cto
Administrator
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,565
- Like
- 27,960
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.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.
Do you know for a fact we didn't try?I wish we had looked past the W/L record, seen our own development and tried to extend Dino last year.
This article is, in my opinion, misleading as it leaves out a number of pertinent facts.
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.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.
Honest question for Rutgers, why the hell did they extend Ash last season?? Not trying to throw salt, just trying to understand the logic.
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 is exactly what many in the Rutgers academic community wanted.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?
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.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
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.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.
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.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.