When does the B1g money start to kick in?

[Steveriknight]

Or how much more of a graduated payment will RU get in the next season?

I too think Flood absolutely has to go, and I bet the administration does too. But if the money just isn't there then we have a major problem. I have a real fear that Flood's replacement will be another cheap unproven coach that won't be able to compete with our new peers, and it will prolong this pain another handful of years.

We all know that RU's budget is going to be a problem when the time comes to hire a new football head coach. Does this financial situation get much better in the near term or is it still many years (3+) off?

Can RU possibly get a big-time coach if they guarantee large/reasonable pay increases each year as the B1G money starts to increase...assuming the coach meets win-loss milestones etc. Like a back-loaded contract of sorts...or is that fantasy to think it works that way? I'm not familiar with how creative these contract negotiations can be.

 

[Blitz8RUCrazy]

Does it matter?

I'm sure as soon as it kicks in the admin will find a way to divert it back to "academia" as "payment" (probably with interest) for the subsidy over the past 30yrs...

It is ridiculous that athletics is forced to be self-sufficient, that athletic facilities need to be funded by non-university monies even though athletics is part of the university and benefits the university. It's very short sighted and just plain DUMB.

 

[Steveriknight]

Does it matter?

I'm sure as soon as it kicks in the admin will find a way to divert it back to "academia" as "payment" (probably with interest) for the subsidy over the past 30yrs...

It is ridiculous that athletics is forced to be self-sufficient, that athletic facilities need to be funded by non-university monies even though athletics is part of the university and benefits the university. It's very short sighted and just plain DUMB.

I think it matters a lot...in fact it probably matters most as it relates to getting a new head football coach. I don't have an opinion on Julie, but she has a tough task in figuring out how to pay for an in-demand talented coach.

Our only saving grace in staying competitive with our conference peers will be the increased monies from the B1G, but if that can't be negotiated into the next head coach contract then our options will be very few.

 

[JPhoboken]

A lot of people have been asking the question about the BIG payouts. Don't know why Rutgers is making it a big secret and just doesn't tell us.

But........Someone did post the figures that they found in, I believe, some RU planning paper. Any body remember what they were?

Update: See Rutgersguy1 post in this thread, it has the numbers I was referring to.

 

[derleider]

Does it matter?

I'm sure as soon as it kicks in the admin will find a way to divert it back to "academia" as "payment" (probably with interest) for the subsidy over the past 30yrs...

It is ridiculous that athletics is forced to be self-sufficient, that athletic facilities need to be funded by non-university monies even though athletics is part of the university and benefits the university. It's very short sighted and just plain DUMB.

Yes - yhou are right. A school which has been subsidizing sports at the highest level among its peers with no expectation of getting paid back is definitely going to try to get that money back.

Its not ridiculous - its the norm among P5 schools, particularly if you dont count student fees.

 

[vkj91]

It doesn't matter because the excuse that we can't afford a new coach is ludicrous. Since joining the B1G we've seen an increase in attendance, ticket prices, parking pieces, donations, and minimum seat gifts and I'm supposed to believe we can't afford to pay someone the same as we did when we paid Schiano in the BE?

 

[alden1]

A lot of people have been asking the question about the BIG payouts. Don't know why Rutgers is making it a big secret and just doesn't tell us.

But........Someone did post the figures that they found in, I believe, some RU planning paper. Any body remember what they were?

It's my understanding that RU gets a fixed yearly amount from the B1G of 9 Million for the 1st 6 years of being in the conference. Starting the 7th year RU will be deemed fully vested and receive a full share of B1G money equal to what the other member schools receive. Any other monies, i.e. BTN or bowl shares are in addition to the fixed B1G money RU gets now.

 

[macdad90]

I don't see the B Ten money as relevant... it is a zero sum gain... that money will be used to lower the university/student contribution to the Athletic Department; which means no new money for coaches, etc... hope i am wrong but that is what i understand and expect to happen... there is no hope here until the FB (or heaven forbid, the BB) program operates cash positive... which won't happen until they win, which won't until you have better coaches facilities, etc... yada yada...

 

[knightfan7]

It doesn't matter because the excuse that we can't afford a new coach is ludicrous. Since joining the B1G we've seen an increase in attendance, ticket prices, parking pieces, donations, and minimum seat gifts and I'm supposed to believe we can't afford to pay someone the same as we did when we paid Schiano in the BE?

