UM President Disappointed In Handling Of QB Situation BYU Seeing Smaller Crowds At Football Games Syracuse Has No Plans To Play Again At MetLife Rutgers' Hermann Embroiled In Another Controversy NCAA, O'Bannon Plaintiffs Want Appeal Settled First First Meeting Of Autonomous Voting Members Set ACC Schools Try New Strategies To Fill Seats Williams To Head UM's Athletic Fundraising CFP Committee Stands By Pat Haden Rutgers Removing Rice From In-Game Video
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBD/November 20, 2012/Colleges
Rutgers To Follow Maryland To Big Ten, Expected To Seek Early Exit From Big East
Published November 20, 2012
NECESSARY MOVE: Rutgers may have to pay an increased exit fee to leave in time for next season, but in Newark, Tom Luicci writes the “tradeoff may well be worth it” for a program that “has operated for years in the red and been heavily subsidized by the university.” Rutgers’ “financially-strapped athletic department will also receive a cash infusion that could potentially dwarf anything the school would have reaped in the Big East” (Newark STAR-LEDGER, 11/20). Supporters of the move said that it “could mean a windfall for the university, which subsidized its athletic programs to the tune of $19.4 million in the 2010-11 fiscal year.” In New Jersey, Patricia Alex reports the Big Ten, which “has its own television network, gave each of its 12 schools up to $24.6 million” (Bergen RECORD, 11/20). SportsNet N.Y.’s Chris Carlin said the move is a “no-brainer." Carlin: "You don’t even think twice about this … for one primary reason: Money.” He said Rutgers will go from earning $6M a year from the Big East’s TV contract to $25M a year in the Big Ten, which is a “huge difference for an athletic department that for a long time has been operating in the red here. They need to get a little bit more fiscally stable and start making money” (“Loud Mouths,” SportsNet N.Y., 11/19).
BIG IMPROVEMENT: In Newark, Steve Politi writes under the header, “By Joining Big Ten, Rutgers Did Better Than Any School In College Realignment.” Politi: “Who out there did better?” Rutgers “just wanted a lifeboat.” It ended up “on a Carnival cruise ship” (Newark STAR-LEDGER, 11/20). In N.Y., Lenn Robbins writes this “latest shift on the landscape of college athletics is a flat-out no-brainer.” Robbins: “It’s a no-brainer for the Big Ten. It’s a no-brainer for Rutgers … And it’s a no-brainer for Maryland, which yesterday announced it was leaving the ACC.” Rutgers “finally escapes the shadow that has hung over it for eternity.” For Maryland, the move is “the equivalent of learning that a distant uncle who recently passed left you a billion dollars” (N.Y. POST, 11/20). YAHOO SPORTS’ Pat Forde wrote, “I'm not blaming Maryland or Rutgers for doing what they're doing. … They need money, and the Big Ten has money. But neither school should act as if they earned this upgrade via excellence on the field” (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 11/19). In Chicago, Rick Morrissey writes the Big Ten’s moves are “about progress and money, and you know what happens when the path of the proposed highway runs through your home." Morrissey: "You better take the cash and get out of the way” (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 11/20).