Maybe we're getting into semantics here. I don't find much difference in a 2-10 Rutgers and a 5-7 Rutgers, or even a Rutgers that regularly reaches lower-tier bowl games, as far as recruiting purposes. It's the prospect of being able to afford a coach who can inject lasting energy into high school players over a number of years, and an administration willing to make that hire, that is slightly concerning.
Whipping Boys
- Thread starter Randal7
- Start date
Maybe we're getting into semantics here. I don't find much difference in a 2-10 Rutgers and a 5-7 Rutgers, or even a Rutgers that regularly reaches lower-tier bowl games, as far as recruiting purposes. It's the prospect of being able to afford a coach who can inject lasting energy into high school players over a number of years, and an administration willing to make that hire, that is slightly concerning.
The Big Ten has created perennial whipping boys? How? By equally sharing all the revenue?
Really? EQUALLY sharing revenue. It's not even close. RU is climbing out of a huge hole with one hand tied behind it's back. We are investing heavily trying to create a level playing field without much revenue sharing from the league. I know it was part of the agreement to enter but it certainly means that the league has, by design, kept RU well behind the financial 8ball. And, yes Nebraska and Maryland had the same deal but they came from established p5 programs and should have been in much better financial shape than RU coming from the AAC.
So you wanted to cash in immediately on joining a conference whose status was built on the backs of other universities over decades? It just doesn't work that way.
I know this was meant as a dig at PSU, but other than missing the yearly OSU game, this wouldn't bother me. Easier path to championships.
If we played 10 conference games the realignment talk would slow down a bit.
I never said it worked that way. I was responding to the posters statement that there was "equal revenue sharing". There isn't. He posted the fact that Nebraska fnally got their full share. Not us! We are a long way away from seeing that kind of money. The OP has argued that the BIG wants bottom feeders. You can't disagree with the fact that the financial agreement makes it very hard to compete on a level playing field when you are so far behind financially.
According to USA Today's financial report for 2016-17, Rutgers outpaced Maryland and Purdue in athletics revenues, as well as Oklahoma State, which made $125 million less than Texas; Virginia Tech, $60 million less than Florida State; and Utah, $62 million less than Oregon; and Mississippi State, $110 million less than A&M.
Will RU ever make/spend as much as OSU, PSU, UM, etc.? Probably not. Is that a disadvantage? Sure. But it shouldn't be a crutch. It can be overcome with solid decision-making and a commitment to success throughout the university, from the top down. Those things simply haven't been there. And that's why my sense is RU fans will be disappointed when the full share finally does kick in, but not much actually changes.
I am not sure I get your point. The fact that RU has been able to generate athletic revenue better than Maryland and Purdue in the BIG is a credit to RU, not to receiving equal revenue shares from the conference. And obviously money doesn't insure success, but the lack of equal revenue very probably inhibits success I was simply responding to the post made by the OSU fan that revenues are shared equally, that's all.
Fair enough. I'd just say that the spirit of his post is accurate, in that revenues are shared equally among those eligible to get the full share. RU will, too, once it pays its dues to speak. Pointing to that somehow being unfair at this point just doesn't resonate.
Maybe you haven't met our fanbase? The sky falls every time we lose. The sky was falling because we gave up 31 to Oregon State. Yes, if we lost to Purdue this year, everyone would freak out. But everyone would freak out this year if we lost. Period.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. What don't you tell me exactly what the Big Ten should do more to help out the so-called "whipping boys"? Should they have a larger share of the revenue than the "big dogs"? Should they start with a 10-0 lead every game? I'm being a little facetious here, but if you think the Big Ten is creating the whipping boys I want an honest answer as to what the solution is.
It is equal share, after you buy in. As I mentioned, 11 of the schools took the risk and put up the money. Once you buy in, you'll have the same cut as everyone else. You spent one year in the AAC. And you're making more money than you did that year.
Nebraska finally got their full share because they joined the league 3 years before you did. Which means they got their full share...3 years before you will.
Where did I say is was unfair? I cited it was part of the agreement to enter the league. The OP started this thread by posing the question as to whether or not the league wants to keep "the bottom feeders" where they are and if the elite teams want it this way. I suggested that the financial deal certainly helps to keep us where we are because it makes it difficult to catch up. Whether it is fair or not is another question. But the deal has ramifications, especially for RU as it was not coming from a league with a great TV contract. The biggest ramification is that it tends to keep us at the bottom, which is the OP's original question.
Rutgers will only win and succeed in this conference if and when we embrace the hate. Wear it with pride like a true new jerseyan.
We need to have the mentality that all we need is 22 tough dudes and the rest of the BIG can keep their money and RVs.. that WE here will do things our way and that everyone else has to adjust to us and not the other way around. I don’t want an RV lot, don’t want the other band playing our fight song, don’t want our uniforms to look Big Ten’ish’ and don’t want any favors.
We need to have the mentality that all we need is 22 tough dudes and the rest of the BIG can keep their money and RVs.. that WE here will do things our way and that everyone else has to adjust to us and not the other way around. I don’t want an RV lot, don’t want the other band playing our fight song, don’t want our uniforms to look Big Ten’ish’ and don’t want any favors.
Again, he is only right and this only works if everybody is on board. And I mean everybody connected to Rutgers.
Please explain to me how an extra $37 million is not going to help? Last year Rutgers direct subsidy from the school was $21 mil.. $2 mil. of that is not going anywhere as that is the school's responsibility to Title IX. On a budget of $14 mil. from the B1G. So it's $19 mil. which has to be eliminated. That leaves you with $18 mil. for increased coaching salaries. You can now afford more than a $2 mil. coach, your candidate pool now increases. Make a mistake you can now move on quicker instead of being stuck for years. Ever wonder why we keep a loser longer than most? MONEY
Also don't even bring student fees into the equation. I've discussed this ad nauseum, it's not going anywhere as we do things differently than most schools. Here at Rutgers intramural's, use of facilities and tickets are all free for every single student. It's how Rutgers a liberal University wants it, everyone pays a little so everyone has access to everything. At other places the few pay a lot and only those few have access. Media is the one who decided this should be included in our subsidy.
This year our 1st loan amount will come due as instead of getting $16 mil. like our original buy in we got $24 mil. from the B1G. So the numbers on the subsidy will finally start to fall and get the NJ media off athletics asses a little bit. Yes we're playing this game against our own as well.
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying, and I think we're getting a little sidetracked here.
The answer to OP's question is: No, the B1G isn't intentionally limiting programs' ability to compete, nor does it want teams to be awful for long periods of time. The publicity coming out of Saturday wasn't exactly positive. There's also no logical reason for the conference to want RU to fail. The value of all of those TV sets and the large population and proximity to NYC suffers if no one cares.
Likewise, although sure, not receiving a full share of B1G revenues certainly isn't ideal, the deal wasn't designed to take RU out at the knees. It was just good business. Ultimately, it comes back to the bottom line: Is RU willing to spend the money necessary to compete at this level, and if so, can it spend that money wisely to accomplish that goal. So far I think we can all agree that the answers to both of those questions are "no." And that isn't anyone else's fault, or problem.
I didn't say it wouldn't help. Of course that sort of injection will help. But it isn't going to transform the program overnight from one that is a home underdog to Buffalo to one that is competing with the B1G's upper tier. I've seen you comment on RU's finances often enough to take your numbers seriously, so let's assume that a full share does leave RU with $18 million extra. What percentage of that will go to football versus men's and women's basketball and Olympic sports? How much of that will go to various facilities upgrades? Luxury items like snack bars and amenities for the players? The recruiting staff/budget? Etc., etc., etc.
Every dollar helps. But $18 million likely disappears pretty quickly in a world in which college football/athletics expenses are increasing rapidly. And you still have to spend the money wisely. And you need an administration on board with paying upwards of $4 million for a head coach. A full share isn't going to be a panacea for RU football.
Buckeye legion said
It is equal share, after you buy in. As I mentioned, 11 of the schools took the risk and put up the money. Once you buy in, you'll have the same cut as everyone else. You spent one year in the AAC. And you're making more money than you did that year.
