- Joined
- Mar 28, 2012
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction Score
- 458
So why add Rutgers at all then if NYC is not an end-goal for them? I understand what you're saying about Maryland and to be honest, I don't know enough about that area to know if people follow them or not. I do know that Rutgers has little to no following in Northern NJ, let alone CT. I know the DMA's and reports say differently but I dunno. So why did they go after RU and not grab Missouri? For all intents and purposes, Missouri wanted to go to the B1G and they brought that Mid-West market. Why go for Rutgers if what you say is correct about the NYC market not being a major target for them? Curious why you feel they went that route. Especially when Rutgers doesn't even bring a strong athletic program in ANY sport. (I know that doesn't factor all the time but why bring in a school that's going to be a bottom feeder year in and year out in all sports?)
Good questions. Here is what the Big Ten believes (or at least what the data has showed them):
(1) NYC isn't a great college sports market, but maybe one conference with the best combo of brand names can get market penetration there.
(2) NYC *does* have a critical mass of Big Ten alums overall already (particularly with Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State), so they have a puncher's chance of being that one conference.
(3) All things being equal, Joe Blow Casual Sports Fan in the NYC market is more likely to watch Rutgers over UConn and Syracuse (the ratings have tended to show this) for *football*. That doesn't mean that Rutgers has anywhere near the interest of the NYC pro teams, but relative to the other colleges in the Tri-State area, it has demonstrated to have had the highest level of football interest year-to-year. A lot of fans tend to think that having a "following" means that it needs to be like Yankees fandom or on par with Ohio State fans in Ohio, but that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.
So, I don't want to say that the NYC market was NOT a major target for the Big Ten. My last post might have sounded that way. What I really mean is that the Big Ten is not going to blindly go after the NYC market at all costs at the expense of trying to get, say, Virginia or North Carolina in 10 years. The way I read it is if that if this particular combo of schools can't crack the NYC market, then adding the likes of UConn and/or Syracuse on top of them probably won't move the needle any further, either. (Once again, this is about football, football, football. NOT basketball.) So, the Rutgers addition may very well end up being a failure from an NYC market delivery standpoint. However, that's not necessarily a good thing for UConn. I find it more likely that would just make the Big Ten presidents more resolved to go after the 110% "sure things" whenever they expand again (e.g. UNC, Florida State, etc.).