User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5965 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
First of all, no.
Second of all, the NY Market is more than NYC. Rutgers is extremely popular in New Jersey, which by itself is a major market.
Presumably, but who knows what will happen post-Jim Calhoun.
Yes; how could Rutgers possibly besmirch the conference of Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota and Northwestern.
Maryland has a big advantage in academics, which matters for the ACC as well (or did?). Better at fringe sports as well. I'll leave it to others to determine the importance of media markets (Baltimore + DC v. Connecticut + a sliver of NYC, I presume ... I'd naively think that the former is better).
WJ aside, I imagine few would consider Rutgers to be anything but a watering down of the B10 brand.
WJ aside, I imagine few would consider Rutgers to be anything but a watering down of the B10 brand.
Why? "Tradition?"
Reunited with the Western Reserve once again!
The B1G has an interesting decision coming. IMO, it makes sense to build a solid block of Eastern schools - the conference that Penn State should've built for itself, but didn't. Do you try to pluck UVA/VaTech? Presume UVA/UNC is out, because UNC isn't coming without State and Wake. What about UVA/UConn? Or if you want to stay to the North, UConn/BC? Lots of options. It seems like Pitt and 'Cuse aren't targets for economic reasons.
With an additional two-team expansion in the East, you start to see a quasi-plausible alignment:
East:
PSU
Maryland
Rutgers
[Eastern School A]
[Eastern School B]
West:
Iowa
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
NW
Illinois
That leaves five schools over to divvy up between the divions, with arguments pro and con for several splits:
UM
MSU
OSU
IU
Purdue
I think they have one of the better LaCrosse teams in the country.
La Crosse is a place in Wisconsin. Lacrosse is what obnoxious anti-intellectual suburban bros play. LaCrosse is neither.
Quality of academics, quality of athletics, and size of fanbase. Granted, Rutgers has a higher ceiling than most schools.
Maryland's AD said the divisions will be:
"Leaders"
Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Purdue
Indiana
Maryland
Rutgers
"Legends"
Michigan
Michigan State
Nebraska
Minnesota
Northwestern
Iowa
Illinois
Quality of academics, quality of athletics, and size of fanbase. Granted, Rutgers has a higher ceiling than most schools.
Size of the fanbase is valid, sure. The other two? Getting hard to see the difference between a Rutgers and most of the Big 10 in terms of football program quality. Academics? An AAU land grant public research university...fits the profile perfectly.
Thank goodness the Big East died before the idiotic West/East split came about.
It's not dead yet. A ton of football teams still planning to play there as of yet. We'll see what happens with the five remaining desriable programs: USF, Cincy, Louisville, UConn, and Boise.
Come now, man. Maybe you need a new set of glasses. And I'm a supporter of Rutgers to the B1G.
Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern.....
Which of those schools is demonstrably better than Rutgers on the field, today?
It's going to be the Big 2 and Little 12. Michigan and O$U are recruiting top 5 nationally, no other team is even in the top 20. Not WI, not NU, not MSU, not PSU and not MD and RU.
I don't have any problem with this expansion. It's good for Michigan, I don't give a #### about the rest of the conference. I might miss playing Iowa sometimes but that's about freaking it. Let the money pour in, let Michigan and O$U continue to distance themselves from everyone in football. And oh yea, helluva basketball conference.
Agreed, ten thousand times agreed.
I dont get why you pick up Rutgers and then put them in a non-geographically aligned division that doesn't include Michigan, probably the most popular college program in NYC. Unless this is just a place-keeper till further expansion, which is my stong suspicion.
I dont get why you pick up Rutgers and then put them in a non-geographically aligned division that doesn't include Michigan, probably the most popular college program in NYC
Well, they are in a division with Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin...that is a lot of the conference star power. The other division needs somebody...my guess is they didnt want to to split up MSU/UM
If you take an university ranking metric, Rutgers will come in well below the Big 10 median. (First one I eyeballed was USN≀ - Rutgers came in at #260 in the world, between Utah and Hawaii).
As for Rutgers skill at sport:
1) Rutgers, over the last four years, has posted Sagarin rankings around the Big 10 average (Rutgers: 73.88, Big Ten: 74.17). However,
2) football is not the only sport around - and Rutgers is far below the B10 in terms of how well they perform at the other stuff.
Idiotic.
Totally agree, man. As a NYC Michigan fan, I UNDERSTAND why the main body of Michigan fans don't get that the Megalopolis is Michigan's path to continued football relevance as Michigan (as a state) dclines. But I still think it's short-sighted. The NYC area sends tons of kids to Michigan, probably more than to any other traditional football school, and vice-versa with alumni coming to NYC.
The price of "missing" Iowa or Wisconsin is well-worth long-term relevance.
The protected cross-division game with OSU is a bear, though; one day it'll keep UM from winning a championship.
Research quality has nothing to do with undergraduate education.
This is probably correct imo. This is a precursor to 16 team super-conferences of which the B1G will be one. The B1G is just covering their bases added RU and MD now. I'm guessing they head west next.
Alternately, can you find another human being not associated with Rutgers who would make this comparison?
(Note: I've no connection to the Big East or Big Ten. Am a GT fan and lived in 4 ACC markets over the years, but will willingly conceed their not being the top conference at much of anything.)
Assuming you mean football field, I would take Northwestern in a heartbeat if they were playing Rutgers. It's hard to make comparisons directly, but Minnesota played a common opponent (a visiting Cuse) just as well, if not better (more yards gained, less allowed, same number of turnovers), and I think that game is a tossup. Rutgers is probably better than the other teams you mentioned, but this is pretty much the best Rutgers squad since 2006.
Thing is, Rutgers hasn't pounded anyone except for Temple and they haven't played a particularly tough schedule. The defense and special teams are really good, but they wouldn't be special in the Big Ten, just good. The offense is bad in the Big East, it will be worse in the Big Ten. To consistently compete or go bowling in the Big Ten, they are going to need to be able to move the ball much better than they have this year.
I think moving to the Big Ten will help Rutgers in recruiting. It will make it easier to get top in-state talent and to expand it's recruiting base out west while strengthening it's appeal in NY and Florida. But Rutgers will have to continue to get better to be successful on the football field in the Big Ten.
I'm a native Michigander that lived in NYC from late '04 to 09. Michigan is the de-facto college football team there, even if cfb is way down on the sports radar for NYC metro, it's still like 12 million potential new fans/customers and you already have a solid base established.
I'd be sorta pissed if I was NU or PSU, but whatever, I'm not.
The age of the 4 super conferences is rapidly approaching. The Big 10, SEC, and Pac 12 have locked up 3 of the 4 available slots. Now the Big 12 and ACC are in a precarious position. One of them is going to be deprecated and it probably isn't going to be the one who strikes first.
People are saying this but I don't really see it. The Big 12 has a good conference in football and basketball. They have a good TV deal. Their only football deadweight is a basketball power. I think they Big 12 can survive at 10 teams if they want to. It is in no where near the same situation as the ACC. There's also no way that the ACC *can* strike first, because Texas and Oklahoma are never leaving the Big 12 for the AC ####### C.
This is a small part of what I'm talking about. I mean, Louisiana Tech could beat Minnesota right now, but that doesn't mean I think Louisiana Tech wouldn't dilute the B1G brand quite a bit.
Rutgers is a good academic school with a historically pretty bad athletic program, not much of a fan base, and a small, usually empty stadium. That's why I think it dilutes the conference.
Rutgers falls below the bar in research quality as well. E.g.:
NSF Funding, FY 2011:
#1 Illinois
#6 Wisconsin
#8 Michigan
#11 Purdue
#14 Minnesota
#15 Michigan State
[#21 Maryland]
#22 Penn State
[#26 Rutgers]
Those rankings move around a bit over 1-3 year periods b/c of certain big awards (Illinois, e.g., is distorted by Fermilab). So looking at 2008:
#3 Illinois
#5 Wisconsin
#9 Michigan
#12 Minnesota
#16 Michigan State
#17 Penn State
#19 Purdue
#20 Ohio State
[#25 Maryland]
[#29 Rutgers]
Alternately, can you find another human being not associated with Rutgers who would make this comparison?
Sure, USNWR, but not the rankings you're looking at. You should look at graduate rankings of PhD programs, which are far more closely correlated with research excellence. That will answer your question.
Northwestern 12
Michigan 29
Wisconsin 41
Illinois 46
Penn State 46
Ohio State 56
Maryland 58
Purdue 58
Rutgers 68
Minnesota 68
Iowa 72
MSU 72
Indiana 83
Nebraska 101
NSF Funding, FY 2011:
Yes, STEM is the only kind of research.
Same here. And I'll take Iowa going forward, this is a down year for them.
To be fair, its the stronger side of Rutgers graduate programs.
How have you not managed to catch ACC Fever?
I'm not saying Rutgers is a bad school but, yes, they water the Big 10 down in pretty much all respects.
The ACC will survive this they go to even numbers in every sport but football.
To be fair, its the stronger side of Rutgers graduate programs.
We're #2 PhD program in the country in Philosophy.
Top 25 in English.
top 20 History.
Top 30 Psychology...
that's just a quick search. Sorry we're not Berkeley.
With all that being true, I think they would be making a mistake to wait on Louisville. It's a quality basketball program (I think, I don't really have any clue), it has a profitable athletic department and if they move now, the chances of them retaining Strong and becoming a real contributor on the football field for the foreseeable future moves up markedly. It gives WV a regional rival, one with a decent amount of history, and gives them a yearly win over a SEC school. I don't know if there is a 12th that makes sense (BYU?) but Louisville seems like the clear best of the rest.
Jim Rice for the HOF argument. Rutgers isn't the worst UG program in the big ten - its a smidge better than the worst. It's not the worst graduate research institution - but it's smidge better than the worst. The football isn't the worst in the Big Ten - but its in the bottom half. The non-football athletics aren't the worst in the Big Ten - but just a smidge better than NW.
You're straining the argument with "fits the institutional profile". Rutgers is the worst school, taking academics, athletics, etc into account, in the Big Ten the moment they join. It's not a very good school, though it is getting better (and again, I say this as a supporter of the move with several friends who are faculty at Rutgers. None of them have any delusions about the quality, or lack thereof, of the university).
And this doesn't get into the difference in social factors; the quasi-commuter nature of Rutgers, the prevalence of private universities in the east siphoning off students who would otherwise go to the flagship, etc etc. Rutgers is a poor institutional fit, but the addition helps the Big Ten and there's a chance Rutgers could turn into a football power if they catch a few breaks.
BLB - Below the median and mean. Same is true if you use the WUR, or others metrics.
Your slavish devotion to those rankings is ridiculous. They are designed to be in the neighborhood, not to be precise measurements of anything.
What ####### school are you talking about? Rutgers Newark?
Right, because the social experience of Rutgers is JUST like Ann Arbor. Seriously, you believe this?
I'm sure the Big Ten schools don't get a prestige bump due to the fact that they're Big Ten schools.
Right, because the social experience of Rutgers is JUST like Ann Arbor. Seriously, you believe this?
Of course not, but on what planet is it a quasi-commuter school?
If you weren't good at some things, you'd be a crappy academic school. You're not - you're just not up to average current Big 10 standards.
[/smallhall]
Oh, I'm pretty sure my devotion to these rankings is less slavish than yours to your school. Or, to requote:
Wait a minute. No conference takes a second seat to the ACC when it comes to sending lambs to slaughter in BCS games.
Neither is half the current Big 10. Is that seriously supposed to be an argument? I feel like I'm arguing with Joe Kehoskie all of a sudden.
Kansas did win the Orange Bowl five years ago. Granted, that's about as likely to happen again in the near future as Turner Gill turning out to be the man to make the late Jerry Fallwell's dream of an evangelical Notre Dame come true at Liberty.
