Enjoyable Article - How Rutgers Crashed the Big Ten

[Scarlet16E]

I see a lot of people have issues with the deal but I don't really. It is what it is and beggars can't be choosers. If you see throughout the article, Delany was fairly non committal about RU most of the way. To what degree that's just tough bargaining talk who knows. Yea sure we're the number 1 market and would help further monetize the BTN and give geographic partners to PSU but how can you know just how much you can push? Or how far is too far. Plus how do we know TP and crew didn't ask for better terms but were rebuffed. We needed a lifeline, they didn't. If you're drowning in the sea and some luxury liner (not a dingey) fishes you out, you don't ask many questions and stay grateful.

Delany is the guy who wouldn't be pushed around by ESPN, the big behemoth in sports, at a time where they were at their zenith. They thought they were gonna call his bluff and instead unleashed a pandora's box of conference networks. If ESPN isn't going to push him in negotiations, it's unlikely we can. One can say, well yea the B10 wants the #1 market in the country but just how far you can push them and how much they want it is unknown and if you think they're bluffing, well you could end up regretting it like ESPN. It's a long term lifetime decision so if you have to put up with some less than ideal circumstances for a short period, you deal with it for the much greater good down the line.

This.

The deal Rutgers got was that we would be saved from ruin, and while we would maintain current revenue levels, we would be at a financial disadvantage to our new conference mates for 7 years. After that RU would receive an equal share in perpetuity.

7 years is a blink of the eye. Nothing to be upset about with the deal that was made.

 

[rutgersguy1]

From the article it seemed Delany wasn’t so keen on going south.

It is what it is but some of us would have a liked a little better.

Of course everyone wants better, who wouldn’t in any aspect of life in general. But sometimes you don’t have a choice and you put up with stuff for the rewards down the line.

 

[e5fdny]

Of course everyone wants better who wouldn’t in any aspect of life in general. But sometimes you don’t have a choice and you put up with stuff for the rewards down the line.

Again, many feel it would have been nice if the initial line was a tad shorter. That’s all.

 

[NickRU714]

Don't know. Maybe they don't do it then. If Maryland wasn't going to come along they might not have done it either. Maybe they try another ACC school, GT has often been mentioned. Maybe they go to Mizzou again. I have no idea. Just because I don't know for sure doesn't mean they didn't have an alternative or they may not have done the move at all or at least for some time longer. We would've been in purgatory that much longer as well.

Again just like ESPN, basically saying what are you gonna do if it's not us. They were essentially a monopoly too on CFB but yet there was an alternative people weren't thinking about.

Your Delaney-ESPN analogy is backwards.

ESPN lowballed Big Ten and thought they could get a bargin.
Delaney thought they were worth more and pushed back and eventually went an alternative route.

Big Ten lowballed us and thought they could get a bargin.
However, we did not get a better deal (as you say - we don't know how much was the pushback).
Nor does it appear we explored alternative options.

People assume we had no alternative.
It was the Big Ten with no alternatives - otherwise they would have approached those schools first.
Every other alternative results in less money for the Big Ten members schools.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Your Delaney-ESPN analogy is backwards.

ESPN lowballed Big Ten and thought they could get a bargin.
Delaney thought they were worth more and pushed back and eventually went an alternative route.

Big Ten lowballed us and thought they could get a bargin.
However, we did not get a better deal (as you say - we don't know how much was the pushback).
Nor does it appear we explored alternative options.

People assume we had no alternative.
It was the Big Ten with no alternatives - otherwise they would have approached those schools first.
Every other alternative results in less money for the Big Ten members schools.

Delany thought they lowballed the B10, ESPN paid what they thought it was worth. Delany found an alternative where most might think there wasn't one against CFB monopoly of ESPN.

I've given the potential B10 alternatives with regards to RU from GT, Mizzou or who knows who else or just not making a move at all at that current time. I mean we've been mentioned since 1990 and didn't get in til 2010s. They could have waited longer if they didn't get terms they liked. They've been waiting that long already. If Maryland didn't come they might not have made a move as was intimated in the article. Or if Maryland didn't come they may have had an alternative, an alternative that might have been used in replacement of us as well. Maybe we'd have had to wait til now and jump on with USC/UCLA. Who knows. We'd have been that much worse off stuck in purgatory for who knows how many more years.

I've given alternatives for Delany and the B10. What alternatives did we have? The ACC or anyone else wasn't adding us and they had every chance to anywhere along those prior 20 years. What were RU's altnernatives?

