OT: Remember to Say Thanks to Jim Delany (Rutgers Insider)
An interesting read* from the Rutger's perspective surrounding the current chaos in the Big XII regarding their desicion of whether to expand or not and a look back at how Rutgers itself could have easily been one of the teams HOPING to join the dysfunction versus being a member of the B1G (and all the accompanying benefits).
"So, a quiet evening a couple of days ago, I was reading the latest article on the rumors about whether or not the Big XII was going to expand and if so, who were the likely candidates. As I was reading the different ideas of who would be invited to join, how it will help or hurt the conference, and the instability it may create in other conferences, I suddenly realized- hey, that was us just a few years ago!
Remember? Back just five years ago, when the Big East began
to implode when Pittsburgh and Syracuse announced their
departure for the ACC. Then TCU spurned the Big East to
join the Big XII, quickly followed by the exit of West
Virginia leaving for the Big XII. It was an ugly time or
Rutgers fans. What will happen? Where will we end up?
Then, just 3 ½ years ago, we received the biggest gift the
school had received since Colonel Rutgers donated the money
to revive the college back in the 1820s. Jim Delany, New Jersey
native and Big Ten Commissioner came calling with an invite
to the Big Ten conference."
http://www.onthebanks.com/2016/5/4/11594432/remember-to-say-thanks-to-j…
So, I STILL hate that they rushed the field on their first win against us in NJ (Uggg) and them in general... but a least maybe I understand them a bit more.
* (I am in an altered state)
Of course Rutgers fans are grateful for him.
They don't belong in this conference. Just the way they obnoxiously plaster the B1G logo everywhere and mention it in ad campaigns as if it's something they won on the field of play tells you that they do not belong.
When your greatest athletic achievement is playing the first game in a sport 147 years ago, that about says it all.
While Maryland sucks in football, they've been pretty good in most other sports.
Rutgers is garbage to mediocre at everything other than women's soccer. That's it.
Rutgers is that family of slobs that moved in a couple doors down that lets everything go around their house and is lowering the property value for the neighborhood.
and when can I expect them?
I'll trim your shrubs, MP.
I can smell your desperation from here.
Mow the lawn= Fire asshat Kyle Flood and hire Chris Ash, who I think is a pretty good coach.
Trim their hedges= Fire dipshit Eddie Jordan and hiring someone who i don't know, but is almost definitely not Mike Rice wearing lifted shoes and a fake identity is a decent move.
(Both are gonna be fired in 4 years)
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I'm simply saying bitching about Rutgers being in the B1G is futile. It's a gig that has run its course. A better Rutgers is (as awful as it sounds) better for us as it raises the conferences SOS.
How does everyone seem to forget that Michigan was about to win that game against Rutgers but some crazy way that first down by Darboh wasn't given. Yes I know barely squeking by Rutgers is still embaressing but they should have won.
That's why we beat them by 33 points last year.
Leave nothing to chance.
National Champions.... VIRGINIA TECH!!
Do you not remember the last time we played them which was last year (2015) and we beat them 49-16? Harbaugh went for two after they were celebrating being down 19 at half.
You grow up.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
a Gruffalo?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
How can you even tell that they let "...everything go around their house"?
You completely miss the point. Delaney wanted Rutgers solely for the regional TV market its presence generated. When you do your analysis, forget for the short term anything other than the regional viewership Rutgers' presence creates for the B1G. The problem Delaney or his successor will face by Rutgers' presence in the B1G is the changing viewership model.
I would much rather have had schools like Pitt or Missouri in the B1G, but looking strictly from a dollars and cents perspective, they didn't add much in terms of market share,
The school that would be huge would be ND because of its large national fan base, although ND doesn't meet the B1G's model of research-based institutions.
That point being making decisions from a dollars and cents perspective often erodes (or destroys) things in this fine world valued through tradition and emotion.
Money isn't everything, in fact it can be quite toxic when overriding the heart. Marrying for it is generally sub-optimal at best; Rutgers is a classic example.
Money may not be everything, but it does help to finance your athletic department. Making money for the B1G is about the only thing Delaney got very right.
Raise the number of teams to 20 in the B1G and three other conferences and restore the old Big Ten in one division and everyone else in the other. Frankly, in football, Rutgers is no worse than some of the non-conference teams we play, like Delaware State.
Michigan's athletic department has been financed just fine for quite some time now, adequate resources exist to confidently maintain it's best product: passion and learning for all humanity.
So, why exactly do we need 20 teams (or 14 most relevantly)? What is there to gain? What is there to lose? I think the risk and cost/benefit landscape of more, more, more is extremely sketchy at best when dealing with matters of the heart. Priceless is priceless right up until it's gone, then it's worthless.
Of all people we should understand this simple truth.
First, I'd rather see the B1G fire Delaney and hire someone competent. Then boot Rutgers and Penn State out and NOT replace them.
As for the other conferences, F them! If they want >12 members and do it by including schools like Cinci, that's their problem.
Oh, and ND? If they don't want to play in a conference like everybody else does, then ban them from the CFP. Tired of the tail wagging the dog.
WD, how do you really feel?
PS: Thanks for the laugh
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Rutgers has 4 Big Ten football wins total over 3 schools since joining (4-12). Indiana x2, Maryland, and Michigan. And I'm not sure you should even count Maryland as they were in their inaugural Big Ten season as well. Most embarrassing loss of the Brady Hoke era. I guess the home loss to Maryland & Edsall was pretty bad too.
Who thought they would be better than that right away? They're in a killer division. Purdue has gone 2-14 vs a far easier conference schedule.
Rutgers at least has potential. They hired a coach with some promise. They are stepping up their recruiting. They should be at least decent if they can hold us off for more local talent. They've been playing with a roster recruited to play in the Big East. It's kind of silly to judge a long term move based on various factors by their immediate results on the football field.
We're getting Rutgers at a big discount. In their first season, the full revenue share for schools like Purdue was $32 million. Rutgers got less than $10 million. They won't receive a full share until 2021.
Where Rutgers has been an embarrassment is with the turmoil in their AD and on the basketball court. They need to fix those issues.
For an expansion candidate, 4-12 is bad. Expansion is supposed to add quality to the conference. The standards have fallen with each round of expansion. PSU was a home run. Nebraska was a pretty close to the same. Maryland was a double, but Rutgers is a foul pop-up. Yes, we are getting Rutgers at a discount, but does that mean it is worth the investment? We also got Nebraska at a discount, but I think in that case, it was worth it.
And you can't compare Rutgers to Purdue. Purdue is already here; there is no relegation in the Big Ten or they would be in trouble. Honest question: if Purdue did not have a history in the Big Ten, how many of the other Power 5 conferences (or possibly even the Big Ten) come calling for them?
Obviously, if their goal was to add strong football teams, they would have gone in a completely different direction. I'm only pointing out that Rutgers was no worse than reasonable expectations and they are not the dregs of Big ten football that they are sometimes portrayed as.
There is a downside to continuing expansion in the same way we started with Penn State and Nebraska. If we had added Florida State and Virginia Tech or Miami instead, we get more interesting games right off the bat. But there are only so many wins to go around in the division and the conference. Would the Big Ten and its fans be happier if the Florida schools came in and dominated the league? Some of the schools would inevitably fall off. It would be harder to bounce back and their reputations will diminish. We're not getting extra playoff slots as compensation. The overall strength of the Big Ten would be higher, but would diminish somewhat over time.
No one would take Purdue today. Northwestern would be questionable too. We accept them for who they are. They're a big part of the tradition of the confrence. I agree that we should hold expansion schools to a higher standard. I just don't think that immediate results on the field are an important part of that.
I was not in favor of adding Rutgers and Maryland because I didn't want to add anyone. Of the available candidates kicked around at the time, I think they were reasonable choices.
Adding schools in excellent recruiting areas mean they have the potential to improve and they improve the recruiting base of the entire conference. Looking down the road, Rutgers and Maryland might both be better than a school like VT, but they won't threaten the existing schools for supremacy. Meanwhile, they are more than carrying their weight financially.
I understand the consternation with Rutgers being in the conference but it's sorta nice to have a gimme game on the schedule in our tough division.
I don't think adding Rutgers to the conference is what opened up the pipeline to New Jersey. It doesn't hurt, but I think many of those recruits would still be at Michigan if Rutgers were still in the AAC.
it's reasonable to assume that a lot of those recruits would have followed. Having them in the Big Ten does make a difference. Ask Nebraska how their recruiting in Texas fell off after they joined the Big Ten.
The ACC added 6 schools in the last 10 years or so and didn't touch Rutgers. I think that speaks for itself.
You can't compare Nebraska's Texas recruiting to Michigan in New Jersey. Nebraska was playing around 4 games a year in Texas and Oklahoma. Michigan plays one game in New Jersey every 2 years. And there are no other major conferences in New Jersey or even close to the state. The Big 12 and SEC are both right in the middle and neighboring Texas with powerhouse programs especially now with Texas A&M in the SEC & TCU added to the Big 12. Nebraska would have lost footing in Texas even if they had stayed in the Big 12 especially if their program continued to underachieve. Look what has happened to Oklahoma recruiting in Texas the last 5 years. The closest power programs to New Jersey were in the Big Ten before adding Rutgers. You can't compare New Jersey to Texas. Would adding UCF or Houston to the B1G open up a pipeline to Florida or Texas?
Why haven't we seen the same effect in Maryland/D.C.? Or Pennsylvania? Michigan has not had a large increase in players from those states. Did Utah and Colorado going to the Pac-12 make it any harder for Michigan to recruit there? Michigan has actually had an increase in recruiting in those states in the last couple years.