Can't or won't?

Seems to me Rutgers wants the FB money to pay for the all other programs with the possible exception of Men's BB before it can be used for the program that brings it in.

 

[Steveriknight]

It doesn't matter because the excuse that we can't afford a new coach is ludicrous. Since joining the B1G we've seen an increase in attendance, ticket prices, parking pieces, donations, and minimum seat gifts and I'm supposed to believe we can't afford to pay someone the same as we did when we paid Schiano in the BE?

Well, to that I would say that once the press and the rest of NJ become aware of the subsidy required to fund our football program, including Schiano's contract, that budget became untenable.

Barchi won't sign off on a new coach contract that will increase the subsidy required by the RU general fund, and that's a complicated debate. He wants to get revenue neutral, which is understandable from his position, but it also is complicated because going cheap will cost the university money in other indirect ways.

It would be ideal if we could leverage the future earnings from the B1G into the next coach's contract, otherwise it'll be another cheap contract that will attract less desirable candidates.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

A lot of people have been asking the question about the BIG payouts. Don't know why Rutgers is making it a big secret and just doesn't tell us.

But........Someone did post the figures that they found in, I believe, some RU planning paper. Any body remember what they were?

Rutgers isn't making a secret of it. They will tell you if you ask. IIRC, the Big Ten money kicks in 2021.

 

[knightfan7]

A lot of people have been asking the question about the BIG payouts. Don't know why Rutgers is making it a big secret and just doesn't tell us.

But........Someone did post the figures that they found in, I believe, some RU planning paper. Any body remember what they were?

I thought B1G payouts are not public info? Didn't RU have to sign a confidentiality agreement? A lot of estimates or guesses is all I remember.

 

[Steveriknight]

Rutgers isn't making a secret of it. They will tell you if you ask. IIRC, the Big Ten money kicks in 2021.

I thought there was a phase-in period? Full share after x amount of years, but increasing annually up until then.

 

[krup]

Rutgers isn't making a secret of it. They will tell you if you ask. IIRC, the Big Ten money kicks in 2021.

That structure was based on projections for what the B1G would get on their next TV deal. RU fans need to hope that deal exceeds projections, because it would then be likely that RU's partial share would increase beginning in 2018.

 

[Caliknight]

I don't have it, but I am pretty positive this information was made public. Certainly, Rutgers being a public school, revenues/payouts will be published somewhere.

It always was, I am not sure why they wouldn't now, especially considering even with a lower amount than other full share members, our revenues are likely 3x what they were in the BE/Aac.

 

[Steveriknight]

It's my understanding that RU gets a fixed yearly amount from the B1G of 9 Million for the 1st 6 years of being in the conference. Starting the 7th year RU will be deemed fully vested and receive a full share of B1G money equal to what the other member schools receive. Any other monies, i.e. BTN or bowl shares are in addition to the fixed B1G money RU gets now.

Wow! That sucks really bad. If that's true then we are essentially locked into the inability to hire and pay a proven coach until 2021.

I our only hope may then be getting lucky on an unproven coach or coordinator that we can pay on the cheap, or hope some boosters decide to get involved and partially fund the next coach's contract.

 

[vkj91]

Can't or won't?

Seems to me Rutgers wants the FB money to pay for the all other programs with the possible exception of Men's BB before it can be used for the program that brings it in.

Then lots of people like me "won't" continue to drop big money on a football program the school doesn't care about.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

What would be more useful is some information as to why we have the largest athletics subsidy. Where is all that money going? Is it just that our football and basketball are not profitable enough to support the other sports, but they are at other schools?

I find that tough to believe. As dismal as we've been, the RAC is still half full, and Football sells out or nearly sells out a 50,000 seat stadium for every game. So while I know that the school won't contribute any more because they are already giving a huge subsidy, I have a tough time with the "why." I can't imagine we are that different from any other schools with mediocre sports.

 

[derleider]

I don't see the B Ten money as relevant... it is a zero sum gain... that money will be used to lower the university/student contribution to the Athletic Department; which means no new money for coaches, etc... hope i am wrong but that is what i understand and expect to happen... there is no hope here until the FB (or heaven forbid, the BB) program operates cash positive... which won't happen until they win, which won't until you have better coaches facilities, etc... yada yada...

