Article: For Big Ten, Jim Delany, new deal is a stunningly big deal

[Caliknight]

B1G is soon to be King. Just incredible. A 6 year deal? He is going to break the bank again in short order. Delany is a straight up killer in negotiations.

"When the final numbers are in, they’re going to be staggering. If there’s anything we can glean from John Ourand’s report Tuesday in the Sports Business Journal about the Big Ten’s first step toward its new media rights deal, that much seems certain.

And soon, commissioner Jim Delany will be able to walk away secure in the knowledge that he one-upped his old friend and rival Mike Slive once and for all.

First, though, let’s break down the numbers. If Ourand’s reporting is accurate, the Big Ten will sell half of its rights package to Fox for up to $250 million per year — which would divide out to a cool $17.86 million per school. And that’s with the other half still up for bid to ESPN, CBS, NBC or whomever...."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...delany-new-deal-stunningly-big-deal/83247570/





For Big Ten, Jim Delany, new deal is a stunningly big deal

 

[Upstream]

From the article (what Rutgers fans already knew):

For all the easy jokes about inviting Maryland and Rutgers — who have, as predicted, been largely irrelevant from a competitive standpoint — they have done what they were supposed to do. If the goal was to one-up the SEC on the revenue scoreboard, it appears Delany can soon say “Mission Accomplished.”​

 

[RUinNY]

When Delany retires as commissioner of B1G, and if he wants to come back to home to Jersey, RU should offer him a position at the Business School to teach a class on negotiations. What a beast.

 

[koleszar]

I just wonder if our buy in amount will increase or will we be stuck with 10mil a year till fully invested in 2021. I know RU had no bargaining position when joining, but if the B1G holds us to this it would truly suck as we obviously were the piece of the puzzle that let them into the NY/NJ metropolitan area. It feels almost like Oliver(RU) giving Fagan(B1G) all the gold he stole and then asking "More Please" when it's time to be fed.

 

[RC85]

I just wonder if our buy in amount will increase or will we be stuck with 10mil a year till fully invested in 2021. I know RU had no bargaining position when joining, but if the B1G holds us to this it would truly suck as we obviously were the piece of the puzzle that let them into the NY/NJ metropolitan area. It's feels almost like Oliver(RU) giving Fagan(B1G) all the gold he stole and then asking "More Please" when it's time to be fed.

Need someone to drill into the RU-B1G contract details...great point.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

This guy might deserve a statue before this is all over. At the very least a facility named after him lol!

 

[LC-88]

I just wonder if our buy in amount will increase or will we be stuck with 10mil a year till fully invested in 2021. I know RU had no bargaining position when joining, but if the B1G holds us to this it would truly suck as we obviously were the piece of the puzzle that let them into the NY/NJ metropolitan area. It's feels almost like Oliver(RU) giving Fagan(B1G) all the gold he stole and then asking "More Please" when it's time to be fed.

I have a feeling that we will get more $$$$ sooner. I'm guessing that's how we were able to afford real football and men's hoops staffs.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

From the article (what Rutgers fans already knew):

For all the easy jokes about inviting Maryland and Rutgers — who have, as predicted, been largely irrelevant from a competitive standpoint — they have done what they were supposed to do. If the goal was to one-up the SEC on the revenue scoreboard, it appears Delany can soon say “Mission Accomplished.”​

I understand what the statement is trying to get across, but I still see it as a slap in the face of Rutgers and Maryland. Both schools have recruiting areas full of talent, for both football and basketball, to the point they could shake up the B1G yearly. Down the road I think both schools will make some in the B1G regret laughing at them.

 

[ruman]

From the article (what Rutgers fans already knew):

For all the easy jokes about inviting Maryland and Rutgers — who have, as predicted, been largely irrelevant from a competitive standpoint — they have done what they were supposed to do. If the goal was to one-up the SEC on the revenue scoreboard, it appears Delany can soon say “Mission Accomplished.”​

Going to cry into a bag of money

 

[Upstream]

I understand what the statement is trying to get across, but I still see it as a slap in the face of Rutgers and Maryland. Both schools have recruiting areas full of talent, for both football and basketball, to the point they could shake up the B1G yearly. Down the road I think both schools will make some in the B1G regret laughing at them.

