Joking about kicking Rutgers out

Submitted by maizerayz on September 23rd, 2018 at 3:50 AM

I know its long been fun to some folks to joke incessantly about kicking Rutgers out of the B1G, but is anyone else getting tired of it? Some of the people aren't joking, and it stops being funny after awhile. These days a lot of Michigan fans seem to sneak in a kick out Rutgers joke everywhere.

They've been our conference mates for about 5 years now, and New Jersey is an important recruiting ground, not just for athletes but students as well. And yes they've sucked on the field, and will continue to suck at least in the near future, but what else?

As far as I know, Rutgers hasn't covered up pedophile rapists for decades, haven't covered up doctors committing sexual assaults and rapes on hundreds of woman over decades, haven't prioritized football over wife beating assistant coaches, and haven't had players during practice after refusing medical aid. I'm talking about other Big Ten east teams btw.

I just feel we, as Michigan, should hold ourselves to a higher standard. A tightly knit Big Ten benefits everyone, and from the outside it looks really childish and arrogant to keep talking stuff like that.


Perkis-Size Me

September 23rd, 2018 at 8:06 AM ^

I’m not at joking about wanting them kicked out. I want them gone. Rutgers adds nothing of value to this conference from an athletic perspective, and they’re nothing special academically. Not bad, but not great either.

They seem to be incompetent in everything they do when they step onto any kind of field or court. But they happen to be located within an hour of one of the biggest cities in the world and Jim Delaney wants his NYC cable revenue. And while they don’t cover up child rape, their former football coach actively tried to persuade professors to change his player’s grades so they’d be eligible to play. Their former basketball coached spent his time throwing basketballs at his players and verbally abusing them in practice, and they’ve had two former, recent ADs who either helped cover up the situation, or was involved in a former scandal herself in which her entire volleyball team signed a petition saying they wanted her out.

Rutgers is like that idiotic, obnoxious teenager who can’t ever seem to do anything right, but he was the lucky shot of sperm that happened to be born into that stupidly wealthy family that spends its summers in the Hamptons and several weeks of the spring in Aspen, and the family always covers for him when he gets into trouble. So you know no matter what happens, no matter how low he sinks, it really won’t matter. He’ll be living large off the trust fund for the rest of his life. Just like no matter how low Rutgers sinks, they’re going to be riding high off of Big Ten revenue forever.

Red is Blue

September 23rd, 2018 at 8:13 AM ^

It wasn't all that long ago when Northwestern was Rutgersesque in their football performance.  In more recent years, NU has been very solid.  Programs can turn it around.

Perkis-Size Me

September 23rd, 2018 at 9:49 AM ^

When was the last time you remember Northwestern embarrassing itself off the field? Rutgers has a slew of off-field incidents with coaches and former athletic directors. Northwestern does not.

Northwestern may not have the best on-field reputation, but I don’t think they’ll ever make the mistake of destroying their reputation off of it. 


September 23rd, 2018 at 8:22 AM ^

Now, now...Rutgers has done a few things to warrant some of the jokes and criticism, and it isn't just their abysmal on-field performance in sports that aren't merely football (they are bad in a few others too). That, and as others mentioned, we are saddled with them because "footprint" and "print more cash", not because anyone who knew anything would have chosen Rutgers as a prime Big Ten expansion target. 


September 23rd, 2018 at 8:36 AM ^

Why does Rutgers have to be in the B1G for Michigan to recruit there? They were brought in to the conference for the new York cable TV market, a very, very poor return on investment.


September 23rd, 2018 at 8:46 AM ^

What's the joke?  Rutgers is terrible and should be kicked out.  They don't fit the big ten in any way other than a weak money grab for cable, a dying industry.  Their endowment is small and their sports are atrocious.  They just had 8 football players arrested for credit card fraud.  I guess that's better than covering up various forms of sexual assault and getting a kid killed, but still.  The only joke is this whiny assed thread.


September 23rd, 2018 at 8:47 AM ^

OP, I’m from Jers and almost all of my HS friends and fam went to RU. 

They don’t care about the jokes about their football team. Go to a game. Their tailgates are awesome and maybe 40% of the people don’t even go into the stadium. 

That said, don’t make fun of the academics. That will piss off RU fans ASAP 

The Mad Hatter

September 23rd, 2018 at 8:49 AM ^

My problem with Rutgers is that there was already a school full of jabroni, dude bro, chest waxing, date rapists in the Big 10. And that school is MSU. We didn't need two.

Also, the name of the conference should reflect the number of teams in it. 


September 23rd, 2018 at 9:17 AM ^

The only joke here is the one OP pulled on us - trying to make us think he cares about Rutgers.  Haha...  If he does, the joke is on him.

If there was ever a post that required down votes, this one is right there.

Hotel Putingrad

September 23rd, 2018 at 9:59 AM ^

The scandals aren't really a conference problem. They're a frightening lack of decent human beings problem.

I don't want PSU, Maryland, or Rutgers. It  should be a Midwestern conference. Period.


September 23rd, 2018 at 10:53 AM ^


That wasn't working out so well, as the Big Ten had about the same regard as the MAC (outside of the provincial footprint) in football. The conference was getting waxed in bowl games, and of course, Big Money cable comes along. Tail wags dog, Big Ten gets on board by expanding.

The problem isn't with the idea, because it is the 21st century. If we're on board, though with getting rid of what we message board guys deem as unworthy universities, there are about 5 B1G teams who've been in the conference for a long time who do nothing but suck. Get rid of them as well?

Hotel Putingrad

September 23rd, 2018 at 12:27 PM ^

Remind me again how Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska have added to the conference's bowl prowess?

The conference expanded because that was the trend within the sport. Where they expanded was due to network revenue. 

It may surprise you to realize this, but there are more important things in life and even in college athletics than money.


September 23rd, 2018 at 9:59 AM ^

Two things about Rutgers:

(1) they still aren't receiving a share of Big Ten $$$ equal to the 12 schools that were already part of the conference in November 2012 (when the expansion was announced).  That doesn't happen until 2020-21.  Now, that's what Rutgers agreed to when they joined.  As such, I don't feel overly sorry for them.  But it is also fair to point out that they are a bit handicapped vs. the other 12 schools as of the moment. 

(2) Rutgers (and Maryland and Nebraska) got in with unanimous votes.  Every single B1G University President gave a "yes" vote.

Folk can blame Delaney, or the BTN, or whatever, for Rutgers' inclusion.  But ultimately it comes down to the University Presidents.    None of them - not a single one, voted no.  PSU, FWIW, actually did get some "no" votes back in 1990.  The vote was 7-3, they made it in by a vote.

IMO, if folk are mad about Rutgers --- they should be principally mad at the B1G Presidents.

THE PRESIDENTS should be the ones running the conference, not Delaney or a Cable network.  But they have grown increasingly differential to Delaney over the years.

Delaney's also been around 28 years now.  Why on Earth does our Conference Commissioner have a term equivalent in length to a Supreme Court Justice or third-world dictator?  It's time to move on from him.

Red is Blue

September 23rd, 2018 at 10:44 AM ^

I don't know how the process works and this comment is not valid if a unanimous vote was required.  But, unless a single voter could have vetoed, I wouldn't put too much stock into the fact the the announced vote was unanimous.  If pre-vote "straw poles" come back as something like 10-2 the 2 will often recognize that they are on the losing side and will change their votes so that the final announced vote is unanimous for the purpose of appearing unified.


September 23rd, 2018 at 11:22 AM ^

That's true that sometimes people will "go along with things for political reasons."

But that didn't happen with PSU in 1990 (when Delaney was just a young pup at the job, just moved over from being the Ohio Valley Conference Commissioner).

And I find the difference between 1990 and 2012 indicative of just how much power the B1G Presidents have acquiesced to Delaney over the years.

When PSU joined: (1) the idea of inviting PSU originated with one of the Presidents (Illinois President Stanley Ikenberry) as opposed to Jim Delaney, (2) there was a legitimate 6-month public debate on PSU's merits before the vote, and (3) three Presidents went on the record and voted "no" and gave their reasons for the no vote.

When RU and Maryland joined: (1) the idea definitely originated with Jim Delaney, he was the architect, (2) there was NO debate at all on the 2 schools, the news broke out of nowhere on a Saturday evening and the schools were admitted early the next week, and (3) not a B1G President was around to be heard.

I don't believe that none of the 12 B1G Presidents had concerns on Rutgers and Maryland.  But none of them spoke up.  They've given up all of their power to Jim Delaney and his pursuit of the holy dollar (which helps fund his $20MM bonuses, of course).


September 23rd, 2018 at 1:08 PM ^

There was a case to be made for voting PSU out in 2012. 

But that didn't happen.  Now we're 6 years out.  You may not like it, which is your right, but nobody in a actual position of power is going to re-litigate 2012 here in 2018 (or any other future year). 

Call that "delusional" if you will, but that's just reality.

Clarence Boddicker

September 23rd, 2018 at 10:02 AM ^

Yes...let's all take take Rutgers seriously...

I'm from NYC...and no one there gives a shit about Rutgers. Top NJ football talent all dream of playing elsewhere. And then there was the game yesterday, against SUNY-Buffalo, a team Rutgers PAID to come to What's The Point Stadium and kick that ass. Rutgers can't even win at the City Game, basketball, a sport they have no reason not to have at least some, any success in.

But...yes. Let's all take Rutgers seriously.