You are wrong. I would bet that our athletics spending has gone up every year under Barchi. If they really cared about the subsidy they would do massive cuts to all sports.

but they dont. Notice the timeline for getting the subsidy to zero is basically the timeline for getting the huge influx of Big Ten cash.

What they wont do is go and increase the deficit on major projects that would draw unwanted political attention. Is a major coaching hire that? Not sure - Flood is going to be making $1.5 million or so next year, so paying $2.5 million for a new coach is only a $1 million increase - probably offset by higher ticket sales and such.

Cabbage - its five things basically in this order of importance.

1. FB and BB arent profitable - almost every P5 school has ONE of them profitable - bad FB schools like Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke have great BB programs.

2. Our conference payouts are the lowest in the P5.

3. NJ is expensive and Rutgers is expensive.

4. Our donors arent that generous - especially not for large scale projects - so we have to either not build them (leading to worse teams), or cover them with bonds (leading to more money being used for payments.

5. Word is that RUs accounting is unusual - our deficit would be somewhat less if we accounted for things the way other schools do - although still higher than everyone else.

On top of that -we had a series of one time payments and reduction in revenue that bumped the deficit up to ridiculous levels.

 

[patk89]

What would be more useful is some information as to why we have the largest athletics subsidy. Where is all that money going? Is it just that our football and basketball are not profitable enough to support the other sports, but they are at other schools?

I find that tough to believe. As dismal as we've been, the RAC is still half full, and Football sells out or nearly sells out a 50,000 seat stadium for every game. So while I know that the school won't contribute any more because they are already giving a huge subsidy, I have a tough time with the "why." I can't imagine we are that different from any other schools with mediocre sports.

I agree with this. RU appears to use the most conservative/punitive accounting for athletic related items. Most schools pre-funded their stadium expansions (alum contribution plus operating surpluses) but RU has to borrow and those costs are all wrapped into the equation. Payouts to exit our old league (which was ridiculous considering the whole league had departed) also made the last several years look worse than it is. There is genuine value in having a competitive athletic program to advertise your university, increase name recognition, increase participation/satisfaction from undergrads and bring alums back to campus. At RU, those things don't seem to be considered.

At this point, Flood has to go. Even if they have to go cheap, hire an unproven guy, and he fails, at least we will have a new regime that will spark some hope for a season or 2. Maybe we get lucky and the guy works out. But the status quo is not acceptable and will drive support away.

 

[rutgersdave]

We will have a new coach either this year or the end of next year. The season tickets will fall for next season about 5,000-8,000 which actually would pay for new coach. If they don't fire him next year, then tickets sales will be down 16,000-20,000 over the two years- attendance being about 30,000 a game. I think that would definitely cover a $5,000,000 coach and staff. The reason why the AD loved Schiano was the increase of 20,000 fans which translates to$$$$.

Herman and Barchi will be looking at the rate of attendance decrease and determine when it is cost effective to hire another coach. Wait 2 years , they destroy the program for 10 years. I'm sure someone is doing the projections and cost analysis.

 

[RutgHoops]

What would be more useful is some information as to why we have the largest athletics subsidy. Where is all that money going? Is it just that our football and basketball are not profitable enough to support the other sports, but they are at other schools?

I find that tough to believe. As dismal as we've been, the RAC is still half full, and Football sells out or nearly sells out a 50,000 seat stadium for every game. So while I know that the school won't contribute any more because they are already giving a huge subsidy, I have a tough time with the "why." I can't imagine we are that different from any other schools with mediocre sports.

The below link should help. I'll summarize for you:

12th (Last) in the B1G in athletic donations
10th of 12 reporting schools in football ticket sales
Last in basketball ticket sales


$76MM athletic budget - $9.2MM conference distribution -$8.1MM athletic donations -$8.8MM football ticket sales -1.3MM basketball ticket sales - $10MM in athletic student fees collected* = $38.6MM annual athletic shortfall funded by the University.

*I believe we are the only P5 University where student fees exceed athletic donations (let that sad fact sink in for a moment)

http://www.chicagofootball.com/2015...artments-rank-in-spending-profit-pay/a2quusm/

 

[eceres]

Can anyone say as a fact that football is not profitable?