Assuming you're being serious, conference championship games probably cost as much as they make up in terms of eliminating teams from title game and BCS game berths. At the very least, I don't see them as some gigantic cash cow. As for costing them in terms of playing for national titles, I don't see it. If anything, it helps. The main reason why the Big 12 is ranked the best conference this year is because they don't have the really weak bottom of the conference schools. Yes, they have Kansas but all of the other major conferences have multiple awful teams. KSU was ranked above ND and Oregon this year and as long as the conference stays good their undefeated teams are going to be respected.
I don't *mind* Louisville or some of these teams joining. But you look at the schools major conferences have added: Missouri, A&M, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland.
A&M is the only big-time addition there IMO. Nebraska is solid at football, but not the power it used to be. It also isn't a good school and isn't good at basketball. On the whole, I think the Big 10 has, gotten worse with its brand. Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland isn't much more than adding conference filler. The Big 10 shouldn't have worried about being taken over, as they are probably the most stable conference out there.
The Pac 10 definitely made their conference worse.
http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf
Maryland in group 2, with Northwestern, U of Chicago (CIC), Illinois, Iowa. Rutgers in group 3, with Purdue, MSU. Nebraska in group 4.
They have knocked teams out of the title game, but usually another team in their conference just replaces them in a BCS game.
Right, but if you add a school that is solidly in the bottom third (to be charitable, more like bottom quarter) of the exiting membership, that is a dilution. In fact, it is the very definition of dilution. Rutgers doesn't need to be a zero to be a dilution, just below average - and it's way below average.
I find the whole fractal nature of school insecurity very interesting. I went to a perfectly cromulent Ivy - it, however, was decidedly not Harvard or Yale. You'd find people who'd swear we were just as good as Harvard or Yale based on XYZ ######## metric. You go to Michigan, you find people who swear the school is just as good as an Ivy b/c of XYZ ######## metric. You go to MSU, you find people who swear they're just as good as Michigan because of XYZ ######## metric. And then you go to Rutgers and you find people who swear they're just as good as MSU because of XYZ ######## metric.
Spencer Hall had it right - whereever you're from sucks. No matter where it is.
Anyway, I'm a professor at a community college, so they all look good to me.
You are the only one swinging a dick around. I was talking about general institutional profile, not Rutgers' relative standing compared to any other individual school. It's pretty clear that on that broader question, I'm right. It's obvious you went to an Ivy, because you're obsessed with idiotic college rankings.
This is a stronger version of what I was trying to say. If I were ranking these schools academically, I'd have Rutgers third from the bottom (ahead of Nebraska and Indiana), but within some range of error of a few other schools. But not at least half of the conference. It won't embarrass the conference or anything, but it's defnitely a watering down.
Requoted for truth.
(Incidentally, I (briefly) went to UNC and considered Duke - and hate neither school.)
I hate Nebraska, but I have little doubt they added to the B1G brand. They have a great history, fill a big stadium every Saturday, have one of the most rabid fanbases in America, are pretty consistently a top 25 program, could be national title contenders every once in awhile, are better academically than their rep suggests, and are actually quite good at the non-revenue sports (like baseball!)
OTOH, here is an interesting argument that because the SEC has 14 teams it inflates the records of their top programs, making them seem better than they are, which is why in part people think they're a super-duper conference.
From TFA:
I think Louisville makes a ton of sense, but they're the only mid-major that does, and if I had my druthers, I'd rather turn my focus on poaching the ACC.
I agree with the A&M part, but disagree with Missouri part. It's a got a lot of TV eyeballs, and its the only FBS team in the state.
That is a good get for any conference.
As far as the Big 12 adding teams, I think without adding Notre Dame and/or Florida State, they may as well stay at 10. As I understand it, the additional revenue from a conference championship game divided by 12 is less than the gain (for each individual school) from the current tv deals being divided by 10 rather than being divided by 12.
There would be no gain in TV revenue by adding Louisville, or Cincy, but for Notre Dame and Florida State there would be.
