This is a Multiple Year Rebuild

[wheezer]

With a $5M payroll, we should be able to keep them. But if they blow up and we lose them, we lose them, and we’ll find other players. If your point is, we’ll never be able to build a competitive team, then why are you here?

I am contesting your opinion that we are in a rebuild
You say this right after we had a good portion of the team transfer


And I didn't say we could not get a competitive team
In today's world we need a couple of huge donors to emerge, although that is unlikely
Huge donors and buy talent for the upcoming year, at least 3 or 4 prime timers
with million dollar NILs
That is how you win in today's world
And very unlikely here

The one thing least likely to happen is,to bring in good freshmen and keep them for 4_ years as they get to be excellent players
That is what a rebuild is, and that no longer is happening

 

[FerrisBuellerrrrr]

Do you believe there is a chance Rutgers decides not to subsidize the full $20.5 million?

This view would clash with overwhelming consensus of the TKR board who see the $20.5 million as a done deal.

I share your skepticism. That is why I asked on the March 26, 2025, Ask the Experts thread:

“Pisarri stated a basketball general manager will be hired and Rutgers will spend $20.5 million on players if new settlement is approved. Does he have power to do this?”

Curiously, no response was provided.

To be clear, I see the odds of the athletic department getting the full subsidy as >50%.

Everyone really needs to get educated on this topic because it is the future and most of the comments on this board don’t take this into account.

1) NIL is mostly going away and will be replaced by revenue share. True NIL will be limited. And revenue sharing capped.
2) 2025/26 will be a transition year given pre-House Settlement commitments (April 2025) will be grandfathered, but cap will be in place
3) For hoops, the big winners might be programs with weaker football commitment that have $$. Maybe the Duke, Houston, Arizona type school. And Big East schools with money (no football) could be huge winners.

Google “House Settlement NCAA legal review”

 

[rutgersal]

I am contesting your opinion that we are in a rebuild
You say this right after we had a good portion of the team transfer


And I didn't say we could not get a competitive team
In today's world we need a couple of huge donors to emerge, although that is unlikely
Huge donors and buy talent for the upcoming year, at least 3 or 4 prime timers
with million dollar NILs
That is how you win in today's world
And very unlikely here

The one thing least likely to happen is,to bring in good freshmen and keep them for 4_ years as they get to be excellent players
That is what a rebuild is, and that no longer is happening

This is a rebuild because we are not likely winning next year, and I’d be surprised if we’re in position to win the year after. I’m setting the Over/Under at 12 wins and I’m not sure we can even accomplish that. I’m not looking at keeping freshmen four years, but hope we can keep them for three. I hope we can get 2 prime movers and will call it a day. For now things look bleak, and next year looks like a 💩show.

 

[rutgersal]

Everyone really needs to get educated on this topic because it is the future and most of the comments on this board don’t take this into account.

1) NIL is mostly going away and will be replaced by revenue share. True NIL will be limited. And revenue sharing capped.
2) 2025/26 will be a transition year given pre-House Settlement commitments (April 2025) will be grandfathered, but cap will be in place
3) For hoops, the big winners might be programs with weaker football commitment that have $$. Maybe the Duke, Houston, Arizona type school. And Big East schools with money (no football) could be huge winners.

Google “House Settlement NCAA legal review”

This is wrong. There’s enough flexibility in the language for NIL to remain and dispensed for “valid business purpose”. The Ohio States aren’t giving up their competitive advantage.

• Third parties who are “associated entities or individuals” (that is, certain boosters and all collectives like the TUFF Fund): These entities and individuals may engage in NIL agreements with student-athletes only if the NIL money is paid for a valid business purpose to promote goods and services provided to the general public for profit, with payments at fair market value rates, consistent with existing NCAA rules. These assessments will be subject to challenge in a new neutral arbitration system overseen by Deloitte, who has been contracted by the NCAA.

This story explains how schools might circumvent the new rules.

Power schools will outsource enforcing NIL payments to athletes

Skeptics say cash to players for commercial endorsements often far exceeds the service's actual value.

www.espn.com

 

[jakeknight]

So many people don’t understand pro basketball, nor how much players in their late teens develop in just one year, especially with professional coaches and trainers. Ace will be playing 25+ minutes a game in the NBA, and will be one of the top players on what will most probably be a pretty bad team.

