“Scarlet fever" may come back to haunt Big Ten

By Matt Vachlon

The symptoms were already there: great academics, the "Birthplace of Intercollegiate Football" and a close proximity to New York City for a league looking to expand the presence of its cable network. All we were waiting for was a diagnosis.

Fast forward to Monday when Big Ten expansion took another step toward becoming a reality as Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune reported that Rutgers was the early favorite in the much anticipated Big Ten expansion plans. The Scarlet Knights' potential to be a home run acquisition was cited as the primary cause.

But that potential is exactly why I have Rutgers at the bottom of my list of candidates. When you’re the Big Ten, why expand based on potential?

You're the most profitable conference in collegiate athletics; you don't NEED to be blinded by dollar signs. Instead, you should be picky.

And that's the main problem with Rutgers. There's a lot to pick apart.

For starters, they bring nothing to the table athletically. Even in the most positive light, the athletic history of the school leaves something to be desired. In football, the Scarlet Knights didn’t appear in their first bowl game until 1978 and it didn’t appear in its next one again until 2005. Although Rutgers has now appeared in five consecutive bowl games and finished 2006 ranked 12th in the country, this sudden upswing under one head coach is not enough to overlook its previous century of futility. The same goes for basketball, in which Rutgers did advance to the NCAA Final Four in 1976, but has, overall, made a grand total of only six NCAA Tournament appearances.

Then there's the issue of New York's perception as a pro sports town first and likely a Big East basketball town second. I don't buy Greenstein's argument about New York's support of the 2006 football team because anyone can support a winner. In 2005, the Illinois basketball team captured Chicago's hearts during its run to the NCAA Tournament championship game, but hasn't since. Thus, the question remains, does New York care enough about Rutgers for the Big Ten to get the leverage necessary with the cable companies to insure their network's inclusion on their packages? Even if they succeed, can it be guaranteed that viewers will watch year round? Advertisers will want to know this and with Rutgers history of toiling at the bottom of the Big East, it's doubtful the school can draw interest away from Big East basketball during the winter.

Finally, there is the issue of the Big Ten footprint. Is it really worth only establishing a token presence in the Northeast when you could strengthen your Midwest presence instead? Schools like Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas have all been mentioned as candidates at one time or another, but the addition of one (or even all three?) could significantly weaken the league's closest geographic rival, the Big XII. The populations of each of those states are limited, but surely with a higher proportion of viewers watching in those states, as well as no major competition, would offset the small fraction of viewers that might watch in New York and New Jersey.

Look, I think Rutgers is a great school and it certainly brings a lot to the table. But I just don't see what seperates it so definitively from all the other candidates that would make taking a risk on them worthwhile.

Hopefully this fever, like all the others, will pass.