imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
People in NY? How about people in NJ, where this university is located? Don't forget about Philly, which is relatively close as well - NJ is surrounded by big population numbers, including NJ itself.
Miller: Rutgers with Strong Hand; Make Way for Nebraska & Mizzou?
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
People in NY? How about people in NJ, where this university is located? Don't forget about Philly, which is relatively close as well - NJ is surrounded by big population numbers, including NJ itself.
jshawks
Well-Known Member
This is a great read and I agree with it entirely!
HawKCP
Well-Known Member
I guess I always thought that Syracuse and Rutgers were to NY what Iowa an ISU are to Iowa...I stand corrected. But the question remains...exactly what major tv market is the Big Ten going to capture with the hypothetical addition of Rutgers?
Which game would get better ratings in NJ if both were playing at the same time...Notre Dame vs. Navy or Rutgers vs. UCONN?
Which game would get better ratings in NJ if both were playing at the same time...Notre Dame vs. Navy or Rutgers vs. UCONN?
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Yes, you are correct: it is about money basically--but it has very, very little to do with sports television contracts, football atttendance, the NCAA basketball circus, or anything concerning BT athletic programs.
First clue: the 2010 U of Iowa budget is just under THREE BILLION DOLLARS; in 2009 government, corporate & foundation grants & bequests brought in almost ONE HALF BILLION DOLLARS; the 2010 Iowa Athletic Dept budget is considerably under $70 million, but operating in the black again by more than ten million.
The primary reason why the BT now is considering moving up the timetable for expansion is the consensus view in post-secondary education that the combination of circumstances that make probable significant expansion in federal & corporate funding of university-based research.
As U of Iowa President Sally Mason in her Feb 17th statement marking the first anniversary of ARRA (American Recovery & Reinvestment Act) stted:
"ARRA ushered in a new era of research that will lead us to unprecedented scientific progress, Not since the post-Sputnik era have we witnessed the beginning of such vbast investment in the intellect, drive and promise of American science."
She summarized the use of ARRA funds for seeding huge investment planning for programs in which the U of Iowa will be the lead player involving as many as 30 other major research universities in projects to find treatment & cures for Huntingto's Disease, blister rust, national & international preventive dental programs for children as examples in addition to the massive involvement of the U or Iowa in expanding the scope from the DNA mapping work at Iowa and the multi-billion dollar role of the U of Iowa in cancer research & treatment.
The U of Iowa Hospital & Clinics now are in the first stages of the $1.1 BILLION renovation & expansion of the main hospital, with nearly another half-billion dollars in UIHC facilities completed or near completion, nearly half of that for cancer research & treatment. Three different UIHC research physicians each brought in more dollars of research funding than the TOTAL hAWKEYE ATHLETIC BUDGET. Revenue from patents is twice that of the athletic budget. So you're correct that money is at the heart of things, but the money tells us emphatically what are the real priorities of the U of Iowa AND THE OTHER BT UNIVERSITIES.
While I have been retired for more than a dacade now, I still keep close to former colleagues and the current concerns of my former work in the Office of Post-Secondary Education in the US Dept of Education. Not that there is any mystery about the reasons for and factors involved in the consensus belief that the Obama Administrations targeted objectives for national health reform, infrastructure rebuilding, and intensified programs to increase the numbers of scientists, technicians, skilled professionals, engineers, etc must by definition mean altered priorities in the federal budget that will sharply increase governmental funding & contracting with the nation's major universities & colleges.
It is this unanimity of judgment on the part of the BT member institutions administrations and faculties that is both (a) why the BT now is focusing on what the consortium can do to position itself more prominently at the federal trough, including the possible ways in which enlarging its membership; and (b) why attention will center on Rutgers & Pitt as the two major research universities who could provide critical resources needed to secure the optimal share of that government funding that will come to the universities.
As for Notre Dame, how many times does it have to be pointed out that (a) the BT is a consortium of major research universities, and because ND IS NOT & WILL NOT BECOME a research university the BT does not and will not have interest in adding ND; and (b) because ND is wholly committed & determined to remain a primarily teaching undergraduate institution, with the goal of becomind an even more excellent academic institution, it DOES NOT HAVE & WILL NOT HAVE interest in joining the BT.
Notre Dame in the BT is about as likely as Grinnell or Oberlin--and far less likely than Washington U of St Louis or Carnegie-Mellon...which won't happen either.
While
Caven
Well-Known Member
yes - but I am one of those 27 people and I want some B10 network love so bring on UNL
(that and I want them to experience how difficult the Big Ten is first hand so they shut the hell up)
83Hawk
Banned
*IF* it is all about money then you would be correct, DuffMan. However I just don't believe that money is the ONLY consideration here. I would be extremely disappointed in the Big 10 powers-that-be if that is the case. Money is a factor...I'm not that stupid...but I believe other factors also come into play.
Rutgers brings almost nothing athletically. Adding them would not enhance the athletic power of the conference...it would weaken it. Nebraska on the other hand, would make it stronger.
If the Big 10 expands by one team, I'd bet it is not Rutgers. If it is a three team expansion then yes, I can see it.
Last edited:
lightning1
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the info, Tigger. We like to think its all about sports. Not so.
P.S. I hope the UofI takes some of that govt money and fixes the water problems at the hospital.
Maybe some continuing ed for the Drs that dont always wash their hands between patients.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
"""As for Notre Dame, how many times does it have to be pointed out that (a) the BT is a consortium of major research universities, and because ND IS NOT & WILL NOT BECOME a research university the BT does not and will not have interest in adding ND; """
They were extended an invitation roughly 10 years ago, and they declined.
They were extended an invitation roughly 10 years ago, and they declined.
D
DDThompson
Guest
It is true that Rutgers doesn't have much in athletics. But if they bring in more $ to the Big10 network then the financial assets offset the athletic liability. And what's to complain about bringing in another Indiana level athletic program. Another W to go along with the added dough.
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Guarantee that you are very, very wrong in the belief/assumption that ND was"extended an invitation roughly ten years ago..."
IRREFUTABLE FACT: not since Penn State was placed on the BT presidents' annual agenda in 1987 has EVEN THE TOPIC OF EXPANSION been placed on the BT agenda. FACT is that only this past November id the BT offices annual review of presnet & potential future activities result in a recommendation for further, more detailed and extensive study of whether or not the staff should proposed to the BT presidents that expandion be placed on the agenda....and sometime before the Summer ends the further review will result in a recommendation--probably that expansion should be considered. If that happens, they may or may not suggest one or more potential candidates, but more likely the presidents will choose to look at possible alternatives on their own.
There were overtures from the BT office to the U of Texas in 1985-86 but when UT officials informed the BT that they would not be allowed to change conference affiliation unless accompanied by TS A&M, that was the end of it. A few months later the BT began talks with Penn State, and the following year expansion with Penn State as the potential new member was placed on the agenda---the first time expansion was formally considered since Michigan State was placed on the agenda right after World War 2--and that was the first expansion since Ohio State sought readmission just before the First World War.
I know this for fact because my work in the Office for Post-Secondary Education in the US Dept of Education required me to monitor BT activities, including reviewing the annual president's agenda, and I monitored the nearly three-year long review, evaluation, discussions & recommendations for (mandatory) necessary improvements to programs & facilities made to Penn State BEFORE the invitation to membership was extended.
The then-Notre Dame AD chatted with Big Ten Commissioner Delaney back in 1998 about their shared opinion that it would be good for both Notre Dame and the Big Ten if the Domers entered the BT. The ND AD then told this to a Chicago Tribune columnist who conjured up imagined discussions between the BT & ND. Of course both ND officials and the BT quickly dismissed his conjectures as unfounded and without any factual basis.
Still, such stories tend to persist even after the true facts are known. Even so, no sensible person should have any doubt that the invitation never happened. Even the most dedicated conspiracy theorist would have to give up his last shred of sanity to believe that the Big Ten secretly carried on months of endless discussions and negotiations involving hundreds of people on twelve college campuses, state regents & governments, the US Dept of Education, the NCAA, the ETS & ACT, numerous foundations and government agencies, etc WITHOUT EVER A SINGLE LEAK TO THE PUBLIC.
Not to mention that it would have required a flagrant violation of the BT by-laws and the charters of its member institutions. Such an invitation must of necessity by law & by-laws be voted formally by the BT Presidents in official session. By open-records law such an official vote would be a matter of public record. There isn't any. Naturally there is no record of something that never happened.
Last edited:
MIhawk
Well-Known Member
tiggerhawk,
you have 2 great posts here.
I agree that the research collaboration that Pitt and Rutgers bring to the CIC are 2 of their strongest draws.
I've been reading a couple of blogs that talk about B10 expansion, wonder if you've seen them. They are quite interesting
FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT (slant from a Illini alum, Chicago lawyer)
Barking Carnival — Blog — Being Bill Powers (TX blog slant)
you have 2 great posts here.
I agree that the research collaboration that Pitt and Rutgers bring to the CIC are 2 of their strongest draws.
I've been reading a couple of blogs that talk about B10 expansion, wonder if you've seen them. They are quite interesting
FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT (slant from a Illini alum, Chicago lawyer)
Barking Carnival — Blog — Being Bill Powers (TX blog slant)
MIhawk
Well-Known Member
Duff, your numbers are correct, but you make a potentially incorrect assumption--that the cable carriers of New Jersey, much less the NY metro area will be willing to PAY that.
Remember the 1st year of the BTN-- many of the local cable companies did not pick it up because they were not willing to meet the network's demand that they put the channel on the expanded basic tier at the per subscriber rate the BTN wanted. They (mostly) all caved after persistent pressure from the fan base to pick it up.
The same scenario would likely play out if Rutgers became a member-- the BTN is already carried on the sports pack type packages by many carries in the Rutger's area. To make MORE money the conference would need to strong arm it onto the basic tier at the increased coverage rates, just like it did for the current 'footprint' states. The carriers would likely resist, as the added cost would likely mean a rate hike for subscribers which is never popular. Do you think there would be the necessary ground swell of support from enough Rutgers fans that it would FORCE carriers to make the call in favor of the BTN? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.
In comparison, if Nebraska were the pick, it's a slam dunk that all the cable carriers in the state would get that kind of pressure and would be pretty quick to pick it up. It might not be a large number of new subscribers, but it would be money in the bank. In addition, there games with the likes of Nebraska, Michigan and PSU would be a bid deal, at least initially when it was a new concept. They would have an automatic rival in Iowa who cared about the rival (can we say the PSU, Rutger's alleged rival in the conference would give 2 craps about that game). Finally NE's fan base would help the likes of Minnesota and jNW will their stadiums when they play those games.
