Yeah there’s a reason MGo refers to them as the Cable Subscribers. That said it seems like there’s a pretty decent path to big $$ conditional on these schools actually running their ADs effectively?
Turns out that’s a lot harder than expected. Not least bc once you’re in the B1G the incentives you face to be good aren’t particularly compelling. If we made $$ conditional on winning that might help?
I can’t speak about the financials, but Rutgers has actually created a weird interest for me-especially around hoops. It’s always entertaining. I disagree in the 0 value. I would keep Rutgers over Northwestern and/or Minnesota all day long - brown jug be damned!
I dk about that but I do think that between Pikiell and Schiano they’re on a good footing and they could build a decent draw over the next few years if it all works out
It gets complicated trying to measure value. There is little doubt Rutgers has made money for the other conference teams so far. And now we are seeing that money is a lure to USC and UCLA.
Although the cable landscape has changed, it hasn’t zeroed out as a revenue source. But it does seem true that Rutgers needs to improve its football program or they will be a bit of a drag on revenue.
Rob is at least tangentially in the biz afaik and has been tweeting a lot about this. He’s an Arizona alum, so some skin in the game from that perspective.
His pessimism about the SF market I would guess is pretty well informed.
Rutgers was an outside-the-box choice but made some sense. New Jersey is a big state that produces a lot of good HS athletes, but it had never had big time college sports to take advantage. As the state’s flagship institution, Rutgers is the most logical school to fill that void. RU can be a pretty good sports school just by keeping NJ talent at home.
Even if Rutgers never gets over the hump and does anything sports-wise, having the Big Ten get a foothold in the NJ talent pool is certainly beneficial. If more kids from NJ now go to Michigan/OSU/PSU, that’s good for the league, too.
MGoBlog hates Rutgers for some reason but I don’t really know why. Imo the biggest stretch was Nebraska, which may have a good history but I don’t like their long-term outlook. Their state has a small, stagnant population and you probably can’t win national titles running the triple option anymore. If you were to ask me which of Rutgers or Nebraska is more likely to be a sports power going forward, I’d pick RU.
First, I want to say I hate the idea of expansion especially for the sake of money, but I think Rutgers is a perfect Big Ten fit tbh I never understood the hate. Nebraska kind of is as well. Both massive research universities that have similar cultures to the other B1G schools. I didn’t think USC and UCLA are fits simply because of location but now that we’ve crossed the rubicon I think Cal would be a perfect fit.
The two Bay Area schools would be assets regardless of athletic viewership and alumni engagement simply because of the notoriety of their brands. I dunno, I’m not so convinced the people in charge of conf expansions are as negative about bringing those two schools in as this guy seems to be.
I hate Rutgers
I think you can make a case for Cal and Stanford to the Big Ten. They do add a lot of value in academics and the Big Ten is actually an academic alliance that works together to bring in significant research money. I’d rather not add them because I don’t want that many teams.
Where we part ways is whether the SEC attaches significant value to anything they would bring. Whatever value they would perceive would be outweighed by the idea they they lost out to the Big Ten in their expansion to California.
There is a mutual lack of interest between Cal and the SEC.
To the extent that being an “academic” conference means they would prioritize Cal over Clemson, I’ll take the other side of that bet.
I didn’t say SEC would find Berkeley more attractive than Clemson.
My b I was referring to the B1G
Wasn’t the Cal in the SEC thing here just somebody making a joke?
I don’t think you can find a worse cultural fit than Cal and the SEC.
Give me Oregon and Washington and screw ND.
Oregon and Washington would be natural rivals and scheduling partners for USC and UCLA and they are good schools that make for awesome road trips.
Rutgers is terrible in every way possible. They were added as a shortsighted money grab and provide nothing beyond alleged eyeballs in the NY/NJ market.
How do you not understand the hate?
Get rid of usc and ucla. Pick up iowa state, Missouri,Cincinnati and Pitt.
How are you defining terrible? They just finished in the middle of the conference in the Director’s Cup standings and they’re still playing catch-up in the facilities department. I don’t think they’re even getting the full Big Ten $$ share yet.
The conference is worse with 18 teams than 16. Convince me otherwise before adding anyone but Notre Dame.