, etc....matters nothing. Pitt-PSU gripped this region much in the same way Army-Navy does, and that's a lot. It's a shame these schools act in these ways to be so petty, but it is what it is.

I'm happy for Rutgers, and you know they wanted this, and it shows. For that part, they were a terrific addition. You know you have someone who really takes this conference affiliation seriously. I don't know if the same can be said for Maryland and the next 50-100 years, if there will be a Big Ten that long. The problem with Rutgers was, and apparently still is, its institutional and financial readiness to run athletics like a Big Ten institution. It doesn't look like the school was well vetted. And because it doesn't look like it was, see the first two paragraphs. Blew it.

(11-25-2015 04:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  My opinion won't matter for squat, but I think the Big Ten thought that it could draft off PSU/Rutgers and the northeastern markets the same way just biting the bullet and tapping Pitt and being done with it without a school minutes away from NYC.

Models, projections, etc....matters nothing. Pitt-PSU gripped this region much in the same way Army-Navy does, and that's a lot. It's a shame these schools act in these ways to be so petty, but it is what it is.

I'm happy for Rutgers, and you know they wanted this, and it shows. For that part, they were a terrific addition. You know you have someone who really takes this conference affiliation seriously. I don't know if the same can be said for Maryland and the next 50-100 years, if there will be a Big Ten that long. The problem with Rutgers was, and apparently still is, its institutional and financial readiness to run athletics like a Big Ten institution. It doesn't look like the school was well vetted. And because it doesn't look like it was, see the first two paragraphs. Blew it.

I don't disagree with your opinion at all. I'm happy for Rutgers as well and good for them joining the B1G. I just have an inkling that their addition was more than just market. I think Delany wants spending limits. He wants to earn more than everyone else but not be outspent.

My understanding is that the B1G has these demands of schools that perpetuate these spending issues. IIRC, part of what put Rutgers on the right track with the conference were on-campus venues. Now, with proximity to Newark and the Meadowlands in mind, does Rutgers need such venues? Same with UMD to DC-Balt? I don't think so. Big Ten, I've heard, among others, think otherwise.

With Rutgers, the RAC is going to be an issue moving foward. Julie has said as much. So, how is that reconciled?

I guess I don't understand all the hating on Rutgers. The BIG knew exactly what they were getting when they added Rutgers. It was a homerun as far as tv and $$$ are concerned. They didn't need for Rutgers nor Maryland to be at the competitive level or Athletic budget of OSU or Michigan. They wanted the tv dollars. I doubt the BIG really is all that concerned about Rutgers extra problems. But I could be wrong.

I know most of you will not be able to understand this with your simple minded fan perspectives but when you are in charge, if you can get a school with a strong reputation, strong research and a strong market to move into then that means more than the win/loss column.

I will let you in on a little secret that honestly shouldn't be a secret except for the fact that no one pays attention to it and it's significance. Adding a school does not add to the win/loss ratio of the conference season. Therefore adding a major program projectively lowers the number of wins that other conference programs will earn on the average year. Adding a program that on average earns less wins than the median means you are in fact adding wins to your core programs. You can call that gaming the system or whatever you want to call it but it is proving to be a winning formula in the Big Ten where as conferences like The SEC and The PAC are seeing cannibalization within their conferences happening even more due to programs coming in and being at that median win level or higher.

Nebraska and Penn State were the Big Brands. Maryland and Rutgers were seen as their balancing counterparts. That doesn't mean that Maryland and Rutgers cannot build up their programs but they were great balancing counterparts while at the same time bringing in strong Institutions that match the identity of The Big Ten while at the same time are located in great market areas.

This has been described so many times. I guess we need to print out a manual for the Louisville guys.

If my posts conveyed any hatred toward Rutgers I apologize. That is not my intent and I am happy for them joining the B1G. It appears to be a great fit for both the B1G and Rutgers. Again, I can't express enough that it is a win-win and happy for Rutgers.

That being addressed, I still see an angle by the B1G to limit other Conferences/schools spending on sports. Delany wants the B1G members to make more than any other Conference/Universities make and to make sure the other Conferences/ Universities can not outspend the B1G members. He can use Rutgers and Maryland to keep other Universities in check all the while stuffing the pockets of Ohio State and Michigan and others.

(11-25-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I know most of you will not be able to understand this with your simple minded fan perspectives but when you are in charge, if you can get a school with a strong reputation, strong research and a strong market to move into then that means more than the win/loss column.

