By now, most readers have probably seen the Star-Ledger article on Rutgers potentially moving to the Big Ten on Sunday. It is unclear which sections were authored by football beatwriter Tom Luicci, and which were penned by Ted Sherman, who wrote a series of faulty articles on the athletic department two years ago. I don't really have the energy to address all the points in full (unless someone here really wants that), especially since it retreads ground better left in the past. I stand by my past take on the athletic department's fiscal situation. There are some informative points in there, and some that aren't so good. Parts are too unflattering, and on the other hand, I can't understand how the article could cite the Knight Commission report and then state that Rutgers makes a profit on athletics. Same goes for the academics quoted - Glickman is a plain killjoy, and Killingsworth's opportunity cost argument is odd considering that you can just point to the millions in direct institutional support for athletics instead. All faculty at Rutgers should be wholly supportive of a move to the Big Ten. Whatever the financial numbers work out to, the athletic department will make out ahead in the deal, and subsequently take less in subsidies from the university general fund. It's a complete vindication of the past decade. Perhaps joining the CIC will be a boon for academic research dollars as well, although I'm not too certain of the specifics there.