The case for Rutgers

Submitted by WolvinLA2 on

Although I certainly haven't read every comment on the board the last 48 hours regarding expansion, I have read a number of comments expressing displeasure for Rutgers, a setiment I originally shared.  However, the devil's advocate in me got thinking of the counter argument, and after a little research, I have changed my own mind.  Rutgers certainly isn't the slam dunk that Nebraska was, but if the conference is set on expansion (as most of them are), then we could do worse than Rutgers (and maybe not a lot better).  Let's start with the numbers:

Rutgers is a huge school.  42,327 undergrads and 14,541 grad students, for a total student body of 56,868.  This makes it the 5th largest school in the country, larger than all Big Ten schools outside of OSU.  That fits the Big Ten mold of "huge, state school" and means that Rutgers is pumping out alumni at a rate matched by few.  The state of New Jersey has a population of 8.8 million people, which obviously excludes nearby NYC and Philadephia.  The number of people within a decent drive of Rutgers is greater than nearly all (if not all) D1 football programs. 

One of the gripes about Rutgers is that their football attendance is low.  At 43,761 in 2011, that's above both NW and Indiana, and a few thousand below Illinois and Minnesota.  To compare them to other prospective programs, Maryland is 42,355, Syracuse is 40,504 and GT is 48,232.  Their attendance isn't crazy low, but would almost certainly be much higher if they moved to the Big Ten.  In 2011, Rutgers had 7 home games, only WVU Pitt were decent draws, and every other home game was against a team you'd expect a poor draw from (Army, Navy, Ohio U, North Carolina Central, USF and Cincinnati).  Even the decent teams on that list don't travel well.  The Big Ten has the benefit of playing teams who bring fans to the stadium, something Rutgers would experience in a big way.  Not only would a Big Ten schedule be more appealing to Rutgers fans, but it would bring opposing fans that weren't there in the Big East. 

In terms of football quality, Rutgers isn't as bad as is being purported.  To start, Rutgers is currently ranked #19 and #21 in the two polls, ahead of all but 3 Big Ten teams.  They've had an easy schedule, but they won at Arkansas and at Cincinnati, and beat Syracuse at home.  The last 6 years they've finished 9-4, 4-8, 9-4, 8-5, 8-5 and 11-2.  They went to five bowls and won all five. 

For the future, Rutgers has promise as well.  NJ is becoming a hot bed for football recruiting, and Rutgers has been cashing in on that.  Over the last 3 years, Rutgers has finished 64th, 32nd and 24th in the Rivals team rankings.  The 24th in 2012 was behind only M and OSU among Big Ten teams despite only having 19 commits.  That class included a 5 star and 4 four star recruits.  Rutgers already has 17 commits for 2013. 

In basketball, Rutgers is certainly no powerhouse, and typically finishes around .500 for the season.  The Big East is a very difficult basketball conference, so that won't improve in the Big Ten.  They'd be a Penn State/Northwestern/Nebraska type team who will steal some games but not many.  Where they would make up for this is in lacrosse.  I think lacrosse will be the third revenue sport in the NCAA, and Rutgers has an established but not elite lacrosse program.  The real benefit here is that if the Big Ten added two lacrosse programs (with Maryland, for example) they could be playing Big Ten lacrosse almost right away, growing TV dollars and enabling Big Ten schools to play regularly in lax hotbed states.  There is very little live sports on BTN in the spring, and having 5 Big Ten lacrosse teams would be a boon for BTN coverage and certainly $$$ moving forward.  Having a Big Ten lacrosse league will also encourage other Big Ten schools to add lacrosse as a D1 sport, which could be a semi-major revenue earner for the conference within a decade from now. 

In the end, I don't think there is another ND out there that would be a slam dunk addition to the league.  If expansion is necessary or desired, than I think Rutgers would make a quality choice.

Fitz

November 18th, 2012 at 8:26 PM ^

I don't think that Rutgers is a fantastic add for the B1G but I am thrilled that, living in Connecticut, I'll be just a couple hours drive away from being able to see Michigan play.

...Totally selfish plan, let's get Uconn to join up

huge

November 18th, 2012 at 8:29 PM ^

There are a lot of alums living on the east coast who don't get to see their teams play unless they go back for homecoming or some other games.  My daughter in DC has traveled to Happy Valley & C-bus for games.  Not everyone who graduates from Michigan lives in Michigan (or within driving distance for a game) after graduation.

eamus_caeruli (not verified)

November 18th, 2012 at 8:37 PM ^

Do you think Bo gave a rip about selfish alums on the eat coast? No! Moe, RR, Hoke? No!



Seriously, this isn't a Michigan issue, it's a BIG issue. We are a member of a conference, and I can't imagine anyone being ok with this beside penn state and shameless money grabbing from people who are retarded in the wrong position.

eamus_caeruli (not verified)

November 18th, 2012 at 9:10 PM ^

You are wildly assuming alumni in NYC or suburbs would drive two-three hours to a half empty stadium in New Jersey. And you forget what 50k actually looks like when you sit in a 113k stadium every other Saturday. That's fing small man!



No offense and this is ridiculous but both Maryland and Rutgers are red and white primary colors. Seriously, how many teams in the big need the same colors? Just saying

huge

November 18th, 2012 at 9:31 PM ^

On a Saturday morning Rutgers is a 1 to 1.5 hour drive from a lot of places in the NY metro area.  

For a lot of reasons I don't need to be in a stadium with 113,000 others to enjoy the Michigan football experience and I personally would much rather go to a game in South Brunswick than Columbus. 

huge

November 18th, 2012 at 9:12 PM ^

Sorry, but it's not about what the coaches give a rip about.... although I'm sure there are alums on the east coast that coaches keep in touch with.  David Brandon routinely speaks at alum organizations around the country.... and coincidentally 65-70% of donations come in during football season.

I'm sure it's similar for other BIG schools. 

I would be happy with a Big Ten with only 10 midwestern schools,  a real Pac 10 and Big 8, but that time is past.

chewieblue

November 18th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^

This will not change the fact that people on the eastern seaboard by and large could give two shits about college sports.  Rutgers draws 40k a game because most of their season, they are competing with the Yankees, Giants and Rangers for media time.  B1G does not change that.

Sambojangles

November 18th, 2012 at 10:23 PM ^

Everyone on this board has some serious reading comprehension issue. The last paragraph of the OP pretty clearly states that he is taking expansion as a given, and that Rutgers is not as bad a choice as you might think assuming the Big Ten is going to expand somewhere.

Also, everyone who is against Maryland and Rutgers seems to have no vision for what could change. They assume that what those schools are now is what they will be forever. I believe that they have a very good chance to improve with the additional money and attention they will receive from joining the B1G. They can use the BTN money to upgrade facilities, pay coaches, etc. They can recruit better by promising nationally-televised games against Michigan and Nebraska. 

As for fan support, attendance, and TV ratings, they obviously have room for improvement, and will improve, possibly significantly, with a move to a more prestigious conference. Remember Rutgers was very bad for very long. Maybe their current run of success will spawn more and more fans. Maryland too might grow its own brand with the help of B1G attention.

VCavman24

November 18th, 2012 at 11:42 PM ^

I am greatly opposed to this. Maryland and Rutgers may touch Pennsylvania, but are nowhere in the vicinity of the Big Ten Conference. Additionally, these teams produce pitiful attendance at football games and have lackluster universities in academic reference. Already Michigan only plays teams in the Leaders Division (not Ohio State) only twice every five years. More teams and Michigan will play these teams even less frequently. This is a terrible idea driven by money. I urge everyone to email all of the people listed below and tell them not to allow this. All of these people are regents or presidents for all of the Big Ten schools as well as Rutgers and Maryland.



They are not organized by school, rather one long list so a person can easily copy and paste.







[email protected]



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "anthony evers" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; "tracyhribar regent" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "vasquez josef" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "ruth harkin" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; "miles david w" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]



[email protected]



[email protected]



[email protected]; [email protected];



"william cast md" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "william strong" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]



[email protected]



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



"gordon gee" <[email protected]>



"brian hicks" <[email protected]>; "horn 5" <[email protected]>



"paul silvis" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "marianne alexander" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; "ken frazier" <[email protected]>; "karen peetz" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

STW P. Brabbs

November 19th, 2012 at 12:11 AM ^

But I've got work to do.  So I'll just address one point: given that Maryland and New Jersey are becoming football hotbeds, why the fuck does it make sense to give a leg up to two competitors for recruits out there?  

It really fucking pisses me off that right when we get the coach that looked to bring Michigan to a level of prominence it hadn't enjoyed for a long time, college football itself is changing for the shittier at an ever-accelerated rate.  

Fuck.

Alright, one more:  why does it make sense to add teams with attendance levels that are around equal to the bottom-dwelling teams we already have?  Why does adding two mediocre-at-best teams help to improve a conference?  If the argument was trading Maryland and Rutgers for Indiana and Minnesota, these points might make sense.  I fail to see why a bigger pile of steaming mediocrity is unquestionably better than what we have.

Brodie

November 19th, 2012 at 2:26 AM ^

I think the honest answer would be that circumstances changed after we passed on Mizzou and failed to land Notre Dame and something has spooked Jim Delaney and co into thinking they need to do this. 

