Worst in Big Ten? Hardly

[graystork]

I'm sick of hearing how Rutgers has demeaned the Big 10 and we don't belong because we've had four straight losing seasons. Let's look at some of these vaunted Big Ten programs.

Northwestern - Went 23 years without a winning season from to 1971-1995 including a string of 1-10, 1-10, 0-10-1, 1-10, 0-11, 0-11.

Indiana - At present hasn't had a winning season in 11 years.

Purdue - 12 straight losing seasons 1985-1997

Iowa - 11 straight losing seasons 1970-1980

Minnesota - 8 straight losing seasons 1991-1998.

Illinois - 7 straight losing seasons 2012-2018

I can't wait for Schiano to shut up these mouthy midwesterners and media.

 

[mdk02]

I've posted this before but it's worth repeating. The was some graffiti in the late 70's. The were highway signs in Illinois for Interstate 70. Added immediately below was "Northwestern 0".

 

[AreYouNUTS]

I’ve brought it up before as well. There are historically lopsided series, in which teams went decades without winning a single game, in all the major conferences. You’re also historically bad teams and programs that have lasted for decades in each conference as well. This isn’t anything new they’ll get over it.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

Indiana - At present hasn't had a winning season in 11 years.

Assume here you meant before this season? Because at present Indiana is ranked and has guaranteed a winning season.

 

[graystork]

Assume here you meant before this season? Because at present Indiana is ranked and has guaranteed a winning season.

That's what at present means.

 

[graystork]

How about this? Not counting this season Indiana has had one winning season in the past 24 years.

 

[ashokan]

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and other teams been in B1G over 100 years (Purdue since 53). I think the curious thing in people's minds during expansion, was that the B1G had a selection to choose from, and Rutgers wasn't in first row for a lot of people. They don't look wrong so far.

 

[cubuffsdoug_rivals]

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and other teams been in B1G over 100 years (Purdue since 53). I think the curious thing in people's minds during expansion, was that the B1G had a selection to choose from, and Rutgers wasn't in first row for a lot of people. They don't look wrong so far.

Again, people pick the argument that fits their agenda. At the time Rutgers was considered for the conference, the school was rolling along with winning seasons and bowl games. In fact, the first season in the B1G Rutgers was 8-5.

 

[Letitrip]

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and other teams been in B1G over 100 years (Purdue since 53). I think the curious thing in people's minds during expansion, was that the B1G had a selection to choose from, and Rutgers wasn't in first row for a lot of people. They don't look wrong so far.

Facts on who and when would be appreciated. Calling you out

 

[graystork]

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and other teams been in B1G over 100 years (Purdue since 53). I think the curious thing in people's minds during expansion, was that the B1G had a selection to choose from, and Rutgers wasn't in first row for a lot of people. They don't look wrong so far.

So you think they'd be singing the praises of Pitt or Syracuse right now.

 

[Knight Owl]

“One day our best will be good enough to go 2-1 in the non-conference.” - C. Ash

J/K

 

[ashokan]

Again, people pick the argument that fits their agenda. At the time Rutgers was considered for the conference, the school was rolling along with winning seasons and bowl games. In fact, the first season in the B1G Rutgers was 8-5.

Yes - with 3 B1G wins but one against newcomer Maryland and others against broken powerhouse Michigan who had the rare losing season that year (won 5 games) and Indiana won 4 games. RU still hasn't beaten a B1G team with a winning record. I'm not saying RU will always be bad but the truth is they are the worst team in conference right now. Last home game had 23k

EDIT - Maybe Purdue?

 

[ashokan]

So you think they'd be singing the praises of Pitt or Syracuse right now.

Well Pittsburgh beat PSU in 2016.

 

[graystork]

Yes - with 3 B1G wins but one against newcomer Maryland and others against broken powerhouse Michigan who had the rare losing season that year (won 5 games) and Indiana won 4 games. RU still hasn't beaten a B1G team with a winning record. I'm not saying RU will always be bad but the truth is they are the worst team in conference right now. Last home game had 23k

The point wasn't now which is obvious. The point was historically.

 

[ashokan]

The point wasn't now which is obvious. The point was historically.

"Historically" I think the problem is RU admins and not football. RU could be good in football if they really wanted to (like they did with Greg, Bob and Richard)

 

[FELONIOUSMONK]

Stop it.. We are an embarrassment for more than one reason.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

That's what at present means.

At present, they have 7 wins. That's a winning record. But yes, they've struggled to get over the hump to a winning record or bowl game.

Rutgers gets a lot of crap for a combination of things. I don't know that the current Rutgers run is as bad or worse than some of the names you mentioned (especially the depths of that Northwestern run), but the last 4 new additions to the conference were Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan St, and Ohio St. Historic names, if not national title contenders at the time.

