Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
To date, Big Ten expansion has undergone two distinct phases. Phase I: Missouri and Pitt seem like reasonable combinations of academics and athletics. Let's add them! Phase II: Let's annex Texas. And Notre Dame. And the Big East. And Canada.
As of a few days ago, Phase II officially ended with a leaked study in which a consulting firm evaluated five choices and gave a general thumbs up to the idea of adding a 12th team. None of the candidates were Texas or the entirety of South America. One was long-term pipedream Notre Dame. The others were the usual, fairly boring suspects: Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers. How does this differ from Phase I?
The consensus among Big Ten sources, officials from other conferences and TV executives is that Rutgers offers the best package. Missouri is second and Pittsburgh third.
Rutgers is now the media favorite based on this. Penn State fan bete noir and grudge-holding columnist David Jones goes back to a 1992(!) column about adding the Scarlet Knights:
Rutgers, I was told with some condescension, was in a pro area full exclusively of pro fans. That people in New Jersey didn't even care about Rutgers, let alone the sought-after New York City metro sports fan of my rationale.
Well, more than 17 years later, the idea seems to be gaining some steam.
It's early yet, but in the next week or so expect a half-dozen more articles like this, each of them pitching Rutgers' "potential" based on the 2006 Louisville game, which drew an 8.1 rating. It's the crux of Jones' argument.
That's a big rating. It, however, is exactly one game. Rutgers lost a couple late that season and has settled down into a respectable, if uninspiring, program. Their ratings are now in the tank. Jones' own newspaper provides a damning look at how Rutgers draws when it's not having a historic Cinderella season, playing an undefeated opponent, and provided an exclusive Thursday night window. The four non-ND schools in this report ranked by average ratings for nationally televised games:
Obviously, Pitt's successful season made their games more compelling but Missouri was a bleh 8-5. Rutgers was 9-4. Other schools on that list who did not have much in the way of season but still killed RU in the ratings:
So Rutgers did a huge number once when it was a temporary media darling for fighting against 130 years of incompetence deep into that one season when the Big East was relevant. That is a one-time event that will never be replicated. And the 8.1 that game got isn't astounding for a late-season game between undefeated opponents. Michigan-OSU 2006 did 14.3. Texas Tech-Texas did a 7.5 in 2009.
Rutgers is basically equivalent to the other schools under consideration academically. They are not a good geographic fit. The closest school is Penn State four hours away. Everyone else in the conference is ten or more hours distant and will have to fly. They have no historic rivalries with anyone in the Big Ten, unlike Missouri and Pitt, and their basketball program may be the worst in the BCS conferences. They haven't been to the tournament since 1991. They bring only one thing.
And they probably don't even bring that. The only reason to add Rutgers is if the Big Ten Network can get on a basic tier in New Jersey and New York, and it's here that the basketball program is a killer. No one on the entire planet cares about Rutgers basketball, which means that an extremely small proportion of the New York metro area will have to head to a bar a few times a year to catch Rutgers against some Big Ten team. One game in 2006 does not change the basic non-notability of Rutgers athletics in the New York market. The Big Ten will be taking a huge, probably unsuccessful risk if they add them.
There's only one way adding Rutgers makes sense: sign the cable company contracts first. Given the year-long war the BTN prompted in areas where the local college is the main attraction and not competing with the Nets to be ninth-most popular, that will happen the day after Notre Dame drops all this Catholicism business and joins the Big Ten as an Indiana state school.
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
11 comments
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
Scoreboard data copyright © 2012 by STATS LLC. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC is strictly prohibited.
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
•
Odds Shark 
Comments
Agree. Rutgers is as relevant in football as PSU is in men’s basketball.
by PhillyPSU on Mar 8, 2010 4:35 PM EST reply actions
idk if i’d go that far philly… at least they’ve contended for league title in football…. don’t think psu has ever contended for a bigten basketball title.
by buckifreak on Mar 8, 2010 5:03 PM EST reply actions
I can definitely say that Rutgers does not have the worst BCS basketball program. That award goes to Big Ten Northwestern who has NEVER made the NCAA tournament. Adding Rutgers would drop Big Ten further down the food chain with 3 of the worst BCS basketball programs around (Penn State). With Iowa and Indiana falling fast.
by GMoney$ on Mar 8, 2010 5:58 PM EST reply actions
Rutgers would be an awful choice. If the Big Ten is gonna get a team from the Big East it should be W.V., Pitt or Cincy.
by buckeyenut on Mar 8, 2010 6:33 PM EST reply actions
The Big Ten just wants to get into the NY media market. Plain and simple.
by tonyhixx on Mar 8, 2010 9:46 PM EST reply actions
Don’t know if I agree with you, if that’s the case though I’d rather see Syracuse in the Big Ten.
by buckeyenut on Mar 8, 2010 10:22 PM EST reply actions
This article is poorly written. First comparing TV ratings of most teams is comapring Apples and Oranges. The author poo-poos an incredible 8.1 rating for Rutgers (where most Eastern viewers were there to watch and root for Rutgers) and uses 2009 numbers for UCONN and Pitt (who was having a very good season)-both unlike Rutgers whom did not play Notre Dame. Do you honestly believe most viewers outside of Connecticut and Pennsylvania were watching those games to root and watch UCONN and Pitt? I think not. There’s a reason why prime tickets for Notre Dame-Navy at the New Meadowlands Stadium are selling for $325 a pair face value. Second there are other examples where Rutgers has drawn sizable TV numbers. The 1989-90 Atlantic 10 Championship between Rutgers and Penn State was ESPNs highest numbers for that Championship week I believe.