Cage laugh.gif

Winchester Wolverine

September 23rd, 2018 at 10:25 AM ^

Why are you defending Rutgers so adamantly? Are... are you a... real Rutger fan? They exist? I thoug--- wait, wait, wait, I know who you are! JIM! I see you Delaney! You fuckin masturbator, comedian you!

Hahaha and for a second I thought we had an ACTUAL Rutgers fan here. Everyone knows they're just a myth.


September 23rd, 2018 at 10:33 AM ^

I completely understand and agree with the underlying sentiment from an administrative/management perspective. Rutgers is a tire fire.

After years of pretty tough sledding in athletics as a Michigan fan, though, I feel for their fans. And these guys are the ones who are bearing the brunt of that joke. Their team is already terrible with no reasonable light at the end of that tunnel, which I think makes it worse for them. 


September 23rd, 2018 at 10:58 AM ^

Rutgers got annihilated by Buffalo and Kansas and doesn't have fans (other than OP, who is probably Chris Ash's mom). I'm dead serious when I say they shouldn't be in the B1G. 

Mr. Owl

September 23rd, 2018 at 11:02 AM ^

Having Rutgers in the Big Ten allows me to go to at least one Michigan game every two years and only take public transit.  (I live in NYC.)

So I vote to keep them purely for my own convenience.


September 23rd, 2018 at 11:09 AM ^

Idk. It’s kinda serious. 

For starters, Rutgers shouldn’t have ever been invited to the B1G to begin with. There is nothing about Rutgers (or Maryland for that matter) that you look at and would associate with anything B1G related. 

It goes further than athletics (I’ll get to that in a moment). You think of B1G schools, you think of excellent academics and rich athletics history. You think of huge endowments and massive R&D funds (the B1G fund is larger than Ivy League and California School System funds). So let’s ask, what does Rutgers and Maryland bring to the B1G? Just TV money? The B1G is already the richest conference. It isn’t like we needed the NYC TV market to keep the conference afloat.

As for the athletics, they’ve been atrocious. In football they have a record of 19-34 while going 7-28 in the Big Ten. In basketball they’re 59–104 while going 9-63 in conference play. The football team in year 5 has topped off at losing to Kansas and being blown out at home to Buffalo. It’s flat out embarrassing to the conference.

Adding Nebraska, I was fine with. We added a blue blood program with a rich history and it got the conference to a balanced 12 teams. They don’t quite fit the academic profile of the B1G, but you can see a fit with Nebraska and what they bring to the conference. Outside of Maryland b-ball and decent academics, I fail to see the value of Maryland or Rutgers.

You want to expand past 12? There’s a whole list of great-to-decent options:

•Notre Dame (obvious, great academics and history, within footprint, national brand, rivalries already exist). Obviously a package that includes immediate full member status and allowing ND to maintain its NBC deal would have to be included. But this would beef up the West division. 

•Pitt (great academics, good historical basketball program, within geographic footprint, already has rivalry with Penn State) Pitt is one of those schools that just seems like a B1G school to me. We could add them and it would feel like they’ve always been here. 

•Iowa State (decent academics, within current footprint, former Big 12 opponent of Nebraska, rivalry with Iowa already in place) pretty straightforward. Add a rivalry opponent for Iowa, potential rivalry with Nebraska. Adds a semi-quality team to the West. 

•Cincinnati (decent academics, within footprint, finally adds 2nd P5 team to Ohio, prime recruiting territory, potential rivalry with OSU and if Pitt were also added there’s already a rivalry there) Another program I view as a sleeping giant. If they ever went P5 and received the financial support that those schools receive, they could become a really good program.

Then obviously you can throw in powerhouses like Texas or Oklahoma they could go after. In my mind, ideally you add ND and Pitt. Divisions look like: 

West: Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin, ND, Illinois, Minnesota

East: OSU, MSU, PSU, Michigan, Pitt, Indiana, Purdue

That’s a lot more balanced than our current format. 


Picktown GoBlue

September 23rd, 2018 at 11:47 AM ^

MD and Rutgers are both in the AAU so woo (in case Delaney was using that as a criteria).  Nebraska got jobbed, otherwise that could be requirement for membership (Syracuse left around the same time to avoid the embarrassing vote that got Nebraska removed).  Only the Div III UAA can now claim that all members are in the AAU.  Power 5 AAU members close to our geographic footprint are Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa State, Pitt, Virginia.  Most of those would have been better choices than MD or Rutgers, if one were hell-bent on having more teams (which I feel is a bad idea).


September 23rd, 2018 at 2:15 PM ^

Personally I think 12 was the right number. Since ND turned us down, I didn’t have an issue with Nebraska being #12 simply due to the blue blood/traditional power aspect. 

Anything past 12 is where I started to have issues. My personal top two are Pitt and ND. After that point it starts to get hairy and you can make arguments for and against any of them. But point is, Maryland and Rutgers would be pretty far down that list of 13th and 14th members, and somehow we get both.