The Official 'Is Rutgers a rival?' thread

[DoctorBombay]

When Rutgers rattles off a few national championships in football (I won't even set the bar at 4.. let's call it 2), then this comparison is apt. When the two teams are battling year after year for conference championships, in front of packed stadiums, playing meaningful game after meaningful game.. then maybe this comparison becomes more appropriate. When the two teams play arguably the greatest game in CFB history, with the whole nation watchingmand talking about us and the game for years, then this comparison is apt.

Until then, however, Rutgers will remain a team with a terrible history, no significant recent accomplishments, and enough ongoing 'issues' to keep this thread humming for years on end. A rivalry is about real hatred, not curious amusement. It's the difference between channel surfing and finding a Goodfellas followed by Shawshank vs. re-run episodes of Real Housewives followed by Jersey Shore.

But but but...Ray Rice!

 

[Pyle]

There are always going to be fans, especially older ones, who will hold on to PSU as a rival..

Yeah the same ones who claim there is no Rutgers rivalry, and probably still think Holy Cross is a relevant program. I love this whole it's just an 'internet' thing. Guess what guys, like I've been trying to tell you for a while now, it's not the 20th Century anymore. The internet is life, I work at a college, everything is done on the internet, classes, exams, social media, etc. Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand.

 

[DoctorBombay]

Yeah the same ones who claim there is no Rutgers rivalry, and probably still think Holy Cross is a relevant program. I love this whole it's just an 'internet' thing. Guess what guys, like I've been trying to tell you for a while now, it's not the 20th Century anymore. The internet is life, I work at a college, everything is done on the internet, classes, exams, social media, etc. Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand.

I don't think anyone said its "just an internet thing"- more like just a MESSAGE BOARD thing, and this one in particular.

 

[wooddoc]

Yeah the same ones who claim there is no Rutgers rivalry, and probably still think Holy Cross is a relevant program. I love this whole it's just an 'internet' thing. Guess what guys, like I've been trying to tell you for a while now, it's not the 20th Century anymore. The internet is life, I work at a college, everything is done on the internet, classes, exams, social media, etc. Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand.

Tell the USPS, or most hard copy news sources, or Sears, or any brick and mortar shop, really, and the list oges on: "It's just an internet thing." It's not really that much of a force...

 

[cuseguy]

Rutgers was becoming a rival in football.

It could have been a pretty good rivalry.

The same with UConn.

The basketball rivalry still has some fire.

It's a shame.

There's a little bit of a rivalry with BC and Pitt.

I don't see any other rivalries developing in the ACC any time soon.

Virginia would make the most sense, but we don't play them enough in football.

 

[Townie72]

Yeah the same ones who claim there is no Rutgers rivalry, and probably still think Holy Cross is a relevant program. I love this whole it's just an 'internet' thing. Guess what guys, like I've been trying to tell you for a while now, it's not the 20th Century anymore. The internet is life, I work at a college, everything is done on the internet, classes, exams, social media, etc. Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand.

Well, I guess newbie fans can define the world anyway they want. Apparently anything that happened in the 130 years of football that occurred prior to the 21st Century is of no or relatively little importance.

There's something basically screwed up with an attitude that says, "I just showed up in 2000 and I''ll tell you what a rivalry consists of and who the proper rivals are." I'd say the phrase "sense of entitlement" springs to mind.

And I have been staring at the sentence "Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand." and trying to figure what that means. I can't think of any relationship between Germany's pre-WWII (1930's) desire for more living room and any of what Pyle said or tried to say about the emergence and broad acceptance of the Internet and the arrival of the 21st Century. It's a bizarre comparison.

 

[RMH44]

Well, I guess newbie fans can define the world anyway they want. Apparently anything that happened in the 130 years of football that occurred prior to the 21st Century is of no or relatively little importance.

There's something basically screwed up with an attitude that says, "I just showed up in 2000 and I''ll tell you what a rivalry consists of and who the proper rivals are." I'd say the phrase "sense of entitlement" springs to mind.

And I have been staring at the sentence "Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand." and trying to figure what that means. I can't think of any relationship between Germany's pre-WWII (1930's) desire for more living room and any of what Pyle said or tried to say about the emergence and broad acceptance of the Internet and the arrival of the 21st Century. It's a bizarre comparison.

Keep in mind that Pyle s a newspaper board refugee. Might need to cut him some slack ;-)

 

[Townie72]

Anyone who claims Rutgers was, is or could have been an SU rival ought to be asked to first define what a rivalry consists of.

How do you know its a rivalry?

Once they do that they can go ahead and make the case for how SU v. RU qualifies as such against their own criteria.

Then we can test the criteria as to whether we believe they actually define a rivalry. And we can challenge whether RU actually meets those criteria.

You say its a rivalry and I say it isn't isn't even an arguement unless we can establish what a rivalry is.

 

[Townie72]

Keep in mind that Pyle s a newspaper board refugee. Might need to cut him some slack ;-)

It sort of reminds me of when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo or when the Arabs were defeated at Tours in 1066.