Pro ball is a man’s game, Ace is very talented but never the less still very young, the traditional route to the pro’s is after 3-4 yrs of college hoops and physical development. He’s going to go from 30+ games a year to 60+ games a year. Anybody that thinks he’s physically ready to compete in the NBA come this September did spend a whole lot of time watching him play this year in the Big. Let’s not get this wrong, Ace is very talented, and he is going to be a very good player in the league but it’s going to take some time.

 

[Nycrusupporter]

Pro ball is a man’s game, Ace is very talented but never the less still very young, the traditional route to the pro’s is after 3-4 yrs of college hoops and physical development. He’s going to go from 30+ games a year to 60+ games a year. Anybody that thinks he’s physically ready to compete in the NBA come this September did spend a whole lot of time watching him play this year in the Big. Let’s not get this wrong, Ace is very talented, and he is going to be a very good player in the league but it’s going to take some time.

If you look at the last 7 or so drafts, the top 5 players generally all played heavy minutes at the NBA level unless they were injured, and they were mainly 19 years olds like Ace, and many of those players from weaker drafts weren’t as highly regarded as Ace. I don’t know where you are getting the idea that most players in the NBA have played 3 or 4 years in college. The first round is mainly one and dones and Europeans who are the equivalent of one and dones. If you have been in college for 3 or 4 years, you would be lucky to be taken in the late 2nd round, if you can even get drafted.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

This is a rebuild because we are not likely winning next year, and I’d be surprised if we’re in position to win the year after. I’m setting the Over/Under at 12 wins and I’m not sure we can even accomplish that. I’m not looking at keeping freshmen four years, but hope we can keep them for three. I hope we can get 2 prime movers and will call it a day. For now things look bleak, and next year looks like a 💩show.

The reality is, there’s only one way for “rebuild” to ever be a thing for us now. The problem is that the trajectory you described isn’t the way. Your describing a vision that isn’t realistic. Losing programs do not retain players who have break out years. Retention is far from a given even for teams coming off successful seasons but it’s far more likely in that case. Especially with upper class players who have been in the program for several years and a part of a turnaround.

In NJ, the math is simple. Win and folks follow rutgers. Lose and nobody cares. Jersey Mikes and our local vendors don’t care if Grant flashed potential on a losing team. They have no interest in him for commercials and such right now. Make the NCAAs and then there are more opportunities to structure packages. It’s not going to happen if we only win 12 games.

 

[wheezer]

This is a rebuild because we are not likely winning next year, and I’d be surprised if we’re in position to win the year after. I’m setting the Over/Under at 12 wins and I’m not sure we can even accomplish that. I’m not looking at keeping freshmen four years, but hope we can keep them for three. I hope we can get 2 prime movers and will call it a day. For now things look bleak, and next year looks like a 💩show.

Anybody good will go where the money is
As someone correctly mentioned above,

Every year is a stand alone

this makes the old fashion rebuilding obsolete

A team that is not good today can be a top eight team tomorrow if they have the money
That is the new rebuild

 

[fluoxetine]

I think any businessman would tell you that it's easier to keep your employees from being raided by an out-of-town company than to raid another company. An employee -- and, let's face it, a varsity athlete is an employee -- has some existing roots, even if it's only a place to live and familiar surroundings. An athlete may have a girl friend who doesn't want to transfer schools, and the athlete may not want to take the chance of finding another just as good or better.

That said, it's not always guaranteed that you will keep your employees -- and the fact that we can't keep our existing employees is strong evidence that we can't do well getting new employees through the portal. We need money -- lots of it.

As I keep saying, this will change when the House v. NCAA settlement is finalized. At that point, every school will be under the same cap for compensating players. Assuming that Rutgers is willing to spend money up to the cap, then we will have less difficulty keeping what we have and getting more. The name of the game will then be to raise money to make up for the $20 million annual hit to Rutgers' budget so that we can retain low-revenue and non-revenue programs.