Also this article assumes Rutgers’ recruiting won’t be enhanced by Big 10 admission. Baloney! One can only look to Penn State. Before the Big 10 Penn State recruited locally to a large extent. Upon Big 10 admission Penn State recruited better on a national basis. In fact Penn State’s football program in recent years HAS IMPROVED despite the flow of New Jersey football players enrolling at Penn State being cut off to a large extent by Greg Schiano. Rutgers basketball is in a down period in the toughest leage in the nation (they did beat #9 Georgetown). With the right coach Rutgers will return to prominence and compete for a National Championship. Though a long time ago Rutgers `went to the Final 4 undefeated (32-0) in 1975 and 1976 only to lose to Michigan (who lost to an undefeated Indiana).
As is many fans in the Northeast aren’t every intersted in the Big 10 and with the resurgence of Rutgers football Penn State has become somewhat less relevant (is it any coincidence JoePA has pushed to have Rutgers included in the Big 10?). I hear I have the Big 10 Network ncluded in the $5 I pay for my Fox sports package on Cablevision. If I do I honestly do not know-I purchase for occasional viewing of TVG-the horseracing channel TVG! The Big 10 needs to include a local New York area school to expand it’s network and Rutgersis the obvious #1 choice. However I do think Pitt and Syracuse would also be welcome additions to the conference.
by plucas1818 on Mar 9, 2010 3:07 AM EST reply actions
This article is poorly written. First comparing TV ratings of most teams head to head is like comparing apples and oranges. The author poo-poos an incredible 8.1 rating for Rutgers (a game where most Eastern viewers were there to watch and root for Rutgersand the Empire State Building draped in Scarlet) and uses 2009 numbers for UCONN and Pitt (who was having a very good season)-that include National games against Notre Dame. Rutgers did not play Notre Dame in 2009 (I believe the TV ratings for the last time Rutgers played Notre Dame even pre-Schiano were similar if not better). Do you honestly believe most viewers outside of Connecticut and Pennsylvania were watching those games to root and watch UCONN and Pitt? I think not. There’s a reason why prime tickets for Notre Dame-Navy at the New Meadowlands Stadium are selling for $325 a pair face value! Second there are other examples where Rutgers has drawn sizable TV numbers. The 1989-90 Atlantic 10 Championship between Rutgers and Penn State was ESPN’s highest numbers for that Championship Week I believe.
Also this article assumes Rutgers’ recruiting won’t be enhanced by Big 10 admission. Baloney! One can only look to Penn State. Before the Big 10 Penn State recruited locally to a large extent. Upon Big 10 admission Penn State recruited better on a national basis. In fact Penn State’s football program in recent years HAS IMPROVED despite the flow of New Jersey football players enrolling at Penn State being cut off to a large extent by Greg Schiano. Rutgers basketball is in a down period in the toughest leage in the nation (they did beat at the time #9 Georgetown). With the right coach Rutgers will return to prominence and compete for a National Championship. Though a long time ago Rutgers went to the Final 4 undefeated (32-0) in 1975-76 only to lose to Michigan (who lost to an undefeated Indiana). As late as 5 years ago people were calling on Rutgers to drop football becasue they’d never be good. During the past 5 years Rutgers Football is one of the few NCAA football teams to have a 5-0 bowl record. A basketball program is much easier program to turn around than football (now about those Bobby Knight rumors…).
ablevision. If I do I honestly do not know-I purchase for occasional viewing of TVG-the horseracing channel TVG! The Big 10 needs to include a local New York area school to expand it’s network and Rutgersis the obvious #1 choice. However I do think Pitt and Syracuse would also be welcome additions to the conference.
by plucas1818 on Mar 9, 2010 3:19 AM EST reply actions
One error that needs correcting is this notion that the Rutgers- Louisville game garnered an 8.1 national rating. It didn’t. It garnered a 5.06 national rating, which is still great, making it at that time the second highest rated Thursday night game behind the West Virginia-Louisville game. It now ranks fourth.
The 8.1 part was its share from the NYC DMA, 31% of which are northern New Jersey residents. It was a perfect storm of a never-do-well program possibly making a BCS Bowl with a win combined with great interest from the #1 market in the world. If Rutgers went to the Big Ten and had similar success as they had in 2006, the ratings would be similar.
The question is, will they approach that kind of success in the Big Ten? While I think they will do better than some want to give them credit for, I doubt it will be challenging for the Rose Bowl either.
by omnicarrier on Mar 9, 2010 8:48 AM EST reply actions
Rutgers in the Big Ten will never happen. As a business (and a successful one at that) the Big Ten will explore every option they have, and undoubtedly Rutgers is an option; however, as someone who lives in New Jersey near NEw York, outside of casual interest in their average football program, most people couldn’t tell you what conference they are in right now, including some sports fans I know. Now, my experience isn’t all that inclusive admittedly, but it does tell you that there isn’t exactly elation over anything having to do with Rutgers. Outside of potential TV revenue, there isn’t much else there to like for the Big Ten. Personally, I believe Missouri or Nebraska will join the Big Ten, thus causing a major conference domino effect. (Big XII could be in jeopardy).
by rogtodd on Mar 10, 2010 8:43 AM EST reply actions
Duh. Of course the cable companies would be on board before the Big10 would take Rutger’s bid. It’s the crux of everything. Good insight, but fear not that anybody who trumpets Rutgers is assuming a cable package is hypothetically in hand.
MO is still my prediction (unless ND decides to stop being the most vain organization in the country.) Pitt just doesn’t bring much that we already don’t have TV-market wise. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that Priority #1 here isn’t more BTN subscribers. All other priorities are secondary.
by umich4life on Mar 10, 2010 1:36 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed