NY Times, "Rutgers brings nothing to the Big Ten"

[Townie72]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/s...t-rutgers-emerges-as-a-winner.html?ref=sports

Author says that the only thing that Rutgers could bring to the Big Ten is a TV market and he isn't sure that even exists.

They view of many SU fans that Rutgers lacks any real accomplishments and is undeserving of any invitation anywhere --- except maybe the Patriot League --- is shared by the "Paper of Record", The New York Times.

So SU fans aren't overly negative. We are in the mainstream of thought on this.

 

[omniorange]

While I don't want to kick the Huskies while down, this was funny:

Results have little to do with this; otherwise Connecticut, with a football program comparable to Rutgers’s and two dominant basketball teams, wouldn’t be firing rescue flares into the darkened skies over Storrs.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[MaxwellCuse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/s...t-rutgers-emerges-as-a-winner.html?ref=sports

Author says that the only thing that Rutgers could bring to the Big Ten is a TV market and he isn't sure that even exists.

They view of many SU fans that Rutgers lacks any real accomplishments and is undeserving of any invitation anywhere --- except maybe the Patriot League --- is shared by the "Paper of Record", The New York Times.

So SU fans aren't overly negative. We are in the mainstream of thought on this.

I'm not sure Rutgers' academics are good enough for the Patriot League.

 

[OrangePA]

I'm not sure Rutgers' academics are good enough for the Patriot League.

I'm not sure it's all that bad.

http://www.rutgers.edu/about-rutgers/national-rankings

 

[sufan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/s...t-rutgers-emerges-as-a-winner.html?ref=sports

Author says that the only thing that Rutgers could bring to the Big Ten is a TV market and he isn't sure that even exists.

They view of many SU fans that Rutgers lacks any real accomplishments and is undeserving of any invitation anywhere --- except maybe the Patriot League --- is shared by the "Paper of Record", The New York Times.

So SU fans aren't overly negative. We are in the mainstream of thought on this.

This is why the UL win and now BCS appearance was important in helping to shape perceptions of the ACC, Big 10, UL, RU.

However the same article says:

"As the Big East devolves into the Little Elsewhere, Rutgers, the least deserving of its defectors, has somehow emerged with what is arguably the best of the next-generation arrangements. Strike up the band and the cash register, too.

In the Big Ten, Rutgers will over time dramatically increase its football revenue, along with its exposure via traditional and conference network channels. It will get a natural geographic rival in Penn State, the program to which it has traditionally lost a ton of state-grown talent."


As far as the Big 10: despite the views of the article, this is a long term play where the Big 10 now has contiguous Statewide flagship teams in PA, MD, NJ: all well rated AAU members doing a lot of research: in this respect, MD and RU are good institutional fits (as were SU and Pitt to the ACC)

It's a lot easier to improve the competitiveness of a team than recreate an AAU rated Statewide university in a large, affluent market.


The trend is toward large conferences with their own Channel and greater bargaining power vs. the networks and the bowls. This trend is fairly clear and the Big 10 expanding beyond its midwest base into the mid-atlantic is comparable to the ACC expanding north and the SEC expanding into Texas/Missouri. It's pretty clear the Big 10 wants to maximize its first mover advantage with respect to its TV channel: somehow I don't believe they will regret adding MD and RU over the long term.

 

[Townie72]

This is why the UL win and now BCS appearance was important in helping to shape perceptions of the ACC, Big 10, UL, RU.

However the same article says:

"As the Big East devolves into the Little Elsewhere, Rutgers, the least deserving of its defectors, has somehow emerged with what is arguably the best of the next-generation arrangements. Strike up the band and the cash register, too.

In the Big Ten, Rutgers will over time dramatically increase its football revenue, along with its exposure via traditional and conference network channels. It will get a natural geographic rival in Penn State, the program to which it has traditionally lost a ton of state-grown talent."


As far as the Big 10: despite the views of the article, this is a long term play where the Big 10 now has contiguous Statewide flagship teams in PA, MD, NJ: all well rated AAU members doing a lot of research: in this respect, MD and RU are good institutional fits (as were SU and Pitt to the ACC)

It's a lot easier to improve the competitiveness of a team than recreate an AAU rated Statewide university in a large, affluent market.


The trend is toward large conferences with their own Channel and greater bargaining power vs. the networks and the bowls. This trend is fairly clear and the Big 10 expanding beyond its midwest base into the mid-atlantic is comparable to the ACC expanding north and the SEC expanding into Texas/Missouri. It's pretty clear the Big 10 wants to maximize its first mover advantage with respect to its TV channel: somehow I don't believe they will regret adding MD and RU over the long term.

Not so sure about that.

Membership in the super-competitive and widely watched Big East basketball conference did exactly nothing for Rutgers basketball and vice-versa. They were a bottom feeder through their entire 20 year membership in the Big East. They, quite frankly, have been an embarrassment, not an asset.

My experience growing up in NJ is that the area will support big winners only. If Rutgers fails to perform at a top level in the Big Ten, NJ and NY sports viewers will ignore them. And its almost a certainty that they'll fail in both football and basketball. The jury is out as to whether they'll be second tier or third tier in the Big Ten. Again, consider their lack of performance in Big East basketball.

I don't know about Maryland football. Thye are going to havee to remake their team to play in the B1G, But as I have observed before, every quality basketball recruit they get says that an opportunity to play in the ACC was the overriding reason they selected Maryland as a place to play. Now Maryland no longer offers that.

Both of these schools were added because of the number of cable subscribers in their home states. When the ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten were out shopping for "quality" programs that had national appeal, Rutgers was left sitting on the shelf.

 

[normaliswear]

As much as I agree with the concept, the NYT is only slightly less credible than that Deacon twitter account.

 

[bevosu]

As much as I agree with the concept, the NYT is only slightly less credible than that Deacon twitter account.

yeah...they're not perfect...but

Since 1918, The New York Times daily newspaper has won 108 Pulitzer Prizes, a prize awarded for excellence in journalism in a range of categories. This is more than any other newspaper

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

 

[normaliswear]

yeah...they're not perfect...but

Since 1918, The New York Times daily newspaper has won 108 Pulitzer Prizes, a prize awarded for excellence in journalism in a range of categories. This is more than any other newspaper

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

An award that meant something once long ago. Now just another example of the same people getting in a circle to... well to clean up the metaphore... to tell eachother how great they are.

 

[bevosu]

Whenever political bias (apparently) colors a posters posts in this forum, it has a tendency to add nothing to a discussion.

You're as good poster, but anti-Fox, anti-NYT comments really add nothing.

 

[normaliswear]

Whenever political bias (apparently) colors a posters posts in this forum, it has a tendency to add nothing to a discussion.

You're as good poster, but anti-Fox, anti-NYT comments really add nothing.

Nobody has no bias. Its when you can't see your own that it blinds you. You demonstrate one by using the Pulitzer as some sort of benchmark lol. But thats ok... you do fine normally too.

 

[bevosu]

I'm not specifically picking on you. I personally don't like comments that seem to have a political slant (left or right) to them on a Syracuse sports board..off topic fine.

I agree, like many major newspapers the NYT has an establishment lean.

I know we can agree on one thing...Rutgers got very lucky. Hard to see where they deserved that gift.

Peace.

 

[Calcuse]

yeah...they're not perfect...but

Since 1918, The New York Times daily newspaper has won 108 Pulitzer Prizes, a prize awarded for excellence in journalism in a range of categories. This is more than any other newspaper

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

And Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize.