Ours was actually a study paid for by the Big10....the study concluded that RU was the most ideal candidate. I believe the study also mentioned Missouri as a final candidate.
Also, your article is 100% invalid since the Big10 took Rutgers...which means your article was pure speculation without facts. Expansion in the northeast is over.
Your logic is troublesome. The first link (to the Teddy Greenstein column) was just as speculative as the link I provided (to the Bill Livingston column). Your second link was to an article about an article, which expressly stated, in a direct quote, "The Tribune story provided no enlightenment as to the parameters the of the study nor specific conclusions." From those links you knew, "
as a matter of fact," that Rutgers was headed to the Big Ten? Really?
At about the same time as your "study," Bill Livingston -- who has been reporting on the Big Ten for the Plain Dealer since Teddy Greenstein was 10 years old -- clearly stated his
opinions that the Big Ten "should focus on Connecticut, and I have reason to believe that is exactly what is happening at Big Ten headquarters in Chicago"; that "UConn, however, ought to be a very appealing substitute [for Notre Dame], and I believe Big Ten officials see it that way, too"; that "[a]nother Big East program with appeal is New Jersey-based Rutgers. But UConn brings more," and that "[t]he schools I mentioned are in the mix. This is not pie in the sky."
Now, obviously, as of today, Rutgers is in and UConn is not, but your assumption that the Livingston article "was pure speculation without facts" and that the Greenstein article was 100% accurate, just because Greenstein was right and Livingston was not (as of today), is about as stupid as failing to fire Mike Rice, hiring Eddie Jordan, or firing Tim Pernetti and replacing him with Julie Hermann. (OK, so, maybe not that stupid.)