 

[yesrutgers01]

Sorry. Your post was clear. Others in this thread were advancing the false "lawyers told Tim he couldn't fire Rice" narrative. I should have directed my previous response toward one of them.



As far as the financial terms of the agreement, that's a business decision, not a legal decision. The job of the lawyers is to make sure the contract reflects the business decisions. If the lawyers were trying to dictate the financial terms, then Pernetti or Purcaro should have overruled them. In my job, one of the corporate attorneys I regularly deal with is constantly trying to dictate strategy. And I am constantly reminding him that if there are no legal risks, that is not his decision. I understand that is hard to do if you're a mid-level employee. But Pernetti and Purcaro were senior executives.

I agree with you that there should have been some sort of different financial arrangement, such as the escalator clauses you suggest. The article implies that Pernetti felt Rutgers had no leverage, unlike Maryland. And the article implies that Pernetti believed that if Rutgers pushed back too hard, the Big Ten might skip Rutgers and move on to their next choice.

With 20/20 hindsight, I disagree. We are in the number one media market in the country, and poised to bring a lot of money to the Big Ten. Pernetti/Purcaro could have leveraged the fact that a competitive Rutgers can generate even more money than a non-competitive Rutgers. And keeping Rutgers at Big East revenues while other Big Ten schools are getting increased revenue due to us, puts us at a huge competitive disadvantage, reducing the earning potential for the league. But 20/20 hindsight is easy when you weren't in the room.

Agree with this- the Lawyers would only bring facts to Tim and the President, and they were allowed to act as they see fit. In this case, with the facts presented by the legal team, Tim was advised by his boss that they did not have enough to fire with cause and financially, the best decision was to NOT fire him...

 

[RedTeam1994]

The article is a bit of redemption for Tim Pernetti who worked tirelessly to get Rutgers into the Big Ten only to get fired for PR reasons due to tons of negative press by NJ.com for taking bad advise from a lawyer .

I neither loved nor disliked Pernetti, so I can say this from a completely objective perspective ....

Of all RU's mishaps over the years (and we all know there have been TONS), no single action by Rutgers pissed me off more than the way they threw Pernetti under the bus. Most of Rutgers misdeeds over the last few decades I attribute to institutionally-ingrained incompetence. But the way they threw him under the bus was just cowardly and wrong. I can forgive incompetence much more easily than I can pure wrong-doing.

 

[e5fdny]

I neither loved nor disliked Pernetti, so I can say this from a completely objective perspective ....

Of all RU's mishaps over the years (and we all know there have been TONS), no single action by Rutgers pissed me off more than the way they threw Pernetti under the bus. Most of Rutgers misdeeds over the last few decades I attribute to institutionally-ingrained incompetence. But the way they threw him under the bus was just cowardly and wrong. I can forgive incompetence much more easily than I can pure wrong-doing.

For those of us who are fellow alums…

 

[Upstream]

I neither loved nor disliked Pernetti, so I can say this from a completely objective perspective ....

Of all RU's mishaps over the years (and we all know there have been TONS), no single action by Rutgers pissed me off more than the way they threw Pernetti under the bus. Most of Rutgers misdeeds over the last few decades I attribute to institutionally-ingrained incompetence. But the way they threw him under the bus was just cowardly and wrong. I can forgive incompetence much more easily than I can pure wrong-doing.

Really? Objectively you think the way Pernetti was fired was the worst "throwing under the bus" in recent Rutgers Athletics history? I'm not sure how you think that, or how you think that is "objective".

The way Mulcahy was fired was worse. Quite honestly, I still can't figure out what malfeasance on the part of Mulcahy lead to his firing. (And I say this as someone who was not a fan of Mulcahy, because he was overly focused on Football to the detriment of all other sports.)

The way Mulcahy fired Gary Waters was worse. Waters was fired for getting stuck in a snowstorm. And Mulcahy said the firing was warranted because, although he gave Waters verbal permission to travel to Ohio, he did not give formal written permission.

The way Pernetti fired Fred Hill Jr was worse. Lord know that Pernetti could have just fired FHJ for being a terrible coach. Instead he fired FHJ for being too hotheaded at a baseball game.

