PonyFans.com

Guaranteed wins for the foreseeable future.....
http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/ind ... cart_river

Never understood why the big 10 chose Rutgers. Rutgers does not give you the tri-state market and they do nothing but drive your strength of schedule down. They had exactly 2 good seasons in a mediocre football league from a great coach who had already moved on.

I understand that the rest of the Midwest schools wouldnt want another Ohio school eliminating Cincy, but I would have thought uconn with a perennial basketball team (in men and women's) and a relatively recent bus bowl would have made more sense.

Given that once you add a school it's next to impossible to remove them and given the fact that this is supposedly FB driven, not BB and certainly not WBB, neither UConn or Rutgers makes any sense to me.

If it's about TV markets, does Rutgers really carry theirs more than we do ours?

They didn't care about the school itself, they wanted the carriage rights for tv in NJ and NY

A school that size and the AD doesn't have fundraising plans constantly ready to go and actively courting donors? Their basketball program wouldn't have had it much easier if they had stayed in the AAC.

Can we just wave their exit fee in front of them and say thanks? Maybe we can dedicate a fountain on campus.

how odd and what a dumb thing to say. You just killed your recruiting classes for years. What is the coach to think with no support?

The Big X has made some pretty good business moves over the last 10-15 years. A lot better than the Big XII. Rutgers makes no sense to many but it made sense to the Big X. I wish the Big X would challenge he SEC and Big XII by taking SMU.

ponyte wrote:The Big X has made some pretty good business moves over the last 10-15 years. A lot better than the Big XII. Rutgers makes no sense to many but it made sense to the Big X. I wish the Big X would challenge he SEC and Big XII by taking SMU.

Not an AAU school, and not contiguous with any states that currently have a Big 10 school. Those have seemed to be the de facto requirements in the past.

If the Big 10 can't pry Notre Dame or UVa/UNC/Duke away next go round, I think they'll make an effort at getting Kansas and Mizzou. I always thought they should have tried to lockup Mizzou and the STL/KC market last time around, instead of Nebraska, but what do I know? Also, they probably couldnt get KU without including KSU as well. I doubt Mizzou would leave the SEC but the Big 10 is a better geographical and cultural fit for them.

East Coast Mustang wrote:

ponyte wrote:The Big X has made some pretty good business moves over the last 10-15 years. A lot better than the Big XII. Rutgers makes no sense to many but it made sense to the Big X. I wish the Big X would challenge he SEC and Big XII by taking SMU.

Not an AAU school, and not contiguous with any states that currently have a Big 10 school. Those have seemed to be the de facto requirements in the past.

If the Big 10 can't pry Notre Dame or UVa/UNC/Duke away next go round, I think they'll make an effort at getting Kansas and Mizzou. I always thought they should have tried to lockup Mizzou and the STL/KC market last time around, instead of Nebraska, but what do I know? Also, they probably couldnt get KU without including KSU as well. I doubt Mizzou would leave the SEC but the Big 10 is a better geographical and cultural fit for them.

Correct. Nebraska ended up getting kicked out of the AAU after joining.

Notre Dame is also not an AAU school, although I am sure they would make an exception in that case

Awhile back, I remember reading an article about Rutgers' athletics. As I recall, the gist was that the athletic department runs a huge deficit and is in really bad shape. Nowhere even approaching Big-10 caliber. The hope obviously is that Big-10 money will cure all ills over time. But that may be a fool's hope. Even with a full cut of Big-10 TV money, my understanding is that Rutgers athletics would still be running a sizable deficit.

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:Awhile back, I remember reading an article about Rutgers' athletics. As I recall, the gist was that the athletic department runs a huge deficit and is in really bad shape. Nowhere even approaching Big-10 caliber. The hope obviously is that Big-10 money will cure all ills over time. But that may be a fool's hope. Even with a full cut of Big-10 TV money, my understanding is that Rutgers athletics would still be running a sizable deficit.

Even with TV revenue, you have to be able to constantly raise funds from alumni. NJIT appears to be better at raising funds for new facilities than them

East Coast Mustang wrote:

ponyte wrote:The Big X has made some pretty good business moves over the last 10-15 years. A lot better than the Big XII. Rutgers makes no sense to many but it made sense to the Big X. I wish the Big X would challenge he SEC and Big XII by taking SMU.

Not an AAU school, and not contiguous with any states that currently have a Big 10 school. Those have seemed to be the de facto requirements in the past.

NJ shares a border with PA.

CA Mustang wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:

ponyte wrote:The Big X has made some pretty good business moves over the last 10-15 years. A lot better than the Big XII. Rutgers makes no sense to many but it made sense to the Big X. I wish the Big X would challenge he SEC and Big XII by taking SMU.

Not an AAU school, and not contiguous with any states that currently have a Big 10 school. Those have seemed to be the de facto requirements in the past.

NJ shares a border with PA.

But TX doesn't

PLENTY of Big 10 alumni in NY/NJ area and that's what it's really all about. Big 10 is still the top revenue producing conference and the group that started this arms race with the BTN

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:Awhile back, I remember reading an article about Rutgers' athletics. As I recall, the gist was that the athletic department runs a huge deficit and is in really bad shape. Nowhere even approaching Big-10 caliber. The hope obviously is that Big-10 money will cure all ills over time. But that may be a fool's hope. Even with a full cut of Big-10 TV money, my understanding is that Rutgers athletics would still be running a sizable deficit.

I have not followed the debt issues of Rutgers since roughly 2008; however, during the Schiano years they pumped roughly $140 million into new football facilities and a total renovation and expansion of the football stadium. After spending the money they had no sources of funding for the debt. Ultimately, the state government refused to underwrite the expenditures. Last I heard they had at least $112 in unfunded debt in the football program alone. It is easy to understand why they cut 7 minor sports during this time and cannot afford to initiate any new renovations or athletic facility expansions.