NYT: "Jump to Big 10 is a Big Flop for Rutgers" | Syracusefan.com

NYT: "Jump to Big 10 is a Big Flop for Rutgers"

39FBD0E6-C484-4D92-AC76-8E054C572DC1.jpeg
 
Dino should put in that Philly Special play. Always seems to work.
 
Rutgers isn’t going anywhere it would be far worse had they not joined the conference money wise at least
 
Honest question for Rutgers, why the hell did they extend Ash last season?? Not trying to throw salt, just trying to understand the logic.

I wish we had looked past the W/L record, seen our own development and tried to extend Dino last year.
 
Honest question for Rutgers, why the hell did they extend Ash last season?? Not trying to throw salt, just trying to understand the logic.

I wish we had looked past the W/L record, seen our own development and tried to extend Dino last year.
How can you extend a coach based on two 4 - 8 seasons? Not possible. This year, there is not the slightest hesitation. After all, when it comes down to it, wins REALLY matter.
 
Sad times for a sad program, B1G10 lawyers are currently looking for "loopholes" in the contract on how they can kick them out of the Conference.
 
It is a lot worse than the public realizes.

Jump to Big Ten Is a Big Flop for Rutgers
This article is, in my opinion, misleading as it leaves out a number of pertinent facts.

One, from a revenue standpoint, the move was a no-brainer. The AAC earns about 15% of what the Big Ten earns.

Two, Rutgers will not receive a full revenue share until 2021. Their increasing deficit is a result of spending money to upgrade facilities that they are not yet receiving.

Three, their on-the-field product is a mess but, as we well know, all it takes is to get the right guy in place to make that happen.

So, say it is a flop all you want but staying in AAC would have been infinitely worse.

If you ask me if I would rather be UConn or Rutgers right now, the answer is easy.

Rutgers is a dumpster fire but they at least have a shot to turn it around. UConn in the AAC is toast. No chance.
 
This article is, in my opinion, misleading as it leaves out a number of pertinent facts.

One, from a revenue standpoint, the move was a no-brainer. The AAC earns about 15% of what the Big Ten earns.

Two, Rutgers will not receive a full revenue share until 2021. Their increasing deficit is a result of spending money to upgrade facilities that they are not yet receiving.

Three, their on-the-field product is a mess but, as we well know, all it takes is to get the right guy in place to make that happen.

So, say it is a flop all you want but staying in AAC would have been infinitely worse.

If you ask me if I would rather be UConn or Rutgers right now, the answer is easy.

Rutgers is a dumpster fire but they at least have a shot to turn it around. UConn in the AAC is toast. No chance.

You are correct. You need to be at the table in order to eat some day. Some G5 teams are making it work, but being in the northeast is an even bigger hurdle to lack of regional talent.

Where Rutgers flopped is the Ash hire, and they can’t do anything about that right away.

I don’t know the Big 10 economics, so if they’re getting the additional cable $ they expected then good on them. Because from a Big 10 perspective, every single other thing about adding Rutgers has been a disaster.
 
This article is, in my opinion, misleading as it leaves out a number of pertinent facts.

One, from a revenue standpoint, the move was a no-brainer. The AAC earns about 15% of what the Big Ten earns.

Two, Rutgers will not receive a full revenue share until 2021. Their increasing deficit is a result of spending money to upgrade facilities that they are not yet receiving.

Three, their on-the-field product is a mess but, as we well know, all it takes is to get the right guy in place to make that happen.

So, say it is a flop all you want but staying in AAC would have been infinitely worse.

If you ask me if I would rather be UConn or Rutgers right now, the answer is easy.

Rutgers is a dumpster fire but they at least have a shot to turn it around. UConn in the AAC is toast. No chance.
This is correct. Buttgers will be bottom of the B10 forever, while the other B10 schools ( And SU) raid NJ talent. The move made them more money, but they exposed their underside.

UCon will simply do the right thing and drop back down to 1AA.
 
Honest question for Rutgers, why the hell did they extend Ash last season?? Not trying to throw salt, just trying to understand the logic.

He was "extended" when he was originally hired. His contract had a clause to auto extend him for the duration of the NCAA probation. They had to put that in the contract to land BIG FISH ASH (ha ha) with the punishment for the Flood shenanigans still up in the air at the time of hire.
 