I agree that it is *somewhat* cheaper, on average, to retain your players than to get the same player from the portal. This makes sense because there are generally benefits to both sides from continuity. My issue is that the difference is not going to be so much that “retain players” is some magic strategy. Sure, we might get a 10% discount but so will everyone else on their own players. It’s not going to suddenly transform “no budget” into an adequate budget.

 

[NickRU714]

As I keep saying, this will change when the House v. NCAA settlement is finalized. At that point, every school will be under the same cap for compensating players. Assuming that Rutgers is willing to spend money up to the cap, then we will have less difficulty keeping what we have and getting more. The name of the game will then be to raise money to make up for the $20 million annual hit to Rutgers' budget so that we can retain low-revenue and non-revenue programs.

While every school will be under the same rev share cap, every PROGRAM will not.
Programs will have vastly different portions of the cap.

This is point people keep confusing.
If SHU (or any other school) rev shares $7mil with MBB, while Rutgers rev shares $4m with MBB - the cap means nothing.
This is before NIL even gets involved.

Rutgers could spend $19m on CFB and $1m on MBB if it wanted.
That doesn't help MBB "keep what we have".

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I agree that it is *somewhat* cheaper, on average, to retain your players than to get the same player from the portal. This makes sense because there are generally benefits to both sides from continuity. My issue is that the difference is not going to be so much that “retain players” is some magic strategy. Sure, we might get a 10% discount but so will everyone else on their own players. It’s not going to suddenly transform “no budget” into an adequate budget.

Yeah - so I see it like this. Speaking in math terms for our board statistical expert. On average, assuming a player is in good standing with their incumbent school, there’s probably always at least a small reverse correlation between the cost of a retained player compared to a comparable player in the portal due to the established relationship. On a losing team, I’d hypothesize that correlation is very small. I’d also expect that the correlation becomes parabolically stronger, the better the team is and the longer the player had previously been associated with the team. Part of that is because those type of players have true branding to the university and so their “pay” could possibly be subsidized by some local NIL deals. No local vendor is interested in showcasing Rutgers kids who played for a terrible team (and that would be true anywhere for any school - donors aside here - I’m talking about legit brand interest). It would be easier to find money from other sources to support 3 and 4 year kids on successful RU teams with real connection to the school. For sure. The problem is - how do we be successful in the first place in the new pay for play era? Chicken must come before the egg.

 

[bethlehemfan]

I agree that it is *somewhat* cheaper, on average, to retain your players than to get the same player from the portal. This makes sense because there are generally benefits to both sides from continuity. My issue is that the difference is not going to be so much that “retain players” is some magic strategy. Sure, we might get a 10% discount but so will everyone else on their own players. It’s not going to suddenly transform “no budget” into an adequate budget.

Contrasting to private employment opportunities is not really a very good analogy imo. It’s a lot different uprooting a career where there are tons of unknowns and implications for the long term versus basketball where the experience is pretty homogeneous or at least easily known from coach to coach and program to program and you have four years to max out your lifetime earnings in most cases versus decades.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I should also add - the retention math isn’t always going to be two sided. Because of his 2 years of developmental collateral, J Mike, as an example, probably has more value to Rutgers next season than he would to a brand new program. From the Rutgers lense, it’s not really that relevant what another school would pay to add J Mike except in trying to negotate the cheapest deal to ensure he doesn’t do what Paul did. From Rutgers perspective, it’s more likely that he will help our 2025-26 RU team more than a mid-major PG who put up pretty stats at a lower level. Sure - there are unicorns examples out there of PGs who did well stepping up a level, but there are also examples of kids like J Mike making big strides in their junior year. The pretty looking mid-major would probably get more attention from other schools than J Mike and would in turn cost us more rendering it cheaper to keep J Mike.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Contrasting to private employment opportunities is not really a very good analogy imo. It’s a lot different uprooting a career where there are tons of unknowns and implications for the long term versus basketball where the experience is pretty homogeneous or at least easily known from coach to coach and program to program and you have four years to max out your lifetime earnings in most cases versus decades.

Yes - it is. But this is also different in the sense that income can be derived from a multitude of sources besides the university itself. If it’s just the university resources, we will lose every time. Fortunately, there is a glimmer of long term hope that lies in our location and the band wagon tendencies of the Tri State area.