Nebraska finally got their full share because they joined the league 3 years before you did. Which means they got their full share...3 years before you will.[/QUOTE]
Wow, can you read. That is exactly what I said. We are not getting an equal share. You are the one who said "equal revenue sharing". I know why we don't get the full share, it is part of the deal. And Obviously NEBBY has it's share now because they entered earlier. But for you to say that we have to "buy in" in order to be deserving is absurd. What the h*ll does that mean anyway. The fact is that not getting a full share keeps us behind financially. Whether it is fair or not is not the question. Fact. We don't get as much as the rest and that hurts us.
It is equal share, after you buy in. As I mentioned, 11 of the schools took the risk and put up the money. Once you buy in, you'll have the same cut as everyone else. You spent one year in the AAC. And you're making more money than you did that year.
Nebraska finally got their full share because they joined the league 3 years before you did. Which means they got their full share...3 years before you will.[/QUOTE]
Wow, can you read. That is exactly what I said. We are not getting an equal share. You are the one who said "equal revenue sharing". I know why we don't get the full share, it is part of the deal. And Obviously NEBBY has it's share now because they entered earlier. But for you to say that we have to "buy in" in order to be deserving is absurd. What the h*ll does that mean anyway. The fact is that not getting a full share keeps us behind financially. Whether it is fair or not is not the question. Fact. We don't get as much as the rest and that hurts us.
Following up on this:
If RU raises revenue by $18 million to $114 million, it ranks ninth in the B1G between Minnesota and Indiana. And it's still approximately $30 million behind PSU/Wisconsin and $55 million behind OSU/Michigan. The money is nice. But long-term success will be about making the right hires and getting the whole university on board.
Have you seen the amount of money RU has spent on upgrading facilities? What are you using to base the statement RU isn't spending money trying to compete. And, back to the original point on revenue sharing. It is hard to spend money you don't have that everyone else does.
Well, they currently have the second-lowest paid coach in the conference. Prior to that Kyle Flood made less than $1 million one season, 73rd nationally and the lowest among Power 5 head coaches. Rutgers has generally paid its offensive coordinators somewhat competitively in recent years, but in general the assistant salary pool is low compared with its peers. These are the single most important investments a program can make, and RU has done them on the cheap.
Facilities upgrades are already being funded by outside donors. I'm sure once these are complete another RFund will be started. Snacks are already in place the one good thing Ash did. Women's basketball, [laughing] that women already makes $2 mil. for average results.
Olympic sports are cheap salary wise. So you don't need much here. Olympic sports are all now fully funded most of the coaches make average B1G pay some above. It's the only thing we could afford. Thus why wrestling(well not your class but still ranked #11), Men's Lacrosse, Women's soccer, Field Hockey are all fairing pretty good in the B1G.
If $4 mil. is the going rate in the B1G once we have a full share the administration will approve it. What they won't approve is above and beyond the going rate or average B1G salary. No it won't be a cure all, but it'll help us become competitive with the middle pack. We're newbie's, setting our eyes on teams who've been spending and doing it in this conference for decades right now is silly.
Our AD is trying to raise money in an atmosphere of utter ineptitude, with a media breathing down his neck at every dollar spent. $18 mil. will be seen as a windfall. The Media will no longer to be able to harp on the subsidy mantra and for a school which has always been broke that extra money will help immensely.
A few more home blowout losses surrounded by jackhole visiting fans, and what little remains of our fanbase will be all-in by subtraction.
Again were cheap because we're broke. Every dollar spent is scrutinized by the media. You can't spend or borrow when your broke and already are borrowing. It's our lot right now. People aren't going to donate to what they view as a lost cause. Become competitive and they at least have some hope. I really hope you're not using Lovie Smith as the worst paid coach. His salary is still offset by money from the NFL.
I always get a good chuckle at this. "The whole University on board". We had a Penn State plant on our Board of Governors, and we currently have a University of Michigan football booster with one foot in our University business and the other in the Newark Star-Ledger editorial office, among many other moles. And they can't just be fired due to legal/union reasons. I guess that's our fault? We should vet every employee to make sure they are scarlet through and through before giving them a key card?
