Unscientific poll of the MGoFanbase.
What do you think about the possibility of the Big Ten adding Rutgers?
not realy, i mean i think we're good right now after adding Nebraska, atleast for now.
I would say that Notre Dame is an exception for just about everyone who is against further conference expansion.
Not particularly, no. We get enough Jersey Shore through sparty.
now thats a situation.
No. That is an East Coast school, not Midwest.
They bring nothing to the table but a TV market that doesn't care about college football.
Exactly. Which is why it will say alot how the Big Ten goes on this. There are a lot of dollars in adding the New York cable tv market, but no other good reasons for this.
No. We don't need to add anyone. Period.
Why would the B1G expand any more?
Keep in mind, only 2 scenarios exist for which expansion makes sense:
1. Other superconferences have formed and are getting 2 automatic BCS bids. The B1G needs to expand to get 2 auto bids as well
2. A member joins and ADDS revenue. Nebraska joining was a net gain for the conference. Now each school only gets 1/12th of the pie rather than 1/11th, but Neb brought in some addtional TV money AND brought a Title Game which brings in a ton of cash. Granted, that's a benefit of being the 12th member, but it's true. So, the only way Member 13 (and 14 etc.) would bring anything of value is if they can up the B1G's revenue by more than their slice of the pie.
I agree with you about adding 2 bids on the bcs. If you look at the other conf, everyone is adding and we could either add or not. I would like to see us add. What would the b1g do is it was the only major conf with 12 teams. I think we should add and be proactive. Unless we believe that the other majors will not add, which does not seem likely. As far as money goes, only ND and Texas will add to the money pie. ND will hold out and no one wants Texas and their attitude. No on rutgers.
Sorry I didn't include this before. Pasadenablue is right. None of the acc schools look possible, which is why I thought we should have added mizzou
Why does bigger have to equal better? And why would any conference get any bigger than they currently are? The ACC is at 14, the SEC is at 14, the Big Ten is at 12, the Pac 10 is at 12. My feeling is that all three other conferences would have to go to 16 before we should feel any pressure to get bigger just to get bigger. And clearly, there isn't 8 teams out there, let alone 12 that conferences want to add just to get to 16. There's Texas, ND, and Oklahoma available. That's it, and even Oklahoma is a stretch.
There's no threat to the Big Ten. If things really started to fall apart, we could pick off stronger schools to get to 16, but that is highly unlikely. The five conferences are going to go on for a good long while. We should stand pat unless ND wants to join a conference.
Plus, I don't get the automatic 2nd BCS bid argument. That second bid is only worth about $5M. Small potatoes compared to TV deals. If anything, the BCS is likely to add a sixth game, and we'll pretty much be guaranteed a 2nd team anyway.
If you wait, it might be too late. You have to be first, this way you can make the choice. Now if the acc and sec stayed at 12. No way should we expand. But they have moved, and force the issue. ND and texas are the 2 most likely and they would be good choices. But if they come, they will be on their terms. Other schools may not have the current revenue but it's about what they do in the future and not right now. The rumor was if ND would go anywhere it might the acc, which makes sense. Go there and they could be kings in that conf.
They add nothing to the conference. They don't really bring in the NYC market because there isn't really a following. They aren't at the academic standards of the B1G either. They are just a mediocre football and average basketball school. It's like adding another Minnesota, just further away from everyone.
The only reason to add Rutgers is if ND was on board and Time-Warner and Cablevision demanded a local team to put the BTN on the standard digital tier in NYC. Then it would be a battle between UConn or Rutgers for the last slot on the lifeboat. I don't see that happening for a number of reasons (ND might be enough, the Dolans might refuse to add the channel out of hand, etc). RU certainly wouldn't get BTN on basic digital by themselves. And their sports are mediocre across the board, but...
Rutgers is a quite good graduate institution. AAU member, excellent across most of the humanities and social sciences (because they can use the lure of living in NYC to attract established faculty). It has a similar hospital issue as Nebraska, where medical grants aren't counted toward overall research. Not sure how its hard sciences are regarded. Their undergrad is less well thought of, but graduate education is all the CIC is concerned with anyway.
No. I think only big time schools should be added. Penn State and Nebraska have been very good additions. As another poster above said, ND would be on par with other B1G schools atheletically and academically. Rutgers just isn't in that category.