As for additional money - as we have a 36.3m subsidy unless we get an increase of over 36.3m then the payout does not matter if our goal is to get subsidy to 0. However, it is worth noting that there is no evidence this is the #1 goal for Rutgers - if so we would be decreasing our athletic budget year over year which is not the case. If our budget went up 33cents on the dollar of added revenue there could be more money for coaches while moving towards revenue neutral.

Here is what we know:
Rutgers runs 24 (27?) varisty teams
Rutgers had a budget of 76.6million, with a subsidy of 36.3 million



Do we know how much of the expenses and how much of the income 40.3m (76.6 - 36.3) is football related?
This becomes a fuzzy math problem to some exent - how much of student feels is football vs. other sports, etc. Same for AD pay, charitable giving, etc.


References:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_Scarlet_Knights

 

[Steveriknight]

Anybody know how much Flood's salary cost is including his staff? $1.5M + how much for his staff?

If RU paid the next coach $2.5M, generally how much would his staff cost? Same as under Flood or would the pool of staff also be more expensive? e.g.- do we currently have budget option coordinators also?

And what caliber of coach does that price range get us?

Where would that place us in the Big Ten for spending on Football coach and staff?

Best case scenario would be some prominent NJ politician signing off on the increased cost of the new RU coach and staff. That would ward off most if not all criticisms by the press...which would otherwise be sure to happen.

And if Julie can wrangle a few mil from our boosters to partially defray some of the new costs we could be in business.

 

[rutgersdave]

I agree with this. RU appears to use the most conservative/punitive accounting for athletic related items. Most schools pre-funded their stadium expansions (alum contribution plus operating surpluses) but RU has to borrow and those costs are all wrapped into the equation. Payouts to exit our old league (which was ridiculous considering the whole league had departed) also made the last several years look worse than it is. There is genuine value in having a competitive athletic program to advertise your university, increase name recognition, increase participation/satisfaction from undergrads and bring alums back to campus. At RU, those things don't seem to be considered.

At this point, Flood has to go. Even if they have to go cheap, hire an unproven guy, and he fails, at least we will have a new regime that will spark some hope for a season or 2. Maybe we get lucky and the guy works out. But the status quo is not acceptable and will drive support away.

Somehow they must be counting the stadium building funding. With teams like Cuse and BC barely having any attendance, they would have a larger deficit. The stadium cost is sunk cost so it shouldn't be a consideration.

 

[Upstream]

What would be more useful is some information as to why we have the largest athletics subsidy. Where is all that money going? Is it just that our football and basketball are not profitable enough to support the other sports, but they are at other schools?

I find that tough to believe. As dismal as we've been, the RAC is still half full, and Football sells out or nearly sells out a 50,000 seat stadium for every game. So while I know that the school won't contribute any more because they are already giving a huge subsidy, I have a tough time with the "why." I can't imagine we are that different from any other schools with mediocre sports.

The problem isn't that Rutgers spends too much money, it is that Rutgers earns too little money. Part of that problem will be automatically solved when Rutgers receives full B10 revenue, vs what we go in the AAC/BE.

But we also have one of the smallest stadiums in the P5, and among the lowest ticket prices. So our ticket revenue will lag.

And we have cheap fans who don't donate. See page 4 of the R-Fund booklet (http://rutgers.uberflip.com/i/582133-r-fund-guide-book) to see that in 2013-14 we were last in the B10 in terms of dollars raised and 11th in the B10 in terms of number of donors. (These numbers are improving, but we have a long way to go.)

Even compared to non-B10 programs, Rutgers donations are low. USA Today's athletic database indicates that Rutgers received $8.1 MM in donations in FY 2014 (this is slightly higher than the $6.5 MM reported in the R Fund book, because the USA Today numbers include donations other than to the Athletics Annual Fund). Compare this to $17 MM for Ga Tech, $25 MM for UVA, $28 MM for Kansas, or $17 MM for Iowa State (yes, even Iowa State, who isn't even the most popular program in a small state raises twice what Rutgers raises).

 

[Caliknight]

What would be more useful is some information as to why we have the largest athletics subsidy. Where is all that money going? Is it just that our football and basketball are not profitable enough to support the other sports, but they are at other schools?

I find that tough to believe. As dismal as we've been, the RAC is still half full, and Football sells out or nearly sells out a 50,000 seat stadium for every game. So while I know that the school won't contribute any more because they are already giving a huge subsidy, I have a tough time with the "why." I can't imagine we are that different from any other schools with mediocre sports.