Last edited:
This is the easy analysis it would be more interesting for someone to take on the comparison suggested by Forza - cost of the move to B10 v. standing pat or even more interesting the cost of the move to the B10 v. the cost of the not dropping to an FCS level.

I'm not all that interested in how much revenue being in the B10 or ACC generates because being in a P5 conference also commits you to a coaching, facilities, recruiting arms race which ensures that you will spend the majority if not all of that additional revenue.

Someone write the article form the perspective of what the net revenue picture in a P5 conference is? Every one of these articles starts from the assumption that you have to continue to aspire to the highest level in athletics. Is that a good assumption? That would be the interesting question if I am a Rutgers, UConn or Maryland person.
 
Last edited:
You are correct. You need to be at the table in order to eat some day. Some G5 teams are making it work, but being in the northeast is an even bigger hurdle to lack of regional talent.

Where Rutgers flopped is the Ash hire, and they can’t do anything about that right away.

I don’t know the Big 10 economics, so if they’re getting the additional cable $ they expected then good on them. Because from a Big 10 perspective, every single other thing about adding Rutgers has been a disaster.

Rutgers inability to compete except occasionally goes way beyond a single coaching hire. There’s a structural problem there that can’t be understood or described. You just can’t explain away decades of stinking in almost every sport.

It’s like a farmer’s field that never produces anything regardless of all the reasons it should. I grew up in Princeton, when it was just Rutgers College and Douglas. So this futility has been going on a very, very long time.

The relationship between the NJ residents and RU is completely different from the rest of the Big Ten. It’s more like UMass than Wisconsin.
 
This might be the worst article ever written. What did they want Rutgers to do NOT go to a Power 5 conference and maybe the richest one in America? Be left out and stay in a garbage non-Power 5 conference?

Yes on the field they have been bad in football, but it doesn't mean their move to the BIG 10 was a flop. From a business stand-point it was smart and it kept them relevant from the perspective of being in a P5 conference and not being left behind.

Sure the football team stinks and will probably stink for decades in that conference, but that's just 1 sport and those BIG 10 checks every year don't bounce and pours tons of money into the school.

Horribly written article
 
What did they want Rutgers to do NOT go to a Power 5 conference and maybe the richest one in America? Be left out and stay in a garbage non-Power 5 conference?
This is exactly what many in the Rutgers academic community wanted.
 
This is exactly what many in the Rutgers academic community wanted.
They don't understand the economics of the situation. Most schools have the academic community at odds with the athletic community so I can't put any weight into what they said.

Most academic communities would be fine if all athletics just went away. So I take it with a grain of salt what they say
 
They don't understand the economics of the situation. Most schools have the academic community at odds with the athletic community so I can't put any weight into what they said.

Most academic communities would be fine if all athletics just went away. So I take it with a grain of salt what they say


But, which side is right? It would be great to see someone who is independent and fair minded quantify the cost of struggling to run a D1 - P5 athletic program vs. determinin the cost including the cost of lost opportunities of running athletics at a DIII or FCS level might be.
 
But, which side is right? It would be great to see someone who is independent and fair minded quantify the cost of struggling to run a D1 - P5 athletic program vs. determinin the cost including the cost of lost opportunities of running athletics at a DIII or FCS level might be.
Rutgers problem is a spending problem and how to manage your budget problem. The Big10 money is too great to pass up on any level. Their move isn't a flop, they are just handling the new found money wrong.
 
Does anyone here in the brain trust know how much federal research money the B1G procures and spreads around to its member institutions? It dwarfs the athletic budget. The New York Times is of no value on any subject.
 
Does anyone here in the brain trust know how much federal research money the B1G procures and spreads around to its member institutions? It dwarfs the athletic budget. The New York Times is of no value on any subject.
The answer is $0. Here is what they share. UChicago left it and Johns Hopkins (a B1G associate member for lacrosse) ignores it. Hopkins is a huge defense contractor, so, if money really was involved, they'd have a net negative cash flow.

The Consortium (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) has a mythology surrounding it and not much else.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,391
Messages
4,772,915
Members
5,949
Latest member
Laxmom2317

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
998
Total visitors
1,181


Top Bottom