Simple as that.
Nope, unless we can trade Indiana for them.
No, I really don't see what they'd bring to the table other than bad sports and no real brand at all.
No, Rutgers is just another hungry mouth to feed.
Sure. Their rich football and basketball traditions along with high academic standards brings a lot...oh wait..NO!
I'm born an raised in NJ and have been to several Rutgers games. While there is passion, the experience ia akin to Ryan Field. There is something to say about adding some East Coast viewer base to the B1G beyond Penn State but I truly think they'd be a perennial B1G doormat team which makes me say PASS.
But then you need another team to balance out the divisions. Rutgers? I don't know. Doesn't seem like they bring much in terms of competitiveness in football or bball. Do they really have that big of a following? Do they bring in an all important TV market? Some teams in heavily populated areas don't really have a big following. If we did get ND I would like to see Kansas. Makes sense geographically now with Neb and they bring an elite bball program. But again TV markets? No, a couple hundred people live in Kansas.
If the B1G feels a nend to get to 14-16 teams we don't need for them all to be conference championship contenders.
I would not want Rutgers to be the next team in, but if we are talking a 14-16 team league, sure, why not? They are basically a state school, good academics, a middling sports team, but add a decent market (even if most people don't watch them there). But simply getting NJ and some NY viewers to get Big 10 network itself would probably pay off. Rutgers probably would be a Purdue level team competitively, but I don't have a huge problem with adding a team like that. And getting more recruiting impact into NYC, NJ, etc can't hurt.
Not a better program than half of the Big Ten.
Has less of a footprint in the NY/NJ area than Michigan or ND (my unscientific guess)
Weak in basketball
Best "stretch" of the last 20 years lasted one year
The only reason anyone ever brings them up is they fit Big Ten academics perfectly. But based on location and athletics, they just don't make sense.
for the first time, it was surprising. For sports and academics - no. THey are not a good fit. Really shows that they are even being considered just becasue of their "market." Fastest way to compromise the conference is to let a school in like that.
Maybe you should ask Texas or Oklahoma fans if they want a school like West Virginia (lousy academics, way far away and hard to get to, no natural or historic rivalries) in their conference.... not like that would EVER happen, right?
I'm going to UT for grad school. I think getting WVU is great (assuming that the best course of action is for the Big 12 to survive). The Big 12 has horrible academics overall: now that A&M has left, the only good school left in the conference is UT. The Big 12 has generally been UT, OU, and everyone else (although Oklahoma State is currently surging), WVU would probably be a high-tier team within the conference. The only downside is that it's far away, but I think that the upside far outweighs the downside.
No. Has nothing in common and brings nothing to the table. It's a mediocre commuter-school with mediocre teams, mediocre academics, and a weak fan base.
The only schools east of the Rockies that are fiscally, athletically, and academically "worth" adding are:
1) Notre Dame
1) North Carolina
3) Georgia Tech
None of those are gonna happen. Move along.
I don't want the B1G to add any teams. If the conference absolutely had to add 4 teams, I would ideally add ND, Pitt, Missouri, and Iowa St. This would maintain the conference's regional identity and hold travel costs down.
Greg Schiano had his chance at the Big Ten and leading a great program. He doesn't get another shot.
I don't see how they bring any athletic value at all.
i think the prevailing opinion seems to be no
Maybe the better question is, who would you consider as expansion teams to make it to 14 or 16?
A few thoughts: ND (obviously), Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers, or any of the Big 12 teams?
No, we have enough teams that dress in red in white already in the B10.
To me, the only school that makes total sense is ND. Rutgers falls into "meh" category with about a dozen other schools.
The B1G has twelve teams required for a football playoff game.
Even if ND expressed an interst in joining the B1G, there is no need to expand unless there is a massive nationwide conference realignment.
kind of like the one happening now?
The only expansion I want to see from the B1G is Notre Dame and another team. If Rutgers is the other team, so be it.
Honestly i agree i with most of the mgousers here...i dont believe Rugters will EVER join our conference...their simply not that prestiges
Any expansion should strengthen the conference - not water it down. Raiding the big least is not the answer.
The U of Chicago needs to re-start varsity sports. They would be a great fit academically and geographically.
Still, it would be nice to give Greg Schiano a good ass kicking year in and year out.