From this lense - 2025-26 looms as a pivotal year for us. While seemingly an almost impossible ask, Pike is toast unless he figures out a way to show forward progress (I.e. he must deliver a winning season at minimum). Arguably - no year will ever be more important for him to dig into our pockets than this one.

 

[rutgersal]

Anybody good will go where the money is
As someone correctly mentioned above,

Every year is a stand alone

this makes the old fashion rebuilding obsolete

A team that is not good today can be a top eight team tomorrow if they have the money
That is the new rebuild

That is not our rebuild because we will never have money to rebuild that that way. It’s going to be a blend of high school players we’re able to keep and develop and overlooked transfers Like Cam Spencer who blow up. This is a realistic alternative path to success.

 

[Jerseylegends]

It hasn’t made a difference in the last 100 years, except for getting us into the Big Ten. Why would it make a difference now? NYC only supports Winners. They could care less about mediocre programs.

Because now with NIL there's an opportunity for everyone to make money. Being

It hasn’t made a difference in the last 100 years, except for getting us into the Big Ten. Why would it make a difference now? NYC only supports Winners. They could care less about mediocre programs.

Hire someone that knows how to take advantage of the location.

 

[NickRU714]

That is not our rebuild because we will never have money to rebuild that that way. It’s going to be a blend of high school players we’re able to keep and develop and overlooked transfers Like Cam Spencer who blow up. This is a realistic alternative path to success.

You're saying the same thing.
The only HS players we keep will be players who haven't blown up yet.

We will (likely) never have a HS kid blow up after 2 years and then keep him for 3 more years.

I think are just using "rebuild" wrong so it's confusing everyone.

If Grant blows up this year plus we hit on the transfers (similar to Spencer) - is it not a "rebuild"?

 

[retired711]

While every school will be under the same rev share cap, every PROGRAM will not.
Programs will have vastly different portions of the cap.

This is point people keep confusing.
If SHU (or any other school) rev shares $7mil with MBB, while Rutgers rev shares $4m with MBB - the cap means nothing.
This is before NIL even gets involved.

Rutgers could spend $19m on CFB and $1m on MBB if it wanted.
That doesn't help MBB "keep what we have".

Yes, I've made the point above that schools will be free to allocate their cap money as they wish; I suggested that U. Conn and Duke might put a larger proportion of their money into basketball than most schools because they are known primarily for basketball. Seton Hall may be a different case because schools need only put 22% of their revenue toward athletic compensation; I don't know how much Seton Hall makes since after all they don't have football.

 

[retired711]

I agree that it is *somewhat* cheaper, on average, to retain your players than to get the same player from the portal. This makes sense because there are generally benefits to both sides from continuity. My issue is that the difference is not going to be so much that “retain players” is some magic strategy. Sure, we might get a 10% discount but so will everyone else on their own players. It’s not going to suddenly transform “no budget” into an adequate budget.

The key is going to be how much of the cap money Rutgers allocates to basketball in comparison to other schools. We *may* end up with the same amount to spend as our competitors. But it's impossible to know that yet.

 

[NickRU714]

Yes, I've made the point above that schools will be free to allocate their cap money as they wish; I suggested that U. Conn and Duke might put a larger proportion of their money into basketball than most schools because they are known primarily for basketball. Seton Hall may be a different case because schools need only put 22% of their revenue toward athletic compensation; I don't know how much Seton Hall makes since after all they don't have football.

The 22% is wrong. I thought the same thing but got corrected recently.

It’s not 22% of each schools revenue.
“SHU can only rev share 22% of their revenue.”
That’s not the case.

Every school can rev share $20.5m.
The cap is universal.
The calculation for the cap was 22% of the average revenue among Power 4 schools.

So they averaged all Power 4 schools revenue and got X.
Then 22% of X = $20.5m.

Everyone then gets a $20.5m rev share cap.

Even if SHU has only $30m in annual gross revenue, they can still rev share up to $20.5m.


IMO - it makes no sense to only base the cap on only the top schools revenues and not everyone in the league.
But that’s college athletics - design the worst possible system imaginable.