Maybe in the future, either or both schools will be on-field threats in the conference. But on-field/on-court competitive results had zero bearing on the decision to extend an invitation to either school (and Maryland was certainly very competitive in basketball from day 1). Both schools were added solely for their media market positions.

Whether Rutgers and Maryland end up at the top or bottom of the conference standings, it won't impact the fact the addition of the schools was the right decision. I know that some sports fans have a hard time realizing that scores and results are completely meaningless, but in this case they are.

 

[Knight Shift]

From the article (what Rutgers fans already knew):

For all the easy jokes about inviting Maryland and Rutgers — who have, as predicted, been largely irrelevant from a competitive standpoint — they have done what they were supposed to do. If the goal was to one-up the SEC on the revenue scoreboard, it appears Delany can soon say “Mission Accomplished.”​

It's a cheap shot and a BS Statement.
For Rutgers, yes it is true about men's hoops. We did OK (not great in 2014) in football. And we did OK to really well in women's basketball, wrestling, soccer, and others I am omitting.
For Maryland-they are on par with RU in football, did really well in Men's basketball, and don't know about their other programs.

Edit- Wow, Maryland has done well in a lot of sports:
http://www.bigten.org/championships/2015-schedule.html
http://www.bigten.org/championships/2016-schedule.html

 

[RUsojo]

That is exactly what not to do. Even if you totaled Rutgers 30+ year investment into big time sports that yielded the revenues that Big Ten membership will bring and you could make it look positive, that then begs the question of what will be done with that Big Ten money and the answer will be further investment into sports. The end result will just be a flagship state school with athletics on par with other large state schools.

It is my opinion that if a defense is offered it should be along the lines of the value of competitive sports in overall education. Equate it with dance and music and art and other quasi-academic endeavors supported by universities. Once you defend the connection of sports and education the value to the student, it then becomes a question of level of competition.. and then you have the ability to look at costs without revenues from being "big time" and compare it to the costs of running a big time program with big time revenues. But you must win the argument regarding the value of sports first.

Then suggest that New Jersey residents deserve the same level of competition for their flagship state U that other states offer at multiple state universities. Talk about Kansas with Kansas, Kansas State and Wichita State as an example. Why shouldn't New Jersey have one such school offering top level competition?

Then mention that the doing anything in New Jersey is expensive. Cost of living, union rules, etc. Mention that spending in politics is out of control as well (it is an election year), and that it would be good for all if some sort of spending constraints were applied akin to salary caps but that it would have to be carefully enacted to allow leveling of the field to increase competition and that it would be bad if such rules came about that simply ensure those with the best facilities now will have that advantage protected. There should be some allowance for schools to level the playing field in all things, salaries, facilities, recruiting, etc. That would increase competition for the betterment of all.

It cannot be defended based purely on future revenue.

I don't think so. None of it matters anyway. Schools could easily make the argument that sports is 100% marketing and itemize it that way.

People are gonna complain because they like to complain. Soon the facts and figures will be firmly on the Athletics side rather than pending.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

all very interesting

when do we get paid?

 

[Upstream]

I don't think so. None of it matters anyway. Schools could easily make the argument that sports is 100% marketing and itemize it that way.

People are gonna complain because they like to complain. Soon the facts and figures will be firmly on the Athletics side rather than pending.

People are going to complain no matter what. But @GoodOl'Rutgers is completely right here. You can't defend college athletics based on a return on investment argument. And there is no evidence that the facts and figures will be on the Athletics side in the future. Revenue will increase, but so will spending. There is no plan at Rutgers, nor at most other D1 schools, to turn a profit from Athletics.

As GOR states, you have to base support of athletics on the argument that athletics (like other non-classroom activities) is inherently good for a university. Once you establish that you have athletic programs at a university, then the argument isn't on whether to have athletics programs or not, but at which level of competition should your athletic programs compete.