Rutgers and Maryland are...not that. So already the perception is they're undeserving, a cold cash grab. Add in Rutgers general lack of success across all sports, but especially in the high profile areas like football and men's basketball, makes them an easy target right now.

 

[shields]

Not getting a full share is a problem, some of the crappy assistant coaches we have hired. Hell Jerry Kill said two years ago in interview will be nice when we get the money. He should know.

 

[cubuffsdoug_rivals]

At present, they have 7 wins. That's a winning record. But yes, they've struggled to get over the hump to a winning record or bowl game.

Rutgers gets a lot of crap for a combination of things. I don't know that the current Rutgers run is as bad or worse than some of the names you mentioned (especially the depths of that Northwestern run), but the last 4 new additions to the conference were Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan St, and Ohio St. Historic names, if not national title contenders at the time.

Rutgers and Maryland are...not that. So already the perception is they're undeserving, a cold cash grab. Add in Rutgers general lack of success across all sports, but especially in the high profile areas like football and men's basketball, makes them an easy target right now.

Perception is a b*tch. Rutgers hasn't lack success across all sports, but that's the narrative being pushed. Since Rutgers enter the B1G it hasn't been good, but overall Rutgers is better than what some of the f*cking Idiots of the B1G believe.
As for the additions to the B1G (NU, PSU, & MSU) you mentioned, the perception has been the opposite. NU and PSU haven't been genuine national contenders since the 90s. MSU had a great run recently, but for the most part, MSU has been a second-tier B1G team for years. Somehow that perception continues to be pushed for all of them because of the name on the front of the jersey.

 

[RUaMoose_rivals]

Perception is a b*tch. Rutgers hasn't lack success across all sports, but that's the narrative being pushed. Since Rutgers enter the B1G it hasn't been good, but overall Rutgers is better than what some of the f*cking Idiots of the B1G believe.
As for the additions to the B1G (NU, PSU, & MSU) you mentioned, the perception has been the opposite. NU and PSU haven't been genuine national contenders since the 90s. MSU had a great run recently, but for the most part, MSU has been a second-tier B1G team for years. Somehow that perception continues to be pushed for all of them because of the name on the front of the jersey.

Rutgers sucks and needs to get better — a lot better. The “narrative” is well deserved. It’s not just perception it’s reality. No one gives two ***** if ru beats Wisconsin in women’s volleyball. Have to dig out from the Ash error and put a respectable team on the field

 

[Knight177lb]

At present, they have 7 wins. That's a winning record. But yes, they've struggled to get over the hump to a winning record or bowl game.

Rutgers gets a lot of crap for a combination of things. I don't know that the current Rutgers run is as bad or worse than some of the names you mentioned (especially the depths of that Northwestern run), but the last 4 new additions to the conference were Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan St, and Ohio St. Historic names, if not national title contenders at the time.

Rutgers and Maryland are...not that. So already the perception is they're undeserving, a cold cash grab. Add in Rutgers general lack of success across all sports, but especially in the high profile areas like football and men's basketball, makes them an easy target right now.

I know that's the perception, but what I don't understand is how people don't get that the Big Ten has only ever taken in schools that are nationally accredited (meaning they are members of the AAU). That narrows the field down quite a bit since there are only 60 schools in America that have that membership and only about half of those have FBS teams. Maybe everyone was expecting a historic name, but Notre Dame simply is not going to share any revenue.

 

[8th Man]

Congrats to Rutgers for having company in the Historic Worst Conference Teams category.

 

[bac2therac]

the bottom line is RU has been horrendous in football the last 3 years and hasnt had a winning season yet in hoops....so yes the negative perception of RU sports is well deserved and yes no one really gives a crap about womens soccer, you will be judged on football and hoops in that order

 

[cubuffsdoug_rivals]

Rutgers sucks and needs to get better — a lot better. The “narrative” is well deserved. It’s not just perception it’s reality. No one gives two ***** if ru beats Wisconsin in women’s volleyball. Have to dig out from the Ash error and put a respectable team on the field

The perception of Rutgers has a lot to do with Rutgers fans pushing the narrative. I don't give credit to idiots of other fan bases to know enough about Rutgers to make jokes about us. They mock us by what they see from some Rutgers fans. As a former player at Rutgers, it's sad to see so call fans **** on the Rutgers athletes while pushing that narrative to opposing fans.

 

[KevH]

Again, people pick the argument that fits their agenda. At the time Rutgers was considered for the conference, the school was rolling along with winning seasons and bowl games. In fact, the first season in the B1G Rutgers was 8-5.

Doug, you are so right. Amazing how some RU fans' first reaction is to join the chorus of critics rather than give dear old Rutgers the benefit of the doubt. In this case, there actually is no doubt. RU was a successful program in the #1 media market when invited to join the conference... not as much of a reach as it seems now.