1) I think there are some simply accounting tricks that other schools use that Rutgers doesn't. Just my guess.

2) We have the largest subsidy of schools that report. Most every private school doesn't. You can't tell me certain smaller private schools don't have a massive subsidy.

 

[RutgHoops]

Somehow they must be counting the stadium building funding. With teams like Cuse and BC barely having any attendance, they would have a larger deficit. The stadium cost is sunk cost so it shouldn't be a consideration.

Not sure I understand the logic. Do you count your mortgage as an expense? We are paying every month on the debt of the stadium. Isn't that an athletic department expense?

 

[macdad90]

derleider... not being argumentative here but, you said:

"Notice the timeline for getting the subsidy to zero is basically the timeline for getting the huge influx of Big Ten cash."

doesn't that jive with my concern: B Ten money is not the cure all some think it is

 

[rutgersdave]

The below link should help. I'll summarize for you:

12th (Last) in the B1G in athletic donations
10th of 12 reporting schools in football ticket sales
Last in basketball ticket sales


$76MM athletic budget - $9.2MM conference distribution -$8.1MM athletic donations -$8.8MM football ticket sales -1.3MM basketball ticket sales - $10MM in athletic student fees collected* = $38.6MM annual athletic shortfall funded by the University.

*I believe we are the only P5 University where student fees exceed athletic donations (let that sad fact sink in for a moment)

http://www.chicagofootball.com/2015...artments-rank-in-spending-profit-pay/a2quusm/

The top 6 teams for football sales has 100k plus stadiums so there is no comparison. 7-8-9 play in 60k stadiums which allows for lower ticket prices also.

Donor contributions also reflects stadium size and attendance.

 

[RutgHoops]

Anybody know how much Flood's salary cost is including his staff? $1.5M + how much for his staff?

If RU paid the next coach $2.5M, generally how much would his staff cost? Same as under Flood or would the pool of staff also be more expensive? e.g.- do we currently have budget option coordinators also?

And what caliber of coach does that price range get us?

Where would that place us in the Big Ten for spending on Football coach and staff?

Best case scenario would be some prominent NJ politician signing off on the increased cost of the new RU coach and staff. That would ward off most if not all criticisms by the press...which would otherwise be sure to happen.

And if Julie can wrangle a few mil from our boosters to partially defray some of the new costs we could be in business.

Today we pay about $2.4MM/year in non-HC football staff.

http://www.chicagofootball.com/2015...artments-rank-in-spending-profit-pay/a2quusm/

 

[rutgersdave]

Not sure I understand the logic. Do you count your mortgage as an expense? We are paying every month on the debt of the stadium. Isn't that an athletic department expense?

Well looking more at the detail the deficit isn't from Football but the other Rutgers sports that generate no revenue.

 

[RutgHoops]

The top 6 teams for football sales has 100k plus stadiums so there is no comparison. 7-8-9 play in 60k stadiums which allows for lower ticket prices also.

Donor contributions also reflects stadium size and attendance.

Posted this on the pay board:

Let's strip everything extraneous out (conference distribution, student fees, basketball revenue) and look at a decent measure of "how much we care about our football program" versus our peers. Below are just the numbers for football ticket sales and athletic donations. Forget the "blue bloods" and let's just see the schools we think "we should beat".

Annually--Football ticket revenue + athletic donations:

Rutgers: $16,881,186
Maryland: $17,618,180
Indiana: $23,377,670
Minnesota: $24,356,417
Purdue: $24,910,230
Illinois: $26,145,858

Outside of Maryland the other "bottom tier" football schools collect between $6.5MM-$9.5MM per year more than us in tickets and donations.

 

[derleider]

Anybody know how much Flood's salary cost is including his staff? $1.5M + how much for his staff?

If RU paid the next coach $2.5M, generally how much would his staff cost? Same as under Flood or would the pool of staff also be more expensive? e.g.- do we currently have budget option coordinators also?

And what caliber of coach does that price range get us?

Where would that place us in the Big Ten for spending on Football coach and staff?

Best case scenario would be some prominent NJ politician signing off on the increased cost of the new RU coach and staff. That would ward off most if not all criticisms by the press...which would otherwise be sure to happen.

And if Julie can wrangle a few mil from our boosters to partially defray some of the new costs we could be in business.

