Delany: No regrets about adding Rutgers

Submitted by Blue Noise on September 25th, 2015 at 10:55 AM

Water is wet, does a bear shit in the woods, etc. Just thought it relevant for anyone here harboring any remote hopes we could ever jettison this embarrassment from our conference. 

Quotes so quintessentially Delany you'd identify the source if I posted them here with no context:

Delany, in his first public comments on Rutgers since the university began investigating coach Kyle Flood in August, told the Tribune the Big Ten does not regret adding Rutgers. As Delany noted, the Rutgers/Maryland expansion fulfilled a "strategic objective" to penetrate several giant East Coast markets.

"It might be a fun read that the Big Ten has remorse, but it's somewhat irrelevant," Delany said. "I can't name an institution during my (26-year) tenure that has not had a serious personnel or ethical issue at one point. These are high-profile situations with lots of exposure. I wish we never had any of it at our schools, but I'm realistic."

 

Article may trick you into thinking it's paywalled, but it's not. Give link a few tries. Also, article is from yesterday, but site search turned up nothing.

 

Comments

Tater

September 25th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^

If Sparty didn't get kicked out for asking the 14 players who attacked a frathouse back onto their team and there were no repercussions over the Wonders Hall Coverup, despite the presence of a "smoking gun" police report, the Big Ten isn't going to get rid of Rutgers.

At least Rutgers can argue that they are getting rid of the "bad apples" when they commit crimes.

RGard

September 25th, 2015 at 1:40 PM ^

Agreed, nobody is getting kicked out after we failed to un-ass Penn State.  Additionally the culture hasn't improved there.  You still have Penn State fans moaning Sandusky was innocent and stupid stuff like, "Joe Paterno couldn't legally report Sandusky to the police".

That place is jacked up beyond all possible repair.

Rutger's problems pale in comparison.

turd ferguson

September 25th, 2015 at 12:18 PM ^

Unless the story has very different quotes (I can't access it), I don't even see the AD speak or "no regrets" stuff.  He said, "It might be a fun read that the Big Ten has remorse, but it's somewhat irrelevant."  That sounds surprisingly close to "my regrets, while there, are irrelevant," and not the more expected, "nah, Rutgers is great, we love those guys."

Bando Calrissian

September 25th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^

I don't know, a tire fire of an Athletic Department matched with teams that bring literally nothing to any sport on the docket and probably never will... 

If Rutgers wasn't located in the metropolitan New York area and the conference didn't have a TV network, there's no way in hell they would ever be considered for conference membership. Zero percent chance.

Everyone Murders

September 25th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^

But ditching the crazy lady with the pet bunny in the pot who you had a brief fling with?  People would understand that's a bad situation, and not necessarily blame you for distancing yourself from the crazy lady.  That stated, I see where it would be poor form that other teams would remember.

The bigger problem is that if you're not going to ditch Penn State after they aided and abetted child rape, you're not going to ditch Rutgers for being a lower-grade tire fire of an athletic department.  Or if you do, you show yourself to be solely a money-grubbing dick (truth of the matter aside, you don't want to show yourself to be that).

As you and others have noted, there's not much else that Delany could say here.  I've got no problem with his quote - just a problem with the ill-based decision a few years ago to admit Rutgers and Maryland to the B1G.

drzoidburg

September 25th, 2015 at 8:06 PM ^

why do we have to expand even more exactly? Besides, it would be easy to convince say oklahoma that a mistake was made with rutgers, whose complete suckage at all sports since forever just doesn't put oklahoma at risk of a similar fate

Also without the BIG invite, rutgers would be in their enormous budget hole still, with no end in sight. There should be no remorse at ditching them, this isn't charity.

BornSinner

September 25th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^

I don't get the metro NY bs. Even the people who live in the area don't give a fuck about Rutgers. 

 

Shiet even kids who go to Rutgers don't care about Rutgers. 

 

School is the definition of that backup school that nobody wants to go to unless forced to lol. 

The Northeast in general is meh when it comes to college football... exception being BC I guess. 

willywill9

September 25th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^

I keep hearing this but let me add something to it.  I grew up in NYC.   CFB was not on my radar at all... pro sports all the way. (Mets/Giants/Jets/Rangers/KKkkkkknnniickks....)  I also returned here after graduating from Michigan in 2006. (CRAP!)  Anyway, I never realized as a kid, but there are so many transplants who move here.  Now they have their collegiate alliances already, but a good number actually settle here (metro area) and raise kids to be Minnesota, Miami, Michigan, Wisconsin etc fans.   So, while the point is fairly true, there is definitely a market for college football, considering NYC is the country's largest city.

 

I don't think i'm refuting anything from above, but i'm hungover as balls and need to make it look like i'm working right now...you're welcome.

robpollard

September 25th, 2015 at 1:00 PM ^

In 5 years (give or take a couple), BTN, ESPN, Fox Sports 1, etc aren't going to be able to rely on non-sports cable subscribers to provide the vast majority of the money for the large checks these networks send the conferences. There is a reason ESPN has been cutting costs furiously -- people are cutting the cord.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/espn-layoffs-1201599820/

In the very near future, these networks are going to have to primarily sink or swim, a la HBO or Showtime, on their own. And Rutgers is no Game of Thrones (it's not even Veep) in terms of appeal to subscribers.

So using Rutgers to "get on" Time Warner Cable in NYC is not going be a thing very soon. BTN will have to have appealing programming that people will want to pay $3/month extra. And leaving aside their joke of an athletic departement, I can't see Rutgers and their unispiring football program and abysmal basketball program being that appealing -- in NYC or elsewhere.

It is, and was, a dumb move. Winter is coming.

The Dude

September 25th, 2015 at 8:32 PM ^

but it would be cool if they'd work together and come up with a streaming sports package. Instead of paying whatever it is per month for satellite or cable, for $20-25 a month every national sports channel plus your regional sports channel streamed to you phone, computer, or streaming device without the junk.

 

 

willywill9

September 25th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^

I still haven't let it go.  We bailed out two mediocre programs.  We got one basketball and one lacrosse program out of adding two schools. We could run a list of better programs in big markets...

Boston College,

Cincinnatti (only one freaking school from Ohio inthe B1G?)

Louisville

Missouri

Georgia Tech (stretch, but talk about markets!)

Tell me that Rutgers is better than ANY of those...

 

BornSinner

September 25th, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^

OSU would never approve of Cincy bc they don't want in state rivals... Can't blame them... Look at our problems with MSU ranging from recruiting to on field performance....

Pitt would be perfect but PSU wouldn't let it happen... Tbh those pedophiles can go fuck themselves. Pitt is a superior institution by every metric possible.