 

[Caliknight]

It's a cheap shot and a BS Statement.
For Rutgers, yes it is true about men's hoops. We did OK (not great in 2014) in football. And we did OK to really well in women's basketball, wrestling, soccer, and others I am omitting.
For Maryland-they are on par with RU in football, did really well in Men's basketball, and don't know about their other programs.

Edit- Wow, Maryland has done well in a lot of sports:
http://www.bigten.org/championships/2015-schedule.html
http://www.bigten.org/championships/2016-schedule.html

Yea, that was a total cheapshot. The B1G is a lot of sports, and Maryland is doing well in a number of them. It's not just football.

 

[RU4Real]

all very interesting

when do we get paid?

"'Cause it's the fastest who gets paid, and it's the fastest who gets laid!"

- Ricky Bobby

 

[BIGRUBIGDBIGredmachine]

all very interesting

when do we get paid?

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Both Rutgers and Maryland are doing great in many sports.

Most people only focus on Football however.

 

[rucoe89]

I understand what the statement is trying to get across, but I still see it as a slap in the face of Rutgers and Maryland. Both schools have recruiting areas full of talent, for both football and basketball, to the point they could shake up the B1G yearly. Down the road I think both schools will make some in the B1G regret laughing at them.

I don't think the B1G is laughing at them. I think media from all other parts of the country are because they thought the B1G strategy was to be the most competitive top to bottom right now. It will get there, but that was not the strategy. Shows you how naive the media can be.

 

[Upstream]

Both Rutgers and Maryland are doing great in many sports.

Most people only focus on Football however.

I read the article comment about the competitive relevance of Rutgers and Maryland as referring to football only.

Maybe I'm guilty of focusing on just football, or maybe the article's author is. Or maybe it is just realization that most of criticism of the addition of RU and UMD was focused on football.

But the real point is that from a market perspective, Rutgers and Maryland made the Big Ten a more desirable conference, and every school in the conference is better off because of us.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

I read the article comment about the competitive relevance of Rutgers and Maryland as referring to football only.

Maybe I'm guilty of focusing on just football, or maybe the article's author is. Or maybe it is just realization that most of criticism of the addition of RU and UMD was focused on football.

But the real point is that from a market perspective, Rutgers and Maryland made the Big Ten a more desirable conference, and every school in the conference is better off because of us.

I agree 100%!

 

[lighty]

how long will it be before the mid-western bloggers who hated the idea of RU / MD in the conference admit the TV angle & money was well worth the move?

 

[TC4THREE]

I understand what the statement is trying to get across, but I still see it as a slap in the face of Rutgers and Maryland. Both schools have recruiting areas full of talent, for both football and basketball, to the point they could shake up the B1G yearly. Down the road I think both schools will make some in the B1G regret laughing at them.

I don't think it is the B1G doing any laughing or mocking of Maryland and Rutgers. We've understood the economics of this for a long time. It became evident after the BTN was launched and we went searching for a 12 member. It's been idiot sports fans on message boards from the SEC/ACC/Big12 that have been trying to mock the move. The ACC wants to feel better about getting a commuter school with a big basketball program like Louisville that wants to mock the move or the SEC who has tried for decades to use their football supremacy to trump the Big Ten in television money or the Big 12 who wants to feel better about having their conference raided by every other major conference. Those are the people you hear mocking the Rutgers/Maryland moves to the Big Ten.

And yes, some sports have been a struggle. Everyone knew Rutgers basketball was going to have a tough go of it right away and they have but hey, I'm a Purdue fan and we've been in the Big Ten forever and our football program is a complete joke right now. At the end of the day, you have a collection of almost exclusively very large, public, flagship-type universities with large fan bases that cover a huge portion of the population in the country. Someone will always be losing but that also means that someone will also always be winning. Adding teams to the conference isn't about whose programs are at their peaks at that particular point in time. It's about their potential to add value to the conference when they inevitably hit their peaks in the years to come. Idiot fans on sports message boards think short term athletic success. Successful conference commissioners think long term financial success while knowing that creating that will enable future athletic success.