Its not so much that its not profitable - it might be now (although historically it hasnt been) - its that at most P5 schools one of FB or BB is a big money maker - at schools like OSU or Wisconsin or Michigan its both. Those pay for the other sports, which no one expects to be profitable.

 

[derleider]

Posted this on the pay board:

Let's strip everything extraneous out (conference distribution, student fees, basketball revenue) and look at a decent measure of "how much we care about our football program" versus our peers. Below are just the numbers for football ticket sales and athletic donations. Forget the "blue bloods" and let's just see the schools we think "we should beat".

Annually--Football ticket revenue + athletic donations:

Rutgers: $16,881,186
Maryland: $17,618,180
Indiana: $23,377,670
Minnesota: $24,356,417
Purdue: $24,910,230
Illinois: $26,145,858

Outside of Maryland the other "bottom tier" football schools collect between $6.5MM-$9.5MM per year more than us in tickets and donations.

derleider... not being argumentative here but, you said:

"Notice the timeline for getting the subsidy to zero is basically the timeline for getting the huge influx of Big Ten cash."

doesn't that jive with my concern: B Ten money is not the cure all some think it is

Well its not a cure all. But it will be a huge boost to at least be getting the same conference revenue (actually slightly more because we have a smaller stadium) than the rest - and MUCH more than our local ACC and AAC competitors (which should help in securing a good coach.)

 

[RMSko]

Posted this on the pay board:

Let's strip everything extraneous out (conference distribution, student fees, basketball revenue) and look at a decent measure of "how much we care about our football program" versus our peers. Below are just the numbers for football ticket sales and athletic donations. Forget the "blue bloods" and let's just see the schools we think "we should beat".

Annually--Football ticket revenue + athletic donations:

Rutgers: $16,881,186
Maryland: $17,618,180
Indiana: $23,377,670
Minnesota: $24,356,417
Purdue: $24,910,230
Illinois: $26,145,858

Outside of Maryland the other "bottom tier" football schools collect between $6.5MM-$9.5MM per year more than us in tickets and donations.

This is very telling info. We keep complaining about the B1G revenue, but we're not even holding our own when you strip out that revenue.

 

[rutgers4life11]

What would be more useful is some information as to why we have the largest athletics subsidy. Where is all that money going? Is it just that our football and basketball are not profitable enough to support the other sports, but they are at other schools?

I find that tough to believe. As dismal as we've been, the RAC is still half full, and Football sells out or nearly sells out a 50,000 seat stadium for every game. So while I know that the school won't contribute any more because they are already giving a huge subsidy, I have a tough time with the "why." I can't imagine we are that different from any other schools with mediocre sports.

Bingo. the money problem is a myth, anyone inside knows. it's used as a narrative to convince donors that we 'desperately' need the money. it's a win-win for Julie.

truth is we're still making 5 times the amount of pretty much every non P5 team, and absolutely delivering bigger crowds and more merchandise sales... yet, a whole bunch of them somehow figure out how to pay much more for their coaching staff.

 

[Steveriknight]

Bingo. the money problem is a myth, anyone inside knows. it's used as a narrative to convince donors that we 'desperately' need the money. it's a win-win for Julie.

truth is we're still making 5 times the amount of pretty much every non P5 team, and absolutely delivering bigger crowds and more merchandise sales... yet, a whole bunch of them somehow figure out how to pay much more for their coaching staff.

I don't believe that's true. I think the money problem is real and it's our biggest problem in staying competitive with our new peers. The accounting info on RU's finances is public info, and fraudulently reporting that info is a crime, so I'd say the money problem is very real.

RU doesn't have six more years to wait to pay for a solid coach with the B1G money... they have to figure out a way to get it done RIGHT NOW with the current resources. The program will go down the drain in less than three years if it stays on it's current course.

 

[Knight Shift]

It doesn't matter because the excuse that we can't afford a new coach is ludicrous. Since joining the B1G we've seen an increase in attendance, ticket prices, parking pieces, donations, and minimum seat gifts and I'm supposed to believe we can't afford to pay someone the same as we did when we paid Schiano in the BE?

 

[PiscatawayMike]

RU starts collecting B1G big money in June 2021. I've heard Julie Hermann say it at least a half-dozen times at various RU events she has attended. The date is stated every time she's asked a question about facilities, coaches salaries, infrastructure, etc...