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.
Just curious, when does everyone think all of this craze started? When the Pac10 mentioned 16-team conferences? When the B1G decided to look for a 12th team? When the BTN was created and shown to be a good idea? When the SEC went to 12 teams and a championship game? I was thinking about it on the way home the other day and I lean toward the BTN being the starting point.
I think two things caused the current craze:
- The BTN giving the B1G the chops to add a 12th team worth adding.
- The LHN destabilizing the Big 12.
That was an explosive combination. Minus the LHN, most of the Big 12 probably would've stayed intact even if the Big Ten had grabbed a Mizzou or a Nebraska. The BTN was the real catalyst, though, IMO. It showed other conferences the power of creative TV thinking, and then the power of expanding your footprint to expand your revenue. The BTN caused a couple pebbles to roll down the mountainside; the LHN loosened up the rocks.
I think Pitt and ND make the most sense.
The best bet is to definitely keep at 12 teams. If we were to add, I'd add Notre Dame and Pittsburgh. Some other teams I'd prefer the Big Ten to invite before Rutgers: Missouri, Boston College, Marquette (which doesn't even have a football team), Colorado, Boise State, Akron
Marquette would be good because the B1G would still be able to have a 12-team football conference, and it would create a good Marquette-Wisconsin rivalry. BUT I would hate to see another team in the B1G have colors really similar to the maize and blue
Not really a fan of the idea. First, it's a geographic outlier and don't know how much of the NYC/NJ market you'll really get with such a move. Second, I really do think the B1G is OK where it is right now without further expansion. We're still in a liquid conference and it competes well enough on its own even with realignments both occurring and looming in other conferences.
Rutgers wouldn't be in my top 15 schools to add to the conference. Not a chance.
Just not an elite enough university or athletic department
Other than ND, I don't see any reason to expand. Just because the PAC>10 want(ed)(s?) to go to some outlandish number doesn't mean everyone should do so. I have a question, though: There seems to be a disagreement on here about Rutgers academics. My sense is that it's mediocre, but I claim no real knowledge. Any numbers to back up one way or another? As far as market, NYC is a huge market, obviously, but it isn't like you see Rutgers jerseys all over Manhattan. Now if we could sell Michigan jerseys in NYC...
What major city supports a college team though? Do people in Boston overwhelmingly support BC football? Does Atlanta blindly support GaTech?
What you really get is alumni, but their loyalties are already claimed.
Detroit is pretty good about supporting college sports (predominantly U-M but also MSU).
Locals are more receptive to college football in the detroit metro, primarily because the disparity of success between U of M and the Lions. I can agree with that, but I mean, I was talking about the LA's, Miami's, Chicago's... I guess if you have to carve out the college crowds, New York is less of a college town, but by how much, really?
On the other hand, the crowds in actual college towns like Gainesville don't all come from Gainesville.
Chicago was a big ND town back in the day. My sense has always been that if they actually "return to glory", Chicago will be buying all of the most disgustingly green/blue and gold shit you can imagine. The Sun Times does a lot of ND coverage, as do the local suburban papers and talk radio.
Off wikipedia, and given these rankings are not great measures of grad programs especially, but in terms of research and grad studies (again, the only thing the CIC really cares about...
The Top American Research Universities an annual statistical report by The Center at the University of Florida ranks Rutgers 39th....
Eleven of Rutgers' graduate departments are ranked by the National Research Council in the top 25 among all universities: Philosophy (2nd), Geology Ranked 9th Nationally based on NSF funding 9th, Geography (13th), Statistics (17th), English (17th), Mathematics (19th), Art History (20th), Physics (20th), History (20th) Comparative Literature (22nd), French (22nd), and Materials Science Engineering (25th)....
According to U.S. News & World Report, in the top 25 among all universities: Food Science (2nd), Library Science (6th), Drama/Theater (12th), Mathematics (16th), English (18th), History (19th, with the subspecialty of African-American History ranked 4th and Women's History ranked 1st), Applied Mathematics (21st) and Physics (24th). Also in the 2006 U.S. News & World Report ranking of Computer Science Ph.D. programs, Rutgers was ranked 29th....
And it's an AAU member. IMO, it's a solid research institution. Not great, but would be around the low-middle of the CIC.
This doesn't, however, mean that they would be a great addition.
Good info. We let Nebraska in, and Rutgers seems at least as qualified, so academics wouldn't be an issue, but I still think no reason to add them unless it was required in order to nab ND.
With the caveat that I don't know how CIC presidents feel about counting research grants to off campus medical schools (and with the caveat that this drags Rutgers research productivity by a significant amount) they would be third to last in the current CIC spending hierarchy, ahead of only Nebraska and IU, two other schools with off-campus medical schools.
i live in the ny metro area, which means i could attend a game every couple years. that would be AWESOME!
i know, i know, it's selfish of me because i completely agree with the reasons for not having rutgers in the B1G. if i lived elsewhere, i would be totally up in arms with pitchforks and torches.
