OT: Would you want Rutgers in the B1G?

Submitted by M2NASA on October 28th, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Unscientific poll of the MGoFanbase.

What do you think about the possibility of the Big Ten adding Rutgers?

Comments

joeyb

October 28th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

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.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

October 28th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^

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.

philclar

October 28th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^

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

 

mgoblue No.1

October 28th, 2011 at 9:17 PM ^

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

LSAClassOf2000

October 28th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^

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. 

ChiBlueBoy

October 28th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^

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...

willywill9

October 28th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^

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?

Needs

October 28th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^

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).[16] Also in the 2006 U.S. News & World Report ranking of Computer Science Ph.D. programs, Rutgers was ranked 29th....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_University

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.

justingoblue

October 28th, 2011 at 11:58 PM ^

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.

Lookatthatspee…

October 28th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^

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. 

CRex

October 28th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^

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.  

CRex

October 28th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^

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.

RowoneEndzone

October 28th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^

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

Moonlight Graham

October 28th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^

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. 

Tater

October 28th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^

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.

Gorgeous Borges

October 28th, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^

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?

BlueHills

October 28th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^

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.

gajensen

October 28th, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^

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).

93Grad

October 28th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^

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.

Ben from SF

October 28th, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^

The only schools that add any value to the B1G are Notre Dame, Texas, and (marginally) North Carolina.  Unless we get two of these schools to commit, 12 is the perfect number.

Monocle Smile

October 28th, 2011 at 10:20 PM ^

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.