In fact the way Pernetti handled FHJ's firing makes his handling of Rice's tenure even more baffling. Everyone knew Rice was a hothead when Pernetti hired him. Rutgers basketball practiced on the open floor of the RAC under the glass windows of the athletic offices. Everyone knew he was a nutjob at practices. I know of at least one non-coaching member of the program who complained about that to Pernetti long before the video fiasco. I cannot understand how Pernetti hires a known hothead, is informed of the antics that occur right outside his office, and does nothing to monitor Rice until the whole thing blows up. Of all the examples in this post, Pernetti is the only example of where someone actually deserved to get fired for his actions.

The fact that Pernetti royally screwed up on his handling of Rice does not take away from the effort and success that Pernetti had getting Rutgers into the Big Ten. He was an AD who was great at one part of his job and terrible at another part.

 

[RUScrew85]

Phew. No RIP RUScrew was a dead giveaway, I guess, but some people get triggered by RIP threads. See you Saturday, maybe, or at least your cutout.

#14 Pedd State? 12 hour tailgate? Cut out.

 

[MGSA99]

The Big Ten stayed at 11 teams for so long holding that spot open for ND.

ND joining the ACC and choosing to stay FB independent seems to have kick started the MD and RU invites

 

[RedTeam1994]

Really? Objectively you think the way Pernetti was fired was the worst "throwing under the bus" in recent Rutgers Athletics history? I'm not sure how you think that, or how you think that is "objective".

The way Mulcahy was fired was worse. Quite honestly, I still can't figure out what malfeasance on the part of Mulcahy lead to his firing. (And I say this as someone who was not a fan of Mulcahy, because he was overly focused on Football to the detriment of all other sports.)

The way Mulcahy fired Gary Waters was worse. Waters was fired for getting stuck in a snowstorm. And Mulcahy said the firing was warranted because, although he gave Waters verbal permission to travel to Ohio, he did not give formal written permission.

The way Pernetti fired Fred Hill Jr was worse. Lord know that Pernetti could have just fired FHJ for being a terrible coach. Instead he fired FHJ for being too hotheaded at a baseball game.

In fact the way Pernetti handled FHJ's firing makes his handling of Rice's tenure even more baffling. Everyone knew Rice was a hothead when Pernetti hired him. Rutgers basketball practiced on the open floor of the RAC under the glass windows of the athletic offices. Everyone knew he was a nutjob at practices. I know of at least one non-coaching member of the program who complained about that to Pernetti long before the video fiasco. I cannot understand how Pernetti hires a known hothead, is informed of the antics that occur right outside his office, and does nothing to monitor Rice until the whole thing blows up. Of all the examples in this post, Pernetti is the only example of where someone actually deserved to get fired for his actions.

The fact that Pernetti royally screwed up on his handling of Rice does not take away from the effort and success that Pernetti had getting Rutgers into the Big Ten. He was an AD who was great at one part of his job and terrible at another part.

Respectfully I think you misunderstand what “objective” means . It means impartial and unbiased. As indicated i had no bias - I was ambivalent to pernetti. So my reaction to his treatment was objective.

I make that distinction because there are TONS of people on here who constantly post from a biased point-of-view (anti-Hobbs, anti-Schiano, anti-pike, etc) and that completely colors their reactions to things.

So rather than being unobjective - I think the point of your post is that you think I am incorrect - ie that Rutgers has done many far worse things than the pernetti firing

You may very well be correct. I won’t dispute any of your points.

But the fact remains that my OBJECTIVE reaction to the pernetti firing was to be utterly disgusted and embarrassed by Rutgers’ action in a way I wasn’t with the other actions you cite.

 

[Upstream]

Respectfully I think you misunderstand what “objective” means . It means impartial and unbiased. As indicated i had no bias - I was ambivalent to pernetti. So my reaction to his treatment was objective.

I make that distinction because there are TONS of people on here who constantly post from a biased point-of-view (anti-Hobbs, anti-Schiano, anti-pike, etc) and that completely colors their reactions to things.

So rather than being unobjective - I think the point of your post is that you think I am incorrect - ie that Rutgers has done many far worse things than the pernetti firing

You may very well be correct. I won’t dispute any of your points.

But the fact remains that my OBJECTIVE reaction to the pernetti firing was to be utterly disgusted and embarrassed by Rutgers’ action in a way I wasn’t with the other actions you cite.

My point was that I thought you were neither correct nor objective. But I am not sure there is an easy way to objectively determine if someone else is objective.

Aside from that, we have seriously strayed from the point of this thread, which is about the effort and diligence that lead to Rutgers being invited to the Big Ten. And regardless of what anyone thinks about other events during Pernetti's tenure, he deserves a huge amount of appreciation for that.