I will let you in on a little secret that honestly shouldn't be a secret except for the fact that no one pays attention to it and it's significance. Adding a school does not add to the win/loss ratio of the conference season. Therefore adding a major program projectively lowers the number of wins that other conference programs will earn on the average year. Adding a program that on average earns less wins than the median means you are in fact adding wins to your core programs. You can call that gaming the system or whatever you want to call it but it is proving to be a winning formula in the Big Ten where as conferences like The SEC and The PAC are seeing cannibalization within their conferences happening even more due to programs coming in and being at that median win level or higher.

Nebraska and Penn State were the Big Brands. Maryland and Rutgers were seen as their balancing counterparts. That doesn't mean that Maryland and Rutgers cannot build up their programs but they were great balancing counterparts while at the same time bringing in strong Institutions that match the identity of The Big Ten while at the same time are located in great market areas.

This has been described so many times. I guess we need to print out a manual for the Louisville guys.

Save your paper. I agree with your points. Just please don't let me hear Rutgers or Maryland or Delany advocate spending limits. Just please don't let me hear that.

(11-25-2015 06:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I know most of you will not be able to understand this with your simple minded fan perspectives but when you are in charge, if you can get a school with a strong reputation, strong research and a strong market to move into then that means more than the win/loss column.

I will let you in on a little secret that honestly shouldn't be a secret except for the fact that no one pays attention to it and it's significance. Adding a school does not add to the win/loss ratio of the conference season. Therefore adding a major program projectively lowers the number of wins that other conference programs will earn on the average year. Adding a program that on average earns less wins than the median means you are in fact adding wins to your core programs. You can call that gaming the system or whatever you want to call it but it is proving to be a winning formula in the Big Ten where as conferences like The SEC and The PAC are seeing cannibalization within their conferences happening even more due to programs coming in and being at that median win level or higher.

Nebraska and Penn State were the Big Brands. Maryland and Rutgers were seen as their balancing counterparts. That doesn't mean that Maryland and Rutgers cannot build up their programs but they were great balancing counterparts while at the same time bringing in strong Institutions that match the identity of The Big Ten while at the same time are located in great market areas.

This has been described so many times. I guess we need to print out a manual for the Louisville guys.

Save your paper. I agree with your points. Just please don't let me hear Rutgers or Maryland or Delany advocate spending limits. Just please don't let me hear that.

The Big Ten mentality is that they will spend the money if they have to and they are gearing up right now to win any Spending War that is started BUT if they can find a way to keep that from happening they will go that route instead.

While not a perfect comparison, you can use Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy declaration which was to "Speak softly but carry a big stick" quote to help understand the mentality behind statements and actions coming from The Big Ten.

Missouri probably was a better cultural fit, better geographic fit, and better competitive fit.

But there was a concern that Penn St would start to fit unappreciated and bail for the ACC if the BigTen did not add any eastern neighbors.

Rutgers and MD were added to keep PSU happy. Yes, MD and Rut also have a strong academic rep and tv markets, but that would not have mattered if nobody wanted them.

Fortunately the BigTen can stop there in its eastern expansion because there is no need to do more to keep Rutgers happy. Rutgers will be forever grateful for being thrown the golden lifeline and winning the lottery.

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

But there was a concern that Penn St would start to fit unappreciated and bail for the ACC if the BigTen did not add any eastern neighbors.

Rutgers and MD were added to keep PSU happy. Yes, MD and Rut also have a strong academic rep and tv markets, but that would not have mattered if nobody wanted them.

Fortunately the BigTen can stop there in its eastern expansion because there is no need to do more to keep Rutgers happy. Rutgers will be forever grateful for being thrown the golden lifeline and winning the lottery.

Making Penn State happy was just a secondary affect, not the main one. It also made for a nice talking point that people would buy because it feels good.

(11-25-2015 04:10 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  If they really wanted NYC, they should have just asked Penn State to play more NYC (East Rutherford) games or added UConn and done the same. Heck, with large fan and alumni bases there, they could have had them play each other. Syracuse also could have done that.

A "Big Ten Classic" involving anyone would have done that. And I get that adding RU just meant getting on basic cable for their channel but it may have not been worth adding a team which otherwise adds little. RU hasn't been to the Tournament since 1991 and they played in the Big East for goodness sake.

Even U.Mass. Basketball is better than Rutgers, and they are at the same level of academics as UConn. as well.