The only criticism I have is that the powers that be thought they could get away with cutting corners until we got our full B1G share, thereby squandering all that GS built and making the haters think they were right about the decision to invite us.

:Rutgers

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

Perception is a b*tch. Rutgers hasn't lack success across all sports, but that's the narrative being pushed. Since Rutgers enter the B1G it hasn't been good, but overall Rutgers is better than what some of the f*cking Idiots of the B1G believe.
As for the additions to the B1G (NU, PSU, & MSU) you mentioned, the perception has been the opposite. NU and PSU haven't been genuine national contenders since the 90s. MSU had a great run recently, but for the most part, MSU has been a second-tier B1G team for years. Somehow that perception continues to be pushed for all of them because of the name on the front of the jersey.

I'm not saying Rutgers is bad or uncompetitive in all sports. But they also haven't yet won a conference title. Maryland has 20. Combine that with the 9 conference wins the basketball team had before last year and Ash era in football and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Let's take them one by one.

Nebraska: Hasn't been a contender for the better part of 2 decades, but unquestionably one of the top 10 programs of all time. They brought National Title banners and Heismans.

Penn State: Aside from 2005 they were underwhelming from about 200-2016. That being said, they joined in 1990, coming off titles in 1982 and 1986. Started play in 1993 and went undefeated in 1994 and were legit contenders until 1999.

MSU: Joined in 1950, started play in 1953. Won a national title in 1952 and had one loss in 3 of their first 5 seasons. Yes, theyve been relatively mediocre since, but they've been in the conference for 70 years now. Before there was a TV deal or BTN.

I know that's the perception, but what I don't understand is how people don't get that the Big Ten has only ever taken in schools that are nationally accredited (meaning they are members of the AAU). That narrows the field down quite a bit since there are only 60 schools in America that have that membership and only about half of those have FBS teams. Maybe everyone was expecting a historic name, but Notre Dame simply is not going to share any revenue.

Most B1G fans didn't want to add 13 and 14. For a big chunk, it wouldn't have mattered who they were. For even more anything short of Notre Dame and Texas would have been disappointing.

 

[RuNutz]

I’ve brought it up before as well. There are historically lopsided series, in which teams went decades without winning a single game, in all the major conferences. You’re also historically bad teams and programs that have lasted for decades in each conference as well. This isn’t anything new they’ll get over it.

Also means they are REALLY going to hate it when RU is good

 

[Plum Street]

I’ve brought it up before as well. There are historically lopsided series, in which teams went decades without winning a single game, in all the major conferences. You’re also historically bad teams and programs that have lasted for decades in each conference as well. This isn’t anything new they’ll get over it.

Lol. Just because something like sucking this bad isn’t new doesn’t mean we should be ok with sucking like that . This is unacceptable

 

[graystork]

At present, they have 7 wins. That's a winning record. But yes, they've struggled to get over the hump to a winning record or bowl game.

Rutgers gets a lot of crap for a combination of things. I don't know that the current Rutgers run is as bad or worse than some of the names you mentioned (especially the depths of that Northwestern run), but the last 4 new additions to the conference were Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan St, and Ohio St. Historic names, if not national title contenders at the time.

Rutgers and Maryland are...not that. So already the perception is they're undeserving, a cold cash grab. Add in Rutgers general lack of success across all sports, but especially in the high profile areas like football and men's basketball, makes them an easy target right now.

At present Indiana has not completed a winning season. Yes they will but that's not what I was counting. Now that we have concluded arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I couldn't care less if Midwestern fans think Rutgers is deserving or not. Never have. Always found it funny how the entire football conference thinks it's royalty when it really comes down to two teams, and recently just one. Fortunately for you, that's your team.

My point was for Rutgers' fans that all the recent shrieking about Rutgers' football performance by midwestern blogs and all media is rather hypocritical considering the historic records of many Big Ten teams. Four losing seasons is nothing compared to the down periods of several Big Ten teams. I would further submit that if certain West Division schools were in the East, their records wouldn't be much better. If midwestern fans want to use the past four seasons (while ignoring our first season in the Big Ten) as confirmation of their "worthiness" beliefs, like I said, I couldn't care less. It won't last long, especially if Schiano is confirmed. Since a team with Schiano's recruits, two years after his departure had a successful first year in the Big Ten, I think Rutgers' fans can look forward to the future with confidence.

 

[pmvon]

I'm not saying Rutgers is bad or uncompetitive in all sports. But they also haven't yet won a conference title. Maryland has 20. Combine that with the 9 conference wins the basketball team had before last year and Ash era in football and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Let's take them one by one.

Nebraska: Hasn't been a contender for the better part of 2 decades, but unquestionably one of the top 10 programs of all time. They brought National Title banners and Heismans.