Louisville is a decent get for the Big 12. Not sure how much football money is there, but otherwise...
I don't know about Nebraska's academics being better than their rep, but otherwise agree.
AG#1 - So Florida State and Notre Dame are certainly positive possible teams that could be added - but who else in the ACC is realistic mover and a gain?
Of course I didn't think Maryland was possible mover, so I guess anyone is in play
I'd've said Maryland was the most likely to leave, FSU next. GT (but not for the B12). Um, Clemson?
I could see Clemson to the Big 12. It's been rumored that they would go with Florida St. They've got a strong athletic program and are close to big markets in Atlanta and Charlotte. They might be willing to jump from the ACC in order to improve in prestige/recruiting versus South Carolina.
For the record, Fermilab is run by the University of Chicago.
I agree they help the brand, but I think them *and* the other 2 schools don't, really.
OTOH, here is an interesting argument that because the SEC has 14 teams it inflates the records of their top programs, making them seem better than they are, which is why in part people think they're a super-duper conference.
I don't know about that. This is the first year of 14 and this isn't the first year we've see this phenomenon. The fact is the SEC has won a shitload of BCS championships in a row, generally do well in bowls, and they're going to get the rep they have as a result. Also, this year was a bit "lucky" for the SEC in that pretty much all the good schools dodged each other in the cross over games. I don't think that A&M and Mizzou brought down the level of the play in the conference, so it's not that they were necessarily causing this problem either.
I think Louisville makes a ton of sense, but they're the only mid-major that does, and if I had my druthers, I'd rather turn my focus on poaching the ACC.
I agree that I think FSU and Louisville would be really nice additions. Louisville isn't good enough to justify adding a team like Boise or BYU that doesn't really make sense outside of football, though, like you say.
As an Michigan alum, this is pretty harsh. There are different experiences at differing college towns. New Brunswick is a perfectly fine college town. Its a little too spread out for me, but I don't think it was that much more different, than say, East Lansing.
I've known a lot of people who went to Rutgers (got to be over a hundred) over the years. I know one person who commuted.
I think Rutgers is a perfectly fine fit for the B1G. Its all about potential cable subscribers. The large alumni base and the improving football program is enough. Lets not pretend academics was ever a concern, as long as the minimum threshold was passed that's all that mattered. The only other schools that would bring the potential eyeballs and fit academically were Texas and Notre Dame and they're not coming.
Good point, the other universities that would fit in the B1G are almost all ranked below Rutgers and Maryland. They're not getting UNC, Georgia Tech or Texas to join. Iowa State is ranked 101 and adds no marginal revenue. Kansas is 106 and it's reputation is mostly basketball. Pitt (58) and Missouri (97) are probably the best fits for the B1G if they expand to 16. They've already given Mizzou the brushoff.
I bet GT would consider the Big 10. Pitt isn't a bad fit. I think Maryland was a decent add.
Damn. If that's true, it gets rid of the only way to remember which teams are where.
Currently, it's "The M's, the N's, and Iowa" and "Everyone Else". With the above alignment, it would be "The M's, except for Maryland, the N's, Iowa, and Illinois" and "Everyone Else". Doesn't have any ring to it whatsoever.
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school’s motivation to realign is largely financial. Delany declined comments regarding finances in a telephone interview Monday.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
There's got to be a clever acronym to come up with for the teams.
Well, one should be PIMPROW. The other has two I's and a #### ton of M's and N's, which will make it difficult. MINNIMM?
Geez, no wonder ESPN was in such a hurry to lock up all their major conferences to extremely long term TV deals.
I think ND is locked into the ACC for now. We'll see. I'd love to see the Big 12 land them though.
There were rumors of FSU and Clemson wanting to jump to the Big 12 a few months ago. IIRC, both voted against the increase in exit fees. Neither can go to the SEC supposedly because Florida and South Carolina would block them. So the Big 12 would be the next best option.
miami just self imposed a bowl ban. gt will face (lose to) fsu in the conference championship game. acc will not be able to fill all possible bowl slots this year (had up to 8).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main