But it really reminds me of:

"Private Pyle, I know you are stupid," barked Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, "But you can't expect me to believe you don't know your right from your left. You did that on purpose".

And it definitely reminds me of some of the brilliant observations I used to make as an undergraduate at SU after a long group session enjoying Mexican cigarettes.

 

[Rocco]

Anyone who claims Rutgers was, is or could have been an SU rival ought to be asked to first define what a rivalry consists of.

How do you know its a rivalry?

Once they do that they can go ahead and make the case for how SU v. RU qualifies as such against their own criteria.

Then we can test the criteria as to whether we believe they actually define a rivalry. And we can challenge whether RU actually meets those criteria.

You say its a rivalry and I say it isn't isn't even an arguement unless we can establish what a rivalry is.

Geyuh head. You start.

 

[rrlbees]

Yeah the same ones who claim there is no Rutgers rivalry, and probably still think Holy Cross is a relevant program. I love this whole it's just an 'internet' thing. Guess what guys, like I've been trying to tell you for a while now, it's not the 20th Century anymore. The internet is life, I work at a college, everything is done on the internet, classes, exams, social media, etc. Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand.

It's not an Internet thing. It's an Internet message board thing. Like I said and a couple others agreed, I don't know one single non message board SU fan that even mentions Rutgers as anything, let alone a rival. So yea, people use the internets, but not necessary message boards. Maybe 10% at the very best. Rutgers is a message board phenomenon.

 

[TheCusian]

Well, I guess newbie fans can define the world anyway they want. Apparently anything that happened in the 130 years of football that occurred prior to the 21st Century is of no or relatively little importance. There's something basically screwed up with an attitude that says, "I just showed up in 2000 and I''ll tell you what a rivalry consists of and who the proper rivals are." I'd say the phrase "sense of entitlement" springs to mind. And I have been staring at the sentence "Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand." and trying to figure what that means. I can't think of any relationship between Germany's pre-WWII (1930's) desire for more living room and any of what Pyle said or tried to say about the emergence and broad acceptance of the Internet and the arrival of the 21st Century. It's a bizarre comparison.

Hate to break it to you - but yeah - that's exactly what happens. Old rivalries fade away as one or both of the teams fade or go in different directions - and as the people who remember these things fade away.

It's completely possible for a young fan to think of Team x as a rivalry and the older fan to scoff at the notion only to find out that they believe a different team further back in history is the rival. (And then an even older fan remembers when team x who doesn't even play football anymore was a rivalry and the other guys scoff at him).

They are both right. There is no central organizing force rubber stamping rivalries. ESPN or the ACC come close and we don't love their suggestions of BC and/or Pitt.

So, yeah - each generation does kind of get to define the word or pick the team.

(I'm not saying Rutgers is it. I think you have to play a team every year. But that's MY definition)

 

[TheCusian]

Anyone who claims Rutgers was, is or could have been an SU rival ought to be asked to first define what a rivalry consists of. How do you know its a rivalry? Once they do that they can go ahead and make the case for how SU v. RU qualifies as such against their own criteria. Then we can test the criteria as to whether we believe they actually define a rivalry. And we can challenge whether RU actually meets those criteria. You say its a rivalry and I say it isn't isn't even an arguement unless we can establish what a rivalry is.

I don't think they are, but they tick a few boxes:

- geographic proximity
- recruiting areas overlapping
- bad blood between coaching staffs (or a dislike at least)
- two fanbases that dislike each other
- a long history of playing each other
- fairly recent competitive games

 

[Townie72]

Geyuh head. You start.

#1 (Must Have) - A long history of playing one another which includes a significant number of highly meaningful games in which championships or bowl games have hinged.
#2 - (Must Have) - SU Heroes and Rival Villains and these can be players and/or coaches. This has to include contested incidents or plays or games . (Think of Georgetown's Michael Graham punching Andre Hawkins while he was laying on the ground)
#3 - Fan Buy-In (Should Have) - Games against the rival count more than games against the other opponents on the schedule. If a team has a losing season but defeats the rival in their game, then the season is not be deemed a failure by the fans. Conversely winning a lot but losing continually to the rival is a cause for dismissal of the coaches.
#6 - Institutional Similarity (Nice to Have) - That is the more similar the schools are to one another (student body, proximity, etc) the more likely there is a possible rivalry. (ie, Army v. Navy, Lehigh v. Lafayette, Michigan v. Michigan State, etc)

 

[Rocco]

#1 (Must Have) - A long history of playing one another which includes a significant number of highly meaningful games in which championships or bowl games have hinged.
#2 - (Must Have) - SU Heroes and Rival Villains and these can be players and/or coaches. This has to include contested incidents or plays or games . (Think of Georgetown's Michael Graham punching Andre Hawkins while he was laying on the ground)
#3 - Fan Buy-In (Should Have) - Games against the rival count more than games against the other opponents on the schedule. If a team has a losing season but defeats the rival in their game, then the season is not be deemed a failure by the fans. Conversely winning a lot but losing continually to the rival is a cause for dismissal of the coaches.
#6 - Institutional Similarity (Nice to Have) - That is the more similar the schools are to one another (student body, proximity, etc) the more likely there is a possible rivalry. (ie, Army v. Navy, Lehigh v. Lafayette, Michigan v. Michigan State, etc)

If using those criteria, we have no rival. We actually don't even have any semblance of a rival.