No. If ND comes we can poach an ACC team to be our 14th. With our currently schools plus the ND fanbase, the BTN would produce an insane level of profit. That would give us the ability to lure an ACC school or Missouri onboard.
Still think the ACC teams are going nowhere. If ND were to come aboard, I say go after Missouri. Stealing a team from the SEC, where Missouri will be, would be awesome, and we already know Missouri has the hots for the Big Ten real bad.
It depends on what you want out of your 14th team I think. As is stands we're solid on football. Assuming #13 is ND, B1G hockey and basketball get a boost. At that point consider that #14 is being brought along more for the CiC benefits. Figure out who brings in the most billions in grant money and go get them. If they have middle of the road athletics it's okay because they can work to built them up overtime with BTN money.
ND and UT are the only two teams that really add anything on the sports revenue side. For #14 I assume we go shopping for a basketball program or the school with the most research funding. The ACC has some likely candidates in those areas.
No way jose
No reason to really expand right now as far as I'm concerned
Notre Dame YES
No, Get Mizzou and Oklahoma. F Notre Dame, and then poach Syracuse and Pitt from the ACC. That would essentially tell the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and ND that they are the B1G's bitc*es
Rutgers ranges from "suck" to "epic suck" when it comes to everything.
Why does everybody keep mentioning Pitt? They're gone to the ACC. During this whole process I can hear a Garmin device telling College Football "turn back, you are off course, there may be no way back" to a sane alignment of conferences.
Short of the BCS actually granting two autobids to a "bigger" conference, I don't see the B1G expanding either, especially with Pitt off the table. ND and Pitt would have been ideal ... They obviously never wanted KU or Mizzou although I think those four would have made a sweet B1G 16.
As it goes now, especially if dogs and cats continue sleeping together and WVU goes to the Big XII and Mizzou to the SEC, I think the best we can hope for are five "major" conferences with 10-14 teams and the sixth auto-bid goes to the champion of the MWC-Big East-CUSA unholy alliance that could stretch from Hawaii to UConn.
Howeva ... if by whatever factor, conferences are "forced" to expand to 16 teams there will be a bloody scrum to tear apart the remains of the Big XII (sorry ... it's Halloween). That's where the B1G probably knows it's well positioned to grab KU, KSU, ISU and ND if they really need to, so for now they're standing pat.
But if they B1G would have been pro-active like the ACC, they could be positioned with Pitt and Missouri with a good shot, subsequently, at ND and Kansas. Again ... Pitt going to the ACC is going to make further expansion for the B1G a slippery slope.
Oh ... and to address the OP's question. Rutgers no.
The schedule is getting tough, and teams with National Championship aspirations can always use another tomato can in their conference. They would be a great break between, for example, Nebraska and Ohio.
So I've been reading all of this discussion of conference realignment, and people sometimes say "We shouldn't add this school, they've got terrible academics". What sort of difference does it make academically that two schools are in the same football conference? Why do we care about that? Are schools in the same football conference more likely to collaborate academically?
Also, why do people have any particular loyalty to a conference? I mean, I guess you definitely want to be in a BCS conference for sure, I get that totally. You'd also like to be in a conference where if you win out, you go to the national championship. But past that, when people chant S-E-C, what are they celebrating? Are they celebrating their strength of schedule?
Are schools in the same football conference more likely to collaborate academically?
Yes they are, Sherlock. Look up the CIC. Also, what did you think the Ivy League was if not an athletic conference?
No, We already have Northwestern and Indiana.
They add nothing but another body.
Rutgers? Why? No. Not a great get.
Notre Dame? Who says that they want to be part of our conference? They're a much, much better fit in the ACC when it comes to the type of school and program they are. As is Pitt.
Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC to join the Big Ten after we essentially kicked them in the 'nads last year by ignoring them and going with Nebraska.
Oklahoma would be fun for football, but bad for academics. Texas is often mentioned, but we know what they are.
There are no other schools worth thinking about. The B1G should stand pat, and I think it will.
How many *great* programs do we need in the conference?
If we were to add Notre Dame we would have FIVE of the top ten programs in terms of winning percentage: 1 UM, 2 ND, 5 OSU, 8 NU, 10 PSU.
I guess I'm just not as concerned with watering down the competition as others seem to be. Add a geographical, cultural, and academic ft that is *decent* at football and has a *decently* sized fanbase and stadium and I'll be happy (provided Notre Dame is involved).
I would rather have Toledo in the big 10 than Rutgers. Rutgers is so god awfully terrible that I want to rip my hair out every time someone suggests this.
No, they would give the B1G some good East Coast exposure, but I dont think its worth it
All reports from the East Coast read that everyone who actually cares about college sports are Big Ten and SEC alumni. The only people who care about Rutgers are Rutgers students. This is probably because they suck balls and are located in New Jersey.
