Conference Realignment Board

Joined: 01/01/2005 Posts: 33818
Likes: 12458

What's this?

I am not saying that Rutgers was a good addition for the Big Ten

What I am questioning is the position that Rutgers entire athletic department is "horrible" even though Rutgers had different programs make various postseason tournaments (NCAA and otherwise) over the years and even win national championships. At least it seems to me that the perception of Rutgers may be based solely on how they perform in the 2 revenue sports. If that is true, then it is possible that perception may not be completely accurate.

If a perception of a school is being based solely on how a school performs in the 2 revenue sports, then someone could conclude that VT is just an "average" P5 program. It has no national championships in either sport and it doesn't have a long history of success in either sport. However, after closer examination then it become apparent that the conclusion is wrong because of how VT has performed in the other sports.

(In response to this post by Mercury)

Posted: 11/27/2018 at 5:24PM

PREV NEXT REPLY

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:

Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:

Current Thread:

NY Times: Jump to B1G is a Big Flop for Rutgers -- HOO86 11/25/2018 12:21PM

For Rutgers, it's been a spectacular success. ** -- lawhokie 11/28/2018 7:42PM

If Rutgers has "no real good history to point to," -- VTHokie2000 11/26/2018 12:37PM

Remember Rutgers got in by connections -- Mercury 11/27/2018 3:37PM

I am not saying that Rutgers was a good addition for the Big Ten -- VTHokie2000 11/27/2018 5:24PM

No national championships? How about international? -- EDGEMAN 12/02/2018 09:24AM

He wanted Louisville? ** -- reestuart 11/27/2018 5:22PM

For Rutgers it is every sport. And that's for 50 years at least. -- HOO86 11/26/2018 3:49PM

You might want to re-examine the history of Rutgers athletics -- VTHokie2000 11/26/2018 5:22PM

I've examined it extensively. -- HOO86 11/26/2018 5:45PM

My point was your statement "For Rutgers it is every sport" -- VTHokie2000 11/27/2018 12:36PM

They finished ahead of Pitt & GT in the Learfield rankings. -- reestuart 11/27/2018 12:48PM

So does that mean both Pitt and GT stink among the P5s? -- VTHokie2000 11/27/2018 5:16PM

The Rutgers perception is based on their record. -- HOO86 11/28/2018 11:19AM

On the other side, Rutgers has never been solidly in a stable conference. -- reestuart 11/28/2018 1:34PM

GT doesn't sponsor enough sports to do well with Director's Cup. -- HOO86 11/28/2018 2:16PM

Pitt will move up. Just like Rutgers will. ** -- reestuart 11/28/2018 2:21PM

Not expecting Rutgers to. Pitt's already won the Coastal in football. -- HOO86 11/28/2018 3:20PM

If you had researched the history of Rutgers athletics as you say -- VTHokie2000 11/28/2018 12:31PM

Are you actually impressed with this? -- HOO86 11/28/2018 2:09PM

It is not a question about whether I am impressed or not -- VTHokie2000 11/28/2018 2:53PM

Yeah, the only thing UConn adds is women's bball and a men's program -- reestuart 11/28/2018 3:56PM

Once again. That's without a conference to call home. ** -- reestuart 11/28/2018 2:21PM

Spare time exercise -- 33laszlo99 11/27/2018 10:11AM

So is the author/others suggesting they shouldn’t have gone to B1G? -- Colonel Jessup 11/26/2018 10:57AM

It's not like Rutgers was having a lot of success in the Big East. -- HOO86 11/26/2018 3:54PM

Yeah, that's what makes the title of the article make no sense. -- reestuart 11/26/2018 4:11PM

Yeah, the thought of them moving from AAC to Big Ten is a flop is laughable -- reestuart 11/26/2018 1:17PM

The Big Ten and ACC both have their issues -- Calamitous 11/25/2018 8:53PM

You can have your opinion you don't go after the SEC or Big 12 -- Mercury 11/25/2018 10:26PM

Everyone does on this board, not the least yourself... -- Calamitous 11/27/2018 7:14PM

I am not saying that Rutgers was a good addition for the Big Ten

Insert a Link

Tech Sideline is Presented By:

Our Sponsors