 

[retired711]

The 22% is wrong. I thought the same thing but got corrected recently.

It’s not 22% of each schools revenue.
“SHU can only rev share 22% of their revenue.”
That’s not the case.

Every school can rev share $20.5m.
The cap is universal.
The calculation for the cap was 22% of the average revenue among Power 4 schools.

So they averaged all Power 4 schools revenue and got X.
Then 22% of X = $20.5m.

Everyone then gets a $20.5m rev share cap.

Even if SHU has only $30m in annual gross revenue, they can still rev share up to $20.5m.


IMO - it makes no sense to only base the cap on only the top schools revenues and not everyone in the league.
But that’s college athletics - design the worst possible system imaginable.

I stand corrected. As you say, it is the same cap for everyone regardless of their revenue, and the $20 million was calculated as 22% of the revenue of teams in the top conferences. BTW, the cap is expected to increase to $32.9 million by the end of the ten-year revenue sharing agreement. https://www.bradley.com/insights/pu...d-bring-significant-changes-to-college-sports

 

[NickRU714]

I stand corrected. As you say, it is the same cap for everyone regardless of their revenue, and the $20 million was calculated as 22% of the revenue of teams in the top conferences. BTW, the cap is expected to increase to $32.9 million by the end of the ten-year revenue sharing agreement. https://www.bradley.com/insights/pu...d-bring-significant-changes-to-college-sports

I had this whole plan where a private school could artificially boost their revenue with extra "institutional support" they didn't actually need to just to hit revenue goal they wanted so the 22% rev share what they wanted.
For example, SHU would add an extra $50m to their revenue bottom line just so they could rev share more.

Then was I corrected and my scheme fell apart.
Back to the drawing board.

 

[retired711]

I had this whole plan where a private school could artificially boost their revenue with extra "institutional support" they didn't actually need to just to hit revenue goal they wanted so the 22% rev share what they wanted.
For example, SHU would add an extra $50m to their revenue bottom line just so they could rev share more.

Then was I corrected and my scheme fell apart.
Back to the drawing board.

I'm not sure that would have worked in any case -- it would depend on whether "annual revenue" is defined to include a school's subsidy. But, as you say, it's not a live question because of how the cap is calculated

 

[rutgersal]

Because now with NIL there's an opportunity for everyone to make money. Being
Hire someone that knows how to take advantage of the location.

Kids don’t care about location as much as they care about money. There’s no path to success without it.

 

[Jerseylegends]

Kids don’t care about location as much as they care about money. There’s no path to success without it.

Thats why I'm saying to take advantage of the NYC area, the financial capital of the world. Hire an athletic director that has a plan to improve the Rutgers brand and entice NIL partnerships and sponsorships. Hire the right person....

 

[Nycrusupporter]

Thats why I'm saying to take advantage of the NYC area, the financial capital of the world. Hire an athletic director that has a plan to improve the Rutgers brand and entice NIL partnerships and sponsorships. Hire the right person....

The right AD hire is very important, but the right Presidential hire is even more important, he will be a prominent figure and is the chief fundraiser for the University. The board should stay away from people who are only politically connected and hire someone who is financially connected, and can bring along his friends and acquaintances as financial sponsors of Rutgers. That is the path to finding some whales.

 

[Eagleton96]

The term "fundraising for NIL" will take on a new meaning when the House v. NCAA settlement becomes final. If Rutgers decides not to use its revenues to pay compensation to athletes up to the level of the cap, then donors will have to make up the difference to give Rutgers sports as much money to pay players as other schools will. have If Rutgers does decide to pay up to the cap, then donors will be needed to make up for the annual $20 million hit to the budget. I doubt that Rutgers is going to be willing to add $20 million a year to the subsidy for athletics, and so without more donations a lot of programs will bite the dust.

That's not how I understand it will go down. Every B1G school will be doing the full cap including RU. NIL will be used to go beyond the cap.

Every school will decide how to distribute their 20 mil among all the sports, but expect that within the P4 there won't be that much variability. They will all do a roughly similar split. Expect the high major basketball-only schools (Gonzaga, Big East) to pour their revenue share into hoops and have an advantage in spending over the football schools that the latter will try to make up with NIL.

