Recruiting and the Rutgers Addition
I know, God knows, how much agnst there was (and still is) regarding the addition of Rutgers. But, there was a good article recently that highlighted some of the good. Not to mention I get to hit Mahattan and Brooklyn when I road trip!
| Class | New Jersey blue chips who signed with Rutgers | Those who signed with other Big Ten schools | Those who signed to conferences besides Rutgers' |
| 2011 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 2012 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| 2013 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Total before expansion | 8 (27.6%) | 7 (24.1%) | 14 (48.3%) |
| 2014 | 0 | 6 | 4 |
| 2015 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| 2016 | 0 | 7 | 1 |
| Total after expansion | Down to 0 | Up to 17 (68%) | Down to 8 (32%) |
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2016/3/21/11247268/…
But its alot easier to leave home for school, knowing your friends and family with have at least two oppurtunities to see you play live when returning to face the local school.
Of course that won't happen if you sign with a team in the west.
Wisconsin: "Now you're just somebody that I used to know."
But New Jersey cable subscribers now get the BTN (so they can at least watch the games on TV), whereas before Rutgers joined most didn't.
I have used NJ recruiting as a defense for having Rutgers in the league on numerous occasions. My other defense: it's good to have a few "auto-wins" or "tomato cans" on the schedule. Michigan has not one, but two bona fide "rivalry games" in addition to three or four other Big Ten teams who seem to think Michigan is a "rivalry game."
When PSU makes it all the way back, the Big Ten East Division may be the toughest division in football. It's nice to have Rutgers as a brief respite.
And Michigan is 1-1 vs the Rutgers Tomato Cans
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
That 68% is us, Baby!.
Correlation does not equal causation.
The increase in New Jersey kids signing with the Big Ten coincides with Harbaugh's emphasis on national recruiting and Ohio State's rise in recruiting.
Also, when you narrow it to "blue chippers," you are talking about less than a dozen kids per year, each with their own circumstances. That is such a small sample size that you cannot possibly attribute it to any given factor.
The Rutgers addition was still bad. It may give us more exposure to the East Coast, but it's still bad.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I didn't say that.
I said that there were factors that coincided with Rutgers' addition that also helped with recruiting and that the article draws on a small pool of data.Add it all up and you cannot make a conclusion one way or the other about the impact of Rutgers' addition to the B1G.
The article itself admits there is sample size problem.
You're right of course, but I think common sense and such a strong coorelation and finally, the PSU effect speak to the likelyhood of causation.
When PSU joined, they thought the increased midwest exposure to PSU would bring all the recruits in, when in fact the inverse (converse?) happened. In stead, there were 10 other programs selling Penn kids on being able to play local and attend those new schools.
The bottom line is, if the state (Penn, NJ, OH, IL) has excess talent it will leave the state for schools that have talent deficiencies (MI, WI, MN, IN) and those schools that inhabit them (M, MSU, IU, PU, Minn).
It's like current in parallel circuits: by adding Rutgers the B10 effectivly lowered the resistance in the NJ-to-B10 footprint wire.
Dang! Someone was awake in the Circuits class.
+ 100 for bringing in STEM in a Football discussion involving Rutgers.
The small sample size was addressed in the article. I however believe in this case " that correlation does not equal causation" will with additional date prove that correlation does indeed support causation.
The B1G didn't add Rutgers, just so the football teams could pick up a few more good players. They did it because they thought it would add more revenue to the coffers. Has it? Don't know but I didn't like the addition when it happened and I still don't like it today.
Personally, I don't care what the Big Ten's own rationale was. If it's good for Michigan, I'll take it.
Rutgers been berry berry good for Michigan recruiting.
to be MI east. Plus the number one college team fan base of all of lower Manhattan and a good portion of Brooklyn is... Michigan (per the Wall Street Journal). In addition it will help UofM ranking academically. NJ has more students that leave the state to go to college than any other state, and they have the means to pay out of state tution for Michigan. So, Rutgers addition helps Michigan both on and off the field.
Yes, this is important to remember. But Peppers was a Michigan fan all his life, so that definitely helped.
Thanks to Rutgers for not hiring Chris Partridge.
According to a person familiar with the team's plans, Rutgers coach Kyle Flood rescinded an offer for Partridge to join the staff in a recruiting capacity. The person, who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the negotiation, said Rutgers had major concerns with how Partridge was handling the process after news broke Sunday that he was joining the Scarlet Knights' staff. The person said of equal concern was the negative effect Partridge's hiring might've had on Rutgers' ability to recruit from other top New Jersey high school programs.
"He's a good coach, but he also ticked off a lot of people," said Mike Farrell, a national recruiting analyst for Rivals.com. "Other coaches weren't overly thrilled with Paramus Catholic becoming a North Jersey power. So you've got a guy who's polarizing at Rutgers now, and is that going to help with [rival Don] Bosco [Prep]? I don't know. It might hurt."
So, if I understand this correctly, we benefitted just because Flood's staff was concerned that Partridge may be a divisive figure in local circles? How gracious of the football program to choose to remain non-controversial for the benefit of its conference brethren.
it helps that we don't really CARE if he only gets us SOME top guys from NJ. If he rubs some other NJ guys the wrong way, who cares?
Rutgers can't afford that. They have to be able to go after ALL NJ talent. We can afford to have a guy who some NJ high schools don't love, as long as some others (aka welcome Rashan Gary) do.
March 21st, 2016 at 10:48 PM ^
The Big Ten is now the "regular" game on NJ TV. I know, ALL games get on TV if you are a hard-core sports fan, but the Big Ten game takes priority there now, and probably a lot more homes have BTN too..
That DOES make a difference to kids. They want their friends and family to see them play, even if they can't come to the games. And they get to watch Michigan play every week and get excited about playing here.
Perfect storm in play IMO. Adding Rutgers to the BIG helped, but I think getting more NJ recruits to the Big10 has resulted from there being 14 teams now v. 11, an exodus of football talent at UCONN and BC, and also NJ prep schools getting more talented athletes than before by the nature of HS sports/recruiting being more covered by media.
The exodus at UCONN was mostly the result of Edsall leaving and Pasqualoni being a disaster. BC has pretty much been the same all along - hit or miss with the 2-3 stars they can bring in - lately they just haven't hit much. NJ prep schools have had top talent for a long time. It just wasn't coming to the BIG, other than I suppose PSU.
Harbaugh is probably the biggest single factor at this point.
Schiano leaving Rutgers in 2012 had a lot to do with their drop-off.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
There's probably a Zimmerman's in Paramus by this time. We're the local NJ team now.
You can buy Michigan jerseys in Paramus. Times are a-changin'!
No Way.