Here's the argument I think is fairly valid.
Rutgers should have been given a fixed fee at the time of joining. That is, the Big Ten could clearly calculate the value of membership at the time based on current payouts. They had some estimates of what the value of adding Rutgers and Maryland might be.
The right thing to do was to say the cost to join is.. I dunno.. $100M. I think $100M was a fair figure for joining the conference.. after all, the conference gets something in exchange as well.. more conference games to sell and broadcast rights. We will take $10M a year out of Rutgers share for 10 years to pay that.
Or maybe Rutgers gets a half share until the $100M is paid up.
But what we got is Rutgers will be paid a fixed fee.. increasing in some small way year to year.. and the balance of what would be an equal distribution gets split among the other members.
Last year the average distribution was about $33M and Rutgers got $16M. So lets call that a $17M fee paid to the Big Ten.
I found this in an article about Purdue's distributions..
2007-08: $18.8 million
2008-09: $19.2 million
2009-10: $20 million
2010-11: $22.8 million
2011-12: $24.7 million
2012-13: $25.4 million
Then I found actual numbers for 2013...
2013 $26M each for 12 schools
At that time they had Future projections:
$30.9 million in 2014-15;
$34.1 million in 2015-16 and
$35.5 million in 2016-17 for the 11 schools, excluding Nebraska.
And last year, as shown above, the number averaged $33M but I read elsewhere it was $37M.
Next year the figure is supposed to be $50M+
The Big Ten gave Rutgers $9.5 million in its first year (FY2015) and $9.8 million following its second season (FY2016).
From a Oct 2017 story.. the Big Ten was expected to give Rutgers $12.6 million in 2017, $24.6 million in 2018, $27.1 million in 2019 and $29.4 million in 2020.
So if I do a rough calculation..
2015 $31M to all.. $9.5M to Rutgers = $21.5M "payment" for Big Ten entry fee
2016 $34M to all.. $9.8M to Rutgers = $24M entry fee payment
2017 $36M to all, $12.6M to Rutgers = $23.5M entry fee
2018 $50M to all, $24.6M to Rutgers = $25.5M entry fee
2019 $50M to all, $27.1M to Rutgers = $23M entry fee
2020 $50M to all, $29.4M to Rutgers = $20.5M entry fee
So.. to the end of 202 Rutgers would have essentially paid a $137M entry fee
Those are real rough numbers.. actual amount is definitely more or less.. but the ballpark is correct.
So my argument is that if they assigned a real dollar figure to join rather than a fixed figure of what Rutgers will be paid until 2021... that would have been more fair.. because maybe Rutgers bringing in the 5th largest TV market in the land (that's the NJ households that are part of the NYC and Philly media markets) really helped revenues increase. And as such, because of the structure of the payouts, Rutgers did not get to participate in increased revenues that it helped bring about.
In the end, Rutgers helping increase revenues meant it cost Rutgers more to join.
Last edited:
Pretty sure the B1G hates it
Say Ohio State goes undefeated. Who are they going to say they beat? The Cult? Michigan and MSU, are what, somewhat above average? Wisconsin lost to BYU at home.
They want all 14 teams to be good. They loved it in 14 when 6 of the schools in the division went bowling- more eyeballs, more cash, better case for tOSU who won the NC.
The B1G hates having the weekend it just did.
Say Ohio State goes undefeated. Who are they going to say they beat? The Cult? Michigan and MSU, are what, somewhat above average? Wisconsin lost to BYU at home.
They want all 14 teams to be good. They loved it in 14 when 6 of the schools in the division went bowling- more eyeballs, more cash, better case for tOSU who won the NC.
The B1G hates having the weekend it just did.
That’s not who I’m talking about being all in as we’re all in and have been from the get go.
How can you say we said “no” to that question when we are still at this $ level.
Ask that question again when we get to this $$$$ level.
good points ..if you have 4 teams that are undefeated and/or have 1 loss in conference you will no doubt have 4 teams that have less than 3 wins...I would settle for Old Miss or Miss State - good atmosphere, loyal fans and typically around .500 overall record..