So NIL will still be important but not as much as it is now when it's the whole game.

 

[Eagleton96]

He’s taken us to the NCAA twice. He can do it again if he gets the support

Agree. But he also is responsible for building that support. Schiano for example didn't wait for the support to materialize from others. He proactively organized it himself. That's what's needed nowadays.

 

[Eagleton96]

He’s taken us to the NCAA twice. He can do it again if he gets the support

Just to add to my last point: we need a program builder and not just a coach. And what it means to be a program builder has changed a lot. It used to mean that you recruited well, developed your players over time, built a culture, recruited a staff, and cultivated a fan base. Pike was good at much, not all, of that. Now it means a lot more.

 

[NickRU714]

He’s taken us to the NCAA twice. He can do it again if he gets the support

What are the chances he gets the support he needs to succeed though?
I could be successful with enough support.

If the chances are low, then perhaps we need to explore a coach who would be more successful with the actual support available.

 

[retired711]

That's not how I understand it will go down. Every B1G school will be doing the full cap including RU. NIL will be used to go beyond the cap.

Every school will decide how to distribute their 20 mil among all the sports, but expect that within the P4 there won't be that much variability. They will all do a roughly similar split. Expect the high major basketball-only schools (Gonzaga, Big East) to pour their revenue share into hoops and have an advantage in spending over the football schools that the latter will try to make up with NIL.

So NIL will still be important but not as much as it is now when it's the whole game.

I think you're right that RU will do the full cap and distribute it like other schools its size -- but we'll see. We don't know what the new Rutgers president is going to want.

Third-party NIL is going to be much less important than it is now because deals will be allowed only when they have a valid business purpose. Paying athletes to come to (or stay at) a school and having them do nothing or almost nothing in return is no longer going to be permissible.

 

[runrutgersrun]

Everyone really needs to get educated on this topic because it is the future and most of the comments on this board don’t take this into account.

1) NIL is mostly going away and will be replaced by revenue share. True NIL will be limited. And revenue sharing capped.
2) 2025/26 will be a transition year given pre-House Settlement commitments (April 2025) will be grandfathered, but cap will be in place
3) For hoops, the big winners might be programs with weaker football commitment that have $$. Maybe the Duke, Houston, Arizona type school. And Big East schools with money (no football) could be huge winners.

Google “House Settlement NCAA legal review”

Does above change my very limited understanding of this whole situation... which is basically we better get the selection of our next President correct this time? No athletics support from that office, will be the kiss of death for RU sports. And, it will mean there is very little appetite along The Banks for these issues.

Hopefully, then, the new President knows a couple of AD candidates who can look at the RU Athletics antics over the decades and say to himself/herself, "Geez, Rutgers has,been trying to do business like this all these years???!!! I know how to fix this myself!!! I'll take the job!!!'. This is my prayer...and exhibits my opinion (again limited, but heartfelt) of how incompetent the AD leadership has been for most of the 50+ years of my Rutgers fandom. Something good HAS to be due to happen for the good guys here. We must have been given B1G member for a reason!!! It can't be a ten-year tease allowed to die, somewhat ironically, because of an effort to get student-athletes some well-deserved reimbursement for their efforts, can it? Go RU!

 

[retired711]

Does above change my very limited understanding of this whole situation... which is basically we better get the selection of our next President correct this time? No athletics support from that office, will be the kiss of death for RU sports. And, it will mean there is very little appetite along The Banks for these issues.

Hopefully, then, the new President knows a couple of AD candidates who can look at the RU Athletics antics over the decades and say to himself/herself, "Geez, Rutgers has,been trying to do business like this all these years???!!! I know how to fix this myself!!! I'll take the job!!!'. This is my prayer...and exhibits my opinion (again limited, but heartfelt) of how incompetent the AD leadership has been for most of the 50+ years of my Rutgers fandom. Something good HAS to be due to happen for the good guys here. We must have been given B1G member for a reason!!! It can't be a ten-year tease allowed to die, somewhat ironically, because of an effort to get student-athletes some well-deserved reimbursement for their efforts, can it? Go RU!