As far as Rutgers getting a full share of the revenue, isn't there just a buy-in period for you guys to become part owners in Big Ten Network? I'm no expert but I would think that whatever schedule/price was initially negotiated there could be accelerated if revenues come in much higher than expected and Rutgers wanted to accelerate the buy in.

 

[RUich]

Taking a long look at how things have gone, you have the ACC who decided on BC, Pitt and Cuse from the old BE. How have those three schools helped their TV demographics? Hell, other than Cuse in BB, the others have hardly lit any fires.
I would think their board may be sorry for not grabbing RU when the time was there to do so.
As for both us and Maryland being a joke, we all agree on why we were admitted and that decision is now paying enormous dividends to EVERY team in the conference! That windfall of cash is only due to these two schools cementing the Northeast.
I really believe we will both be more competitive in football and we all know that is the only real yardstick that is being used to measure each school.

 

[PiscatawayMike]

I have a feeling that we will get more $$$$ sooner. I'm guessing that's how we were able to afford real football and men's hoops staffs.

Unfortunately, I don't think we will getting the enormous B1G money earlier than 2021. However, I wouldn't be surprised we were able to afford our new high-priced assistants because they are well aware the big B1G money is on the way. They know RU will have plenty of moolah in the not-too-distant future. It wouldn't shock me if some of the money guaranteed to them will come in deferred payments when RU hits the B1G cash jackpot.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Rutgers will hit hit the mother load when we get the full amount.

I am not sure if we are getting small increases every year until that time or not.

 

[TC4THREE]

Taking a long look at how things have gone, you have the ACC who decided on BC, Pitt and Cuse from the old BE. How have those three schools helped their TV demographics? Hell, other than Cuse in BB, the others have hardly lit any fires.
I would think their board may be sorry for not grabbing RU when the time was there to do so.
As for both us and Maryland being a joke, we all agree on why we were admitted and that decision is now paying enormous dividends to EVERY team in the conference! That windfall of cash is only due to these two schools cementing the Northeast.
I really believe we will both be more competitive in football and we all know that is the only real yardstick that is being used to measure each school.

This deal was going to be huge anyway. Adding Rutgers and Maryland made it bigger but to say it is "only due to these two schools cementing the Northeast" is stretching it. It gave us a much larger presence in that area for sure (consider that many schools had a significant number of alumni there already) and the ability to play out there more often. The Big Ten needed these schools for the market, but Rutgers and Maryland needed the Big Ten to help monetize those markets to their fullest potential.

 

[RU82]

We've been a full member since day one. The B1G's media enterprise is set up like a stock company. Our reduced payout is due to money being used to purchase equity, and our participation increases every year as our equity grows. I have to believe that our participation in this will be proportional to our established equity position year by year just as it is now. It will just be calculated using bigger numbers, which doesn't suck.

This whole B1G thing is a windfall of almost unimagineable proportions for our athletics department.

 

[RUsojo]

People are going to complain no matter what. But @GoodOl'Rutgers is completely right here. You can't defend college athletics based on a return on investment argument. And there is no evidence that the facts and figures will be on the Athletics side in the future. Revenue will increase, but so will spending. There is no plan at Rutgers, nor at most other D1 schools, to turn a profit from Athletics.

As GOR states, you have to base support of athletics on the argument that athletics (like other non-classroom activities) is inherently good for a university. Once you establish that you have athletic programs at a university, then the argument isn't on whether to have athletics programs or not, but at which level of competition should your athletic programs compete.

Actually you can't defend college athletics relationship with academics based on any criteria aside from marketing value. And in this case you can defend it from the football side, which is what the show in question discussed, because it is profitable.

Even if you say athletics are like "other non-classroom activities", then surely the argument becomes about revenue again, because those other activities are certainly more cost effective.

And increased revenues certainly qualify as evidence that the facts and figures will be on the side of athletics (really football).