 

[Hoo's That]

#1 (Must Have) - A long history of playing one another which includes a significant number of highly meaningful games in which championships or bowl games have hinged.
#2 - (Must Have) - SU Heroes and Rival Villains and these can be players and/or coaches. This has to include contested incidents or plays or games . (Think of Georgetown's Michael Graham punching Andre Hawkins while he was laying on the ground)
#3 - Fan Buy-In (Should Have) - Games against the rival count more than games against the other opponents on the schedule. If a team has a losing season but defeats the rival in their game, then the season is not be deemed a failure by the fans. Conversely winning a lot but losing continually to the rival is a cause for dismissal of the coaches.
#6 - Institutional Similarity (Nice to Have) - That is the more similar the schools are to one another (student body, proximity, etc) the more likely there is a possible rivalry. (ie, Army v. Navy, Lehigh v. Lafayette, Michigan v. Michigan State, etc)

If using those criteria, we have no rival. We actually don't even have any semblance of a rival.

Using those criteria would you have had one in the old Eastern Independents/Lambert Trophy era?

 

[Bayside44]

If using those criteria, we have no rival. We actually don't even have any semblance of a rival.

We're a hoops school.

 

[Ky Je]

#1 (Must Have) - A long history of playing one another which includes a significant number of highly meaningful games in which championships or bowl games have hinged.
#2 - (Must Have) - SU Heroes and Rival Villains and these can be players and/or coaches. This has to include contested incidents or plays or games . (Think of Georgetown's Michael Graham punching Andre Hawkins while he was laying on the ground)
#3 - Fan Buy-In (Should Have) - Games against the rival count more than games against the other opponents on the schedule. If a team has a losing season but defeats the rival in their game, then the season is not be deemed a failure by the fans. Conversely winning a lot but losing continually to the rival is a cause for dismissal of the coaches.
#6 - Institutional Similarity (Nice to Have) - That is the more similar the schools are to one another (student body, proximity, etc) the more likely there is a possible rivalry. (ie, Army v. Navy, Lehigh v. Lafayette, Michigan v. Michigan State, etc)

so does that mean teams without any meaningful games can't have rivalries? Do D3 teams not have rivalries because their inability to get to major bowl games?

 

[Pyle]

Well, I guess newbie fans can define the world anyway they want. Apparently anything that happened in the 130 years of football that occurred prior to the 21st Century is of no or relatively little importance.

There's something basically screwed up with an attitude that says, "I just showed up in 2000 and I''ll tell you what a rivalry consists of and who the proper rivals are." I'd say the phrase "sense of entitlement" springs to mind.

And I have been staring at the sentence "Saying something is only in internet thing, is like saying well the Germans just want room to expand." and trying to figure what that means. I can't think of any relationship between Germany's pre-WWII (1930's) desire for more living room and any of what Pyle said or tried to say about the emergence and broad acceptance of the Internet and the arrival of the 21st Century. It's a bizarre comparison.

It wasn't their desire I was referencing, it was the rest of the world's refusal to see it for what it really was.

 

[Pyle]

Keep in mind that Pyle s a newspaper board refugee. Might need to cut him some slack ;-)

Yeah, yeah. But I've come a long ways since my days of arguing all day with Doody and rampaging for days after every loss.

 

[Townie72]

Using those criteria would you have had one in the old Eastern Independents/Lambert Trophy era?

Absolutely. It was Penn State. In 1970, we split the 52 games we had played previously 26 and 26.

The games in the 1960's were wars. Joe paterno was the enemy.

If we don't beat them in 1959, there's no Cotton Bowl and no NC.

 

[Townie72]

so does that mean teams without any meaningful games can't have rivalries? Do D3 teams not have rivalries because their inability to get to major bowl games?

Yup. Without meaningful games there are no rivalries.

Take SU and Pitt for example. We were never good at the same time. Tjhere have been very few meaningful games. I can't think of any. Games were just another one on the schedule.

The D3's may not have bowls, but there are League championships at stake. (e..g. Amherst vs. Williams)

 

[Pyle]

Absolutely. It was Penn State. In 1970, we split the 52 games we had played previously 26 and 26.

The games in the 1960's were wars. Joe paterno was the enemy.

If we don't beat them in 1959, there's no Cotton Bowl and no NC.

You realize Rutgers cost us 2 BCS games in the past 10/11 years right? We beat them in '04 and we win the BE outright, P goes nowhere. We beat them in 2012 and we're in the Orange bowl.

 

[billorange44]

You realize Rutgers cost us 2 BCS games in the past 10/11 years right? We beat them in '04 and we win the BE outright, P goes nowhere. We beat them in 2012 and we're in the Orange bowl.

If we beat Rutgers in 2012 we would have gone to the Orange Bowl? How do you figure?

 

[SUfaninAZ]

This thread is dead.