Forgive my cynicism, but the reason we're in the Big Ten is that it enabled the conference to make a lot of money on the carriage rights in the New York City cable market. It's up to us to make it work by fielding good teams.

 

[rutgersal]

What are the chances he gets the support he needs to succeed though?
I could be successful with enough support.

If the chances are low, then perhaps we need to explore a coach who would be more successful with the actual support available.

Look at the basketball hires we’ve made since 2000. More duds than hits. It’s unlikely the next coach will be as successful as this coach, in an NIL World where we have no NIL.

 

[rutgersal]

If Pike is unwilling or unable to play the shmoozer of whales, then there needs to be a position within the staff/AD to get those resources. You're stuck on the minnows ponying up.

We don’t have any whales to schmooze

 

[Smols]

We don’t have any whales to schmooze

They need to be found.

 

[retired711]

They need to be found.

At the moment, that is like hunting for unicorns. Whales need to be developed and that takes a lot of effort that pays off only in the long run. I very much doubt there is any Rutgers sports fan out there with a ton of money who hasn't made his presence known.

 

[Jerseylegends]

At the moment, that is like hunting for unicorns. Whales need to be developed and that takes a lot of effort that pays off only in the long run. I very much doubt there is any Rutgers sports fan out there with a ton of money who hasn't made his presence known.

A program like Rutgers has to be creative in this new NIL era. Idk if anyone is going to donate, Rutgers probably needs NIL partners. This is all completely new and there is no right or wrong way to take advantage of it. Hire a financial mind that can come up with a way to partner with businesses or corporations. Improve the overall Rutgers branding in the NYC area. Two top 5 picks should help with that. Make it so Rutgers basketball is a desirable partner. Usually a booming brand is what brings on investors because they want to make money. Also need pike to work his magic with under the radar guys this year.
But even if the team struggles, you can still boost the program image, maybe tell nike to switch up the uniforms a little bit.. send cool looking highlights to those basketball influencers on social media etc This all stuff that cost you little to nothing at all. Wouldn't even cost a lot to hire a legit social media marketing agency to help... Do something, Rutgers is in the big ten and people are acting like it's a community college. The Internet allows you to speed up the process as far as improving your brand which in turn can lead to finding people that want to invest in the program faster. Hire the right people

 

[rutgersal]

A program like Rutgers has to be creative in this new NIL era. Idk if anyone is going to donate, Rutgers probably needs NIL partners. This is all completely new and there is no right or wrong way to take advantage of it. Hire a financial mind that can come up with a way to partner with businesses or corporations. Improve the overall Rutgers branding in the NYC area. Two top 5 picks should help with that. Make it so Rutgers basketball is a desirable partner. Usually a booming brand is what brings on investors because they want to make money. Also need pike to work his magic with under the radar guys this year.
But even if the team struggles, you can still boost the program image, maybe tell nike to switch up the uniforms a little bit.. send cool looking highlights to those basketball influencers on social media etc This all stuff that cost you little to nothing at all. Wouldn't even cost a lot to hire a legit social media marketing agency to help... Do something, Rutgers is in the big ten and people are acting like it's a community college. The Internet allows you to speed up the process as far as improving your brand which in turn can lead to finding people that want to invest in the program faster. Hire the right people

A group of Rutgers donors have to believe in the mission, and provide adequate support before anyone else does the same. The rest of the world is transactional and will only invest in Rutgers to the extent they will get an ROI. Rutgers donors don’t need an ROI because they believe in the school and its mission. The biggest issue is that there are so few of us that give materially.

1,000 donors giving $1,000 is what we need as a start. 1,000 donors giving $5,000 is the need.
And this is just for basketball NIL.

Otherwise our fate is to be the farm school for better programs.

 

[red sail]

This is NOT football Al. multi year build in hoops is nonsense. You need 7 descent players that will buy in. Look at how many coaches in their 1st year with their new team turned their program around in 1 year. Pope @ UK, Kelsey @ Louisville, Dusty May @ UM, McCollum @ Drake Pike and his staff need to be held accountable and coach better. Make the players play defense and rebound for God's sakes.