And the only reason there is no quote un quote plan to turn a profit is because the same people who are crying about the subsidy are the same people who bitch and complain when any non-revenue Olympic sport gets cut. If you cut olympic sports then you have a profit. Seeing as there is no positive relationship between athletics and a university outside of marketing, why not keep the most marketable programs (revenue generating), and assign it as a marketing expense.

But then there is title ix which requires some non revenue sports, and is telling the schools they are required to carry them which are almost 100% of the time SUNK COSTS.

It's a vicious cycle of people complaining no matter what and no one will be satisfied.

Excuse the elements of this post resembling stream of consciousness - I'm on the John at work

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Yea, that was a total cheapshot. The B1G is a lot of sports, and Maryland is doing well in a number of them. It's not just football.

Maryland had a pretty good all-around athletic department to begin with so nothing surprising here IMHO.

 

[HeavenUniv.]

TC4,
Do you see any movement at Purdue and/or Indiana for adding hockey in the near future ? Somewhere in the 7-10 year range ?

 

[RU-05]

Both Rutgers and Maryland are doing great in many sports.

Most people only focus on Football however.

Because football is the driver of these moves. From realignment to TV deals, it's about football.

 

[jmg75]

This deal was going to be huge anyway. Adding Rutgers and Maryland made it bigger but to say it is "only due to these two schools cementing the Northeast" is stretching it. It gave us a much larger presence in that area for sure (consider that many schools had a significant number of alumni there already) and the ability to play out there more often. The Big Ten needed these schools for the market, but Rutgers and Maryland needed the Big Ten to help monetize those markets to their fullest potential.

Economic symbiosis. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[TC4THREE]

TC4,
Do you see any movement at Purdue and/or Indiana for adding hockey in the near future ? Somewhere in the 7-10 year range ?

Have not heard anything for either school other than a few fans wishing they had hockey programs. I live in South Bend and Notre Dame has a big time hockey program that we are apparently going to be letting into the Big Ten in the upcoming years. I am disappointed we resorted to letting Notre Dame in but doing so will probably elevate the hockey profile of the league.

 

[jmg75]

Have not heard anything for either school other than a few fans wishing they had hockey programs. I live in South Bend and Notre Dame has a big time hockey program that we are apparently going to be letting into the Big Ten in the upcoming years. I am disappointed we resorted to letting Notre Dame in but doing so will probably elevate the hockey profile of the league.

Yeah. Funny how I am ok with Hopkins for lacrosse but hate the idea of Notre Dame for anything, even though I agree it will raise the league profile. Let them stay in Hockey East.

 

[WhoRU?]

Anyone know if our buy-in is calculated as a percentage of the annual revenues received by other conference members or a fixed amount each year?

 

[ru66]

downplay the present value of our BIG deal- its the future value that is astronomical

 

[mildone]

Delany is our ambassador of quan.

 

[Babybull244]

According to this article Delany was looking for a longer deal 2032 but the money wasn't there...

Why the Big Ten's reported short new TV deal with Fox makes sense

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ported-short-new-tv-deal-with-fox-makes-sense

 

[Nosoj]

It's a cheap shot and a BS Statement.
For Rutgers, yes it is true about men's hoops. We did OK (not great in 2014) in football. And we did OK to really well in women's basketball, wrestling, soccer, and others I am omitting.
For Maryland-they are on par with RU in football, did really well in Men's basketball, and don't know about their other programs.

Edit- Wow, Maryland has done well in a lot of sports:
http://www.bigten.org/championships/2015-schedule.html
http://www.bigten.org/championships/2016-schedule.html

Yea, that was a total cheapshot. The B1G is a lot of sports, and Maryland is doing well in a number of them. It's not just football.

Both Rutgers and Maryland are doing great in many sports.

Most people only focus on Football however.

100% irrelevant as far as this topic is concerned. Fox is paying to broadcast exactly 0 combined games/matches/meets from any of those sports. They're paying for football and men's basketball games. Maryland has had some success in men's basketball, going 26-10 in conference in two years (followed by going 2-2 in the B1G Tournament and 3-2 in the NCAA, which equals one Sweet 16 appearance). The football teams are a combined 9-23 and Rutgers men's basketball is 3-33.