We're not going to get more of the New York market by expansion; they already have BTN out there.
BTN's not on the basic digital tier for either of the big cable providers (Time-Warner or Cablevision) in NYC. It is for FIOS, but that's a small share of the market. It's on the sports tier in both systems. Moving up to basic digital in NYC would mean a shit ton of revenue for the BTN.
However, it's doubtful that Rutgers would lead either system to move BTN to basic digital.
And to hell with ND, while I'm at it .
I haven't been there in a few years, but when the football team was decent their fans were far worse than any couch burning/cooler pooping that is regularly mocked here. They aren't an asset to the Big10 and threaten the reputation of the Conference... in ten years they could be Indiana.
And to hell with ND, while I'm at it .
And to hell with ND, while I'm at it .
No. They have very little fan base even in their home state because of how god awful they are... People in the new york/new jersey area just don't care about college football because the local teams are so bad.
Yes, but only if we decide to expand to 14 or 16 teams.
Is this Rutgers WITH or WITHOUT Notre Dame?
I don't add anyone else unless I can add Notre Dame first. As much as I hate them athletically. They're the only school that makes sense money wise and geographically.
Here are some actual numbers about number of fans and each school's following. Some takeaways:
Just 14% of NYC market follows college football (compared to 41% in Atlanta, the heart of SEC country). However, only 19% of the Chicago market (the heart of the Big Ten market), follows college football, which is actually lower than the Philadelphia market, which stands at 20%.
Of the college football fans in NYC, RUTGERS BEATS EVERY SCHOOL BY A SIGNIFICANT RATIO.
1. Rutgers: 20.9%
2. Notre Dame: 9.2%
3. Penn State: 6.4%
4. Connecicut: 5.2%
5. MICHIGAN: 5.0%
6. Syracuse: 4.6%
These numbers debunk anyone who says that no one cares about Rutgers in the NYC market. Now, that doesn't mean we should add Rutgers, or that they would be a good fit culturally. Of course, if you really feel that way, just say you don't think Rutgers will be a good cultural fit. That's better than "No" or "I'd rather than 20 teams than Rutgers."
The numbers also debunk the myth that UConn or Syracuse would be better additions because they would capture a greater share of the NYC market. As the numbers indicate, Michigan actually captures a larger share than Syracuse and UConn is only slightly ahead of us.
Of course, the Big Ten doesn't have to try to capture the NYC market. The numbers aren't enough to admit Rutgers alone IMO, but if Notre Dame wants an east coast partner (they already have a significant east coast presence), adding Rutgers would capture 30% of the NYC market. Add Penn State and Michigan, and you have over 40% of the market. Add the remaining Big Ten teams, and you really start to make a dent. WIth Notre Dame, Penn State and Rutgers, you also shore up the Philadelphia market, which is the 4th largest in the country.
As an aside, JoePa has been advocating for years to add an east coast school to create a rivalry for them. He has specifically mentioned Rutgers more than a few times, and might try to threaten to leave for the ACC (with ND) if he doesn't get what he wants. If it comes to that, I don't think we can even think about losing Penn State (and ND) to the ACC. So if ND really has to join a conference and doesn't want to lower their standing in football (which is a near certainty if they join the ACC), adding Rutgers as the 14th team is a real possibility, as supported by the numbers.
Nooooo! They would be a horrible fit. Please no, i don't need another random school
I'm going to say sure why not? its just fun to say "rrrrrutgerrrrrs".
plus with all this talk of market share, what does a minnesota actually contribute (this is actually a honest question which i admittedly know nothing about)?
15th largest TV market in the country (http://www.sportstvjobs.com/resources/local-tv-market-sizes-dma.html), 28th largest fanbase in college football (http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/), and a decent amount of Wisconsin/Iowa/Michigan fans.
12 teams is great. See no need to expand.
In fact, ND, which is the best fit, I would only take if Mizzou or Iowa State joined the Big 10.
I hate this "Market" argument. I think being more regional (midwest) is better than expanding out of our region, no matter the "market" numbers.
The reason I said "yes" to Rutgers earlier (if the B1G decides to expand) has as much or more to do with academics than football. The B1G has, by a significant margin, the best academic reputation of all the major conferences. Bringing in a school with a marginal or weak academic reputation blurs the distinction we have as excelling in academics as well as athletics. A weak football team is a hell of a lot easier to improve than a weak academic reputation, and besides, we already have Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Ohio State *cough, cough* to carry the banner for excellence in football.
But, I'm happy with the conference as is, and I see no need to add anybody.
as TCU does in the Big East.
We don't need Snookie and Situations affiliated with the B1G. Notre Dame sure, some other place with a rich football tradition sure, but please no Rutgers. We already have enough crappy teams or good teams with bad culture in the B1G.