Rutgers is in because Penn State likes recruiting out of NJ, PSU has a ton of fans, and w/ the northern ACC expansion, PSU had credible leverage in the form of a threat to jump to the ACC.
Cable carriage won't change the above fact pattern. The B1G was very aware of RU's athletic woes, and their general lack of fan support when they were added. There weren't any missed footnotes - just a misunderstanding of the add on the part of many fans.
We have had this conversation many times in the past. I do agree that the B1G was aware of RU's athletic woes and I won't deny that PSU preference was a small factor, but each time you present this, you make it appear as if the PSU factor (what they wanted, rather than even how the other 11 members viewed PSU's overall value to the league) was the one-and-only reason (or at the very least THE most important and substantial one) as to why Rutgers was added and anyone who believes otherwise "misunderstood" the addition.
I find this reasoning incomplete because to me it fails to take into account:
1) the fact that PSU has always been able to successfully recruit in New Jersey well prior to Rutgers being added to the B1G, so not having Rutgers wasn't going to impact that in any way whatsoever, especially from the perspective of the other 11 members;
2) the fact that PSU is a B1G type of academic institution far more than an ACC type of academic institution, making the likelihood of PSU going to the ACC small in the view of the 11 members under the best of circumstances;
3) a lack of deep understanding of Big Ten history overall (such as how difficult even adding them to league was back in the late 80s) and more importantly PSU's place in it
as viewed by the other 10 members who preceded them in the league by decades;
4) how that historical viewpoint of PSU in the Big Ten was impacted even further downward by the scandal which happened a year prior to the announced expansion with Maryland and Rutgers (meaning it was front and center when negotiations with both institutions were going on); and
5) places far more value on Alvarez' public statements at that time while ignoring significantly more public comments by many other B1G representatives talking about how much the NYC market will mean to the league overall and how the Rutgers and Maryland additions will boost BTN profits
So even assuming that PSU did want Rutgers in and behind the scenes was threatening to bolt if they weren't added, the above leads to the question of precisely why and how were the 11 other members convinced to vote in Rutgers due solely on what PSU as an institution wanted at the time and even with a potential threat of bolting the league for the ACC considering the mess PSU was in due to the Sandusky scandal how do you think the 11 other members would have assessed the chances of that actually happening during this unsettling time for the Nits considering the huge athletic $$$ gulf between the two conferences?
Like I have said, we have had these discussions in the past, and the fact that you apparently still maintain that markets meant nothing or very little begs the question how do you take into account what the league has attempted to do since the additions of Rutgers and Maryland (opening up a NYC office, getting the bb tourney in DC and MSG, etc.), which to me all backs up Delany's stated reasons for the additions as being both getting into the coveted NYC and DC markets as well as increased BTN revenue.
So my stance remains the same as it always was on this topic:
Yes, markets and BTN $$$ were always a part of the equation for the additions of both Maryland and Rutgers. And yes the potential loss of PSU to the ACC was indeed a small factor as well. But now, with hindsight, I wonder if given the timing of the additions and when the negotiations were going on, is it possible these additions were not just about markets, BTN $$$ and keeping PSU in the fold but were also the best available back up plan should the weight of the Sandusky scandal keep PSU down for a decade or more?
The answers to the questions I pose are not as cut and dried as you might believe.
But I thank you for at least getting me to realize something new to this that I hadn't considered when discussing this in the past.
Cheers,
Neil
