Please show the contract signed in 2024. No contract was signed. Please show the contract signed in 2024.
Financial Realities - Some Programs Have HUGE $$
- Thread starter lion1983
- Start date
Do you just do this to be annoying? Of course there is a contract, the games are on TV, but the agreement is private because it is between the Big 10 (not the universities) and private broadcasters who would not want competitors to be able to see said contracts. Where you are bringing up numbers, you are always referring to financial statements that are a couple of years old and don’t reflect todays numbers, and you continue to undercount the full value of all the Big 10 revenue streams. In the report you cite, you note the $45.6 million of media revenue, but ignore the $8 million of Big 10 bowl revenues, and other Big 10 revenues of $10.6 million, for a total of roughly $64 million, before the new media deal and the College Football playoff revenue kick in. If you will recall, in Rutgers last year in the AAC in 2013, we earned $8 million of conference revenue, so joining the Big 10 has increased our conference revenues by 800% in 11 years. Conservatively we will get at least an additional $13 million a year from the college football playoffs, in addition to whatever the increase will be in the new conference media deal.
So if I understand you correctly, annual revenues are very likely to go up more than $20 million next year. In that case, at least revenue-sharing with athletes won't increase the gap between athletic department's revenue and expenditures. But we will have to see whether the new president thinks the current annual deficit --or something not much smaller -- is acceptable. My guess is that will depend in party on whether additional revenues can be expected to narrow the gap in years to come.
With Amy Towers leading the search, I don’t think that will be an issue, and Rutgers and the State of NJ both made a commitment to big time college sports when we joined the Big 10, which I don’t think anyone can walk back at this point without creating a train wreck.
i wouldn't be quite as optimistic . Amy Towers is chair of the BOG, but I wouldn't assume that it or the new president (whenever we get one) will automatically do her bidding. And there's a lot more to think about in picking a new president than his or her attitudes toward sports. What's more, the state of NJ is not a particularly reliable partner over the long term. The state did kick in $100 million to renovate the RAC, but there's a difference between a one-time contribution and a long-term commitment. Big-time athletics at Rutgers is not hugely popular among voters, so far as anyone can tell, and so the legislature and governor may not think it in their political interest to continue support. The future is not guaranteed.
Anyone who comes in who would be stupid enough to cross the Big 10 would come to a quick end. I believe you have noted you also went to Cal. The experience of Cal and Stanford when their conference disintegrated is a great warning to anyone who finds themselves on the outside of the Big 2 conferences. I don’t know about Cal, but I guarantee you that Stanford, even with their historically lukewarm fan base, would take all of 30 seconds before they would agree to write a $1 billion check if it would get them into the Big 10. If Rutgers isn’t committed to Big Time college sports there are no shortage of schools ready to replace them, and the alternatives if you leave are all really bad.
All I'm saying is that I don't think anyone can know for sure what the future will bring. Rutgers has to decide what level of deficit it is willing to have and whether it has a reasonable chance of athletic success. I think that will depend at least in part on whether the House settlement's restrictions on booster NIL prove enforceable, because otherwise Rutger will eternally be at a disadvantage compared to school with many more "whales" that we do. And I'm not as convinced as you are that Stanford would write such a check; if they would, they would be in the Big Ten already.
The problem is twofold......
1. the cost to being competitive could just be too high
2. when you have a big deficit there are always variable that can be out of your control (politics)
My property taxes are going to go up because funding to our schools are cut.
University presidents are former academics who are now glorified fundraisers with very limited management experience, which is why so many have been forced to resign recently, because they are largely incompetent. A decision about our athletic commitment will not be decided by our new fundraiser, but by our board of trustees, and as I noted previously, the alternatives to leaving the big 2 conferences is disastrous, and if Rutgers, which is making up for a longstanding underinvestment in athletics no longer has an appetite to do so going forward, will be faced with many universities who will be eager to trade places with us.
Certainly you mean our board of governors, not our board of trustees. (Rutgers actually has both -- the latter is mostly a talking shop.) University presidents do have influence -- Barchi had a much different approach to the deficit than Holloway had, and the board of governors didn't object to either's poliicy. And, yes, there are schools that would willingly replace us, but it's kind of like a girlfriend; yeah, there are others who would date her, but that doesn't mean she's right for you. I tend to think that Rutgers will continue doing what it's doing -- but not if it becomes clear that we have no chance of success at this level. But of course we'll have to see.
In a way Barchi is a perfect example of a President who lacked power. He didn’t support big time athletics, but couldn’t do anything to stop it. The board is filled with people who supported the move to the Big 10. The next president will support that position, or will eliminate themselves from consideration.
But you have a responsibility as a university to remain competitive enough and viable enough from a financial standpoint and on the field standpoint to warrant your membership in the league
The school has failed to do its part to the best of its ability
That’s not really true to this point. It may come to that - but where football is at isn’t what you describe. We’re squarely middle of the pack right now which isn’t “non-competitive”. Basketball had 2 down seasons, but again - non-competitive still too strong. The coming season could come to that - but we’re not there yet.
Barchi was president when we joined the Big Ten. He wanted it as a good way of lowering the deficit and of getting Rutgers in a conference with its academic peers. He certainly was not a president "who lacked power" as anyone who dealt with him knows.
Yes, they do have that responsibility. Rutgers must manage its athletic budget and field competitive teams to justify its spot. However, its New York/New Jersey market boosts media deals, and its academic contributions align with the Big Ten’s prestige. I think there would be a problem in extreme cases like catastrophic financial collapse or major scandals.
football had 2 7-6 seasons that were preceded by being one of the worst power programs in the country
GS gets ALOT of rope compared to most football coaches
True.
Do those advantages outweigh the growing atheltic subsidiary?