I don't know why people are overreacting... how is college football getting "shittier"? I'm sure people thought the same thing when we stopped playing effing Case-Western and the Southern Iowa Flight School annually. Shit changes, it was always going to change eventually and we need to just get over it. We're still Michigan (fergodssakes), we still play football. And if you don't want to watch us do it against Maryland then fuck off and let the rest of us do it in peace. 

STW P. Brabbs

November 19th, 2012 at 9:12 AM ^

 

Yes, all is change.  You are very wise.  Any change should be accepted or embraced, because things CHANGE, man.  

So Delaney got 'spooked'?  You might be right.  But I think he's an idiot if he did.  We're already lined up just fine with the impending playoff system, so why does it make any sense to add mediocre teams now?  You might be accurately explaining their logic, or you might not.  But explaining what they're thinking doesn't make it not stupid.

Also, I'll watch Michigan play those teams and hope we grind them into the fucking ground and go for two on every touchdown.  I might watch OSU play those teams and actually want to see them win for the first time in my life.  

So if you establish false premises for the sake of your argument and put words into people's mouths about watching Michigan play whatever shitty buttsteak teams join the Big Ten, you can pretty much fuck off too.

STW P. Brabbs

November 19th, 2012 at 9:27 AM ^

I've been a bit ... crabby about this bombshell for the past 8 hours or so. I realize that Maryland and Rutgers are perfectly respectable, mediocre college football teams.  They are also perfectly respectable, middle-of-the-pack state universities.  

As such, they are not at all worth turning what's already a bit awkward at 12 teams into something that will essentially stop being a conference as it had been known prior to the last couple of years.  

The only way this won't completely suck is if UM, OSU, (and MSU, but that's going to happen no matter what) end up in the same division.  Otherwise we're going to continue to be fucked in our division by having to play one of the two best teams in the conference every year.  And the UM-OSU game is going to be further downgraded in terms of its importance to the conference title.  

If I had any faith that Delaney and the B1G presidents would put OSU and UM in the same division, these additions might even be worth the trouble.  I'd just consider our division to be the conference.  But I'm about 98% sure that won't happen, which makes this a really annoying fucking idea.

michlaxref

November 19th, 2012 at 12:42 AM ^

Another case for Rutgers is they already play Men's Lacrosse.  Conference's need 6 schools playing Lacrosse for that conference to get an automatic qualifier into the National Championship tournament.  We've been wondering which B1G schools would add lacrosse.  Forget that.  Adding schools that already play is genius.  Maryland is a power and Rugers is no slouch.  So it's not like we wouldn't have good competition

So with Rutgers and Maryland, we'd be at five.  Next?

 

WolvinLA2

November 20th, 2012 at 12:04 AM ^

Conventional wisdom would suggest NW (they have a women's team) or MSU (strongest club team, used to have a D1 team) but word on the street is that Minnesota is closest to making the jump.  Kinda makes sense too - they'd be the only program in Minnesota, a state that has surprisingly strong HS lacrosse.

michlaxref

November 20th, 2012 at 9:50 AM ^

Northwestern is logical but with already having a Women's team the Title IX hurdle is bigger.  But that is the most logical school for the lacrosse Demographic.  MSU alumni are still mad at their school and they do not have the alumni interet in the club like Michigan did.  At Minnesota the school is just starting to work with the club program. 

More expansion?  If the ACC has cracks then perhaps Virginia would want to join.  There are obviously better football schools but UVA would be my selfish pick for another Lacrosse team.

ziggolfer

November 19th, 2012 at 1:15 AM ^

We could give SMU a bid to the conference. With all the bad publicity they receive with their association to Craig James; they are hopeless. SMU did not kill those 5 hookers; it was Craig James

#rememberthe5

Brodie

November 19th, 2012 at 2:20 AM ^

By the next census, I'd expect NJ to have overtaken Michigan in population.

I think there's a bit of logic to the idea that we need contingencies as a conference for the dwindling population base in the Great Lakes states. Positioning ourselves as a conference that covers the northeastern quadrant of the country makes some sense in that regard. But I'd just as soon we do nothing, to be honest.

TESOE

November 19th, 2012 at 11:31 PM ^

setiment <> sentiment - pls fix.  Otherwise nice post.  You got me on this - bring on Rutgers.  This makes sense to me where Maryland in a football sense does not...

I remember the 1976 NCAA tourney... that was a great run for them.

Not as great as Michigan's but nice...

Paul Robeson played for Rutgers the intertubes tells me...

They fill their stadium... this could work.  

Maryland...well...hmm...they're good at Lacrosse.

They look tall too... if you squint and distort things a bit... maybe that could work as well.