Penn State: Aside from 2005 they were underwhelming from about 200-2016. That being said, they joined in 1990, coming off titles in 1982 and 1986. Started play in 1993 and went undefeated in 1994 and were legit contenders until 1999.

MSU: Joined in 1950, started play in 1953. Won a national title in 1952 and had one loss in 3 of their first 5 seasons. Yes, theyve been relatively mediocre since, but they've been in the conference for 70 years now. Before there was a TV deal or BTN.

Most B1G fans didn't want to add 13 and 14. For a big chunk, it wouldn't have mattered who they were. For even more anything short of Notre Dame and Texas would have been disappointing.

BIG fans seem to forget or under appreciate two things.

1. The payout is much larger for them with NYC and DC in the mix.
2. The BIG was starting to diminish in appeal without a national power for a number of years. The sEC was widening the gap between it and everyone else. While RU did not bring cache, expanding east to include the Ny metro market and DC increased its appeal broadly and to recruits.

 

[JoeRU0304]

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and other teams been in B1G over 100 years (Purdue since 53). I think the curious thing in people's minds during expansion, was that the B1G had a selection to choose from, and Rutgers wasn't in first row for a lot of people. They don't look wrong so far.

The complaining schools can feel free to forward us their payout increase differences with the new B1G TV/distribution contracts.

Things can change over even short periods of time. 14 years ago Temple came within 1 vote of dropping football and from 1991-2008 won more than 4 games in a season exactly once. Heck, I remember reading articles about Army football and how people thought they needed to drop to 1-AA in the early/mid-2000's. As pointed out before, what did Northwestern offer athletically to the league prior to 1995? Their basketball team is one of the few P5 schools that was largely worse than ours. Now, the last 24 years they've really established themselves as much more of a presence.


Joe P.

 

[Eaton Beaver]

Don’t think they care if RU ever does anything. They wanted the cable TV and recruiting area for Ohio St. etc.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

This year is irrelevant...if we lost to the poisonous nuts 90-0...whatever...after firing their former DC it is all aboit 2020 and beyond...

 

[Yeah Baby]

That's what at present means.

No I think at present Indiana is guaranteed a winning season.

 

[RUScrew85]

Assume here you meant before this season? Because at present Indiana is ranked and has guaranteed a winning season.

You misunderstood the OP? Don't be that guy.

 

[Plum Street]

This year is irrelevant...if we lost to the poisonous nuts 90-0...whatever...after firing their former DC it is all aboit 2020 and beyond...

Tell those people that shelled out money for tickets and parking and invested emotionally in supporting these stinkers that it’s just “irrelevant”

 

[RUScrew85]

Add in Rutgers general lack of success across all sports...

I'm not saying Rutgers is bad or uncompetitive in all sports.

So which is it?

 

[sherepower]

Well Pittsburgh beat PSU in 2016.

Also beat number 1 Clemson and Number 2 Miami.

Should of beat Penn st this year also.

 

[ruready07]

At present, they have 7 wins. That's a winning record. But yes, they've struggled to get over the hump to a winning record or bowl game.

Rutgers gets a lot of crap for a combination of things. I don't know that the current Rutgers run is as bad or worse than some of the names you mentioned (especially the depths of that Northwestern run), but the last 4 new additions to the conference were Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan St, and Ohio St. Historic names, if not national title contenders at the time.

Rutgers and Maryland are...not that. So already the perception is they're undeserving, a cold cash grab. Add in Rutgers general lack of success across all sports, but especially in the high profile areas like football and men's basketball, makes them an easy target right now.

not only would you not have helmet stickers, you wouldn't even be playing football if it weren't for Rutgers.
Say thank you and brace yourself for what's coming.
(otherwise I agree with everything you said)

 

[Knight177lb]

I'm not saying Rutgers is bad or uncompetitive in all sports. But they also haven't yet won a conference title. Maryland has 20. Combine that with the 9 conference wins the basketball team had before last year and Ash era in football and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Let's take them one by one.

Nebraska: Hasn't been a contender for the better part of 2 decades, but unquestionably one of the top 10 programs of all time. They brought National Title banners and Heismans.

Penn State: Aside from 2005 they were underwhelming from about 200-2016. That being said, they joined in 1990, coming off titles in 1982 and 1986. Started play in 1993 and went undefeated in 1994 and were legit contenders until 1999.

MSU: Joined in 1950, started play in 1953. Won a national title in 1952 and had one loss in 3 of their first 5 seasons. Yes, theyve been relatively mediocre since, but they've been in the conference for 70 years now. Before there was a TV deal or BTN.

Most B1G fans didn't want to add 13 and 14. For a big chunk, it wouldn't have mattered who they were. For even more anything short of Notre Dame and Texas would have been disappointing.

I suspected as much, but like I said, Notre Dame isn't sharing their revenue and neither is the Longhorn Network for that matter. I just thought that was common knowledge.