If so, then even more reason the subsidiary doesn't matter and shouldn't be a talking point.
Yes, there are academic advantages. But, TBH, they aren't huge. The biggest one IMHO is intangible; being part of the Big Ten makes everyone at Rutgers aware that the Big Ten schools are our academic peers and that we ought to be comparing ourselves with them.
But is it really clear that the subsidy will grow in years to come as we receive more money through the new media deal and the college football playoffs payout? That might well offset the new expense of paying players.
My guess -- and it's just that -- is that Rutgers will continue to be part of big-time sports unless the subsidy gets really high. One argument for sustaining big-time sports, even if we are mediocre at best in the revenue sports, is that it helps the Olympic sports and women's sports by giving them good teams and individuals to compete with. (I'm not making that up; it was an argument at Cal for going into the ACC, as inconvenient as that is, rather than give up Division I sports.)
Last edited:
I think you may be not factoring in potential future cuts to academic institutions from both a federal and state level.
I really think the payment of athletes will be a huge gamechanger in the "ignoring" of money being lost by most athletic departments.
I know it's peanuts to the state budget, but should Rutgers really be allowed to indirectly take taxpayer money to pay 18-22 year olds to play basketball and football games?
With all the cuts that are or will be going on federally and in NJ it is going to be tough to justify.
Layoff teachers, reduce policemen, raise property taxes and simultaneously start paying 21 year olds who are getting a free education $500,000 to play a game?
As I've tried to explain a number of times, the state subsidy is very indirect at best. The subsidy is paying perhaps 10% of the deficit. The largest of the subsidy comes from Rutgers' reserves that represent money that would not otherwise be spent.
But you do bring up a genuine issue, although I would phrase it differently. If, indeed, Rutgers is going to have a significant reduction in its budget, then the Board of Governors is going to have to ask itself whether its present $40 million subsidy to athletes should be going somewhere else within the university. I tend to think that the Board would change what it's doing only in the most extreme situation.
I don't know if the fact that athletes are being paid is going to be a big deal to the public. The public tolerates large payments for coaches -- will players be considered different? I don't think anyone imagines as it is that an athlete comes here for dear old Rutgers or dear old New Jersey. It's clear that there are fans here who say they don't want to follow college sports now that the last traces of amateurism are disappearing. It will be interesting to see whether the general public feels the same way.
And feel free to add this post to one of the several dozen anti-Schiano threads on the football board. Heck - start another one as I’m sure Shelby will be happy to join the bandwagon.
This thread; however, is about RU athletics finances (it’s in the BB section but obviously pertains to football as well). The point is, no matter how much you, or anyone else, hate Schiano and/or Pike or, separate from that, think RU is doomed looking forward due to lack of money - the statement you made simply is not an accurate reflection of where we are. We have not recently been completely non-competitive in the 2 sports that matter. 7-6 is not non-competitive.
Paying Steve Pikiell $4,000,000 and paying Schiano what he makes and giving him country club membership and a freakin helicopter should upset the public more than Bryce Dortch making $350,000.
I expect 2 tight primaries and 1 tight governor race. The #1 issue will be cutting taxes and reducing spending. I can't think of many sound bites that would resonate with 90% of the population then Schiano's helicopter OR paying a backup center $300,000.
I don’t think paying Schiano upsets too many folks. Think of how many people paid $52 to get him here.
Ask a person who has been impacted by a cut in the government somewhere if they are OK with Schiano's contract.....9 out of 10 will be opposed.
I was a FB season ticket holder for 15 years and went to the 1st 6 or 7 bowls and was a basketball season ticket holder for 20. I am against it. I think athletic departments should be or be real close to self sufficient.
Schiano's helicopter hasn't resonated with anyone so far and I'm not sure it will even if you are right about what the issues will be. I don't think anyone is going to care about the backup center either. Everyone knows that college athletic programs make lots of money and that the players who create that money get none of it. I don't think that compensating players is going to be a big issue; to me, it is less likely to be an issue than Schiano's salary and helicopter have been. But I do think that it's possible that some fans of college sports will drop out because of the loss of the last traces of amateurism.
Richie earlier today in another thread noted that Rowan is making a big push to move up to D1, and is making the investments needed to do so. They would also certainly need the support of public officials if this is their goal. The idea the state’s flagship university will go the other way is fantasy.
I’m sure you could find a bunch of people who are against this if pressed for a yes/no answer but I think approximately zero of them would base their vote on it even a little bit. The number of anti Rutgers sports people who care a lot about being anti Rutgers sports (especially if you don’t count people who are directly affiliated with the University in some way) has to be near zero.
You're right -- but I have to tell you sadly from South Jersey that Rowan is very good at doing things that Rutgers doesn't have the courage or initiative to do. For instance, Rowan is looking for a developer to partner with to build a 5000-7000 seat arena as part of a $500 million capital projects plan with the goal of having their enrollment increase to 40,000.
I believe Rowan has both a whale, and a huge political backer (Southern NJ power brokers) - both of whom have been against RU's interests for decades and have shifted a ton of money away from RU towards Rowan ... aren't Norquist and Sweeney huge supporters of Rowan?
Norcross certainly is a huge supporter of Rowan,, and he controls Sweeney's every move. I don't know what the formula is for allocating money among the state universities, and so I don't know whether it's been unfairly tilted in Rowan's favor. BTW, if Sweeney wins the D primary and then wins the gubernatorial race in November -- not very likely, but it's a long way to election day -- RU is in big trouble.
The few polls that have been released say that she is in the lead in the Democratic primary -- but we still have a month and a half before the primary. Jack Ciattarelli leads in the Republican primary polls-- but, again, we're a long way from primary day.
