ADVERTISEMENT

Whipping Boys

Again, he is only right and this only works if everybody is on board. And I mean everybody connected to Rutgers.
Fair point. And a good one. We dont circle the wagons and rally quite like the other schools in this conference but weve got to learn how.
 
@ZMR512 is right when he says it won’t be the cure all.

At the point when everything is really equal then we have nobody else to blame.
Some here say Hobbs is the best AD we have had and he just misspent $10M. If we got a full payout this coming year it would be about $20M more than we had been getting.. and the best AD ever just wasted half of that.

But I suppose it would be a structured buyout.. X dollars per year for X years. But suppose he steps up and hires a "name" coach at double the price.. and THAT doesn't work out. Before too long we could be paying 3 head coaches and likely buyouts for key members of the staff as well.

So.. yeah.. more money would be great.. but we need some football smarts here... either that or, what I had proposed.. cheap out on young up and comer HCs with short contracts until we find one that looks like he makes some progress.. then invest in him.

I think of unknown OC Chip Kelly at UNH... why can't we find the next "Chip Kelly"?
 
Some here say Hobbs is the best AD we have had and he just misspent $10M. If we got a full payout this coming year it would be about $20M more than we had been getting.. and the best AD ever just wasted half of that.

But I suppose it would be a structured buyout.. X dollars per year for X years. But suppose he steps up and hires a "name" coach at double the price.. and THAT doesn't work out. Before too long we could be paying 3 head coaches and likely buyouts for key members of the staff as well.

So.. yeah.. more money would be great.. but we need some football smarts here... either that or, what I had proposed.. cheap out on young up and comer HCs with short contracts until we find one that looks like he makes some progress.. then invest in him.

I think of unknown OC Chip Kelly at UNH... why can't we find the next "Chip Kelly"?

We had our own boy wonder. Drew Mehringer. He set the Rutgers record for shortest time of possession before the punt team took the field.

I get your point. Increasingly I believe (and I cant believe im saying this) that Schiano is the only one where there isnt the assymetrical information risk. As in... we know he can do it. He knows he can do it. Hes about the only known quantity out there. Im so beaten down id welcome him back bc i think it would really revitalize things around here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: waretown
Can I also use this opportunity to bring up the fact that this school, this program, this school, can be a rallying cry for the entire state when we are doing well. We all remember 2006. Its not very long ago. We need to remember that in the dark times
 
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.


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.[/QUOTE]

Dude

What part of "you are buying into your share of the B1G network" do you have a hard time understanding?

The other members took less money in the early years to get the network off the ground, yet you think RU is entitled to a share for free?

Sit down, and zip it already. Sheesh
 
Lets keep it as real as possible here.

Schiano didn't want the Rutgers HC job when Flood was fired and Rutgers didn't want him either.

Schiano wants a national championship in his resume before he retires. He may get it this year with OSU.

Schiano would want most of the AD budget to go to football like it was before, while Hobbs is finally spreading the money around to lift up all sports.As a result, the Basketball teams, wrestling, Gymnastics, Soccer and LAX teams are finally getting new facilities, which lets face would have never happen had Schiano were still here.

Schiano would want a big increase in the football budget and he knows damn well that that will not happen until Brachi is out or we get full Big Ten money.

The only thing that is different now is that if Schiano wants to be HC again, Rutgers might be the only school he can do that at in the power 5, we all saw what happen with Tennessee, no AD who wants to keep his job will ever offer him a HC again after that.

Finally, does Schiano actually want to go to the same pain of rebuilding a program yet again at a college who has people who will fight him every step of the way like last time?

I can't answer that, but that is reality folks as we know it as of today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoogieKnight
Lets keep it as real as possible here.

Schiano didn't want the Rutgers HC job when Flood was fired and Rutgers didn't want him either.

Schiano wants a national championship in his resume before he retires. He may get it this year with OSU.

Schiano would want most of the AD budget to go to football like it was before, while Hobbs is finally spreading the money around to lift up all sports.As a result, the Basketball teams, wrestling, Gymnastics, Soccer and LAX teams are finally getting new facilities, which lets face would have never happen had Schiano were still here.

Schiano would want a big increase in the football budget and he knows damn well that that will not happen until Brachi is out or we get full Big Ten money.

The only thing that is different now is that if Schiano wants to be HC again, Rutgers might be the only school he can do that at in the power 5, we all saw what happen with Tennessee, no AD who wants to keep his job will ever offer him a HC again after that.

Finally, does Schiano actually want to go to the same pain of rebuilding a program yet again at a college who has people who will fight him every step of the way like last time?

I can't answer that, but that is reality folks as we know it as of today.

It’s a rebuild, yes. But it’s not the same magnitude of build as when he took the job.

Is there another known quantity that you can think of? Even a very successful, dyed in the wool coach like a dan Mullen is far from assured success in NJ (and certainly not within our budget anyway)
 
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.

Dude

What part of "you are buying into your share of the B1G network" do you have a hard time understanding?

The other members took less money in the early years to get the network off the ground, yet you think RU is entitled to a share for free?

Sit down, and zip it already. Sheesh[/QUOTE]

And losing to you guys 78-0 is part of the buy in? Or is that just bc we are losers who don’t deserve to live? $5 steaks all around ....
 
I completely understand, from a fan's perspective, how you believe RU will be in a much better position once the full share kicks in. And it certainly won't be worse off. But when you have an administration that wouldn't approve $2.3 million for a proven head coach post-Schiano and instead promoted an offensive line coach for pennies, that mentality has to be concerning. One poster says RU will spend the money once it has it; I'd be in wait-and-see mode.

And one more note on facilities and player amenities: I am aware that RU has invested in this area, but these are not onetime investments. This area of the sport, for better or worse, has become an arms race. Constant upgrades/improvements will be needed. I just don't see that extra $18 million going as far as you might think.
 
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.
So, you feel entitled to just waltz in and profit on the work and sacrifice and risk that the other schools in the conference made? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota took a risk and put up money to get the BTN going. Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska all have to do the same. It's really not a difficult concept.
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.
Two different issues here. First, yes, the B1G home office hates the weekend they just had. It's terrible for the conference as a whole. They'd much prefer, obviously, to win all non-conference games and all bowl games.

That said, if Ohio State goes undefeated, they're getting in. Look at 2014, Ohio State lost to 6-6 (at the time of selection) VT, and they had wins over 2 ranked teams (MSU and Wisconsin). It was absurd to most people to consider them most of the year (check it: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio...o-state-from-the-college-football-playoff-two) If they go undefeated this year, they'll have wins over ranked TCU, ranked Penn State and, even as bad as they've looked, likely ranked teams in MSU, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
 
It’s a rebuild, yes. But it’s not the same magnitude of build as when he took the job.

Is there another known quantity that you can think of? Even a very successful, dyed in the wool coach like a dan Mullen is far from assured success in NJ (and certainly not within our budget anyway)

To be 100% honest, I would be pretty damn hyped if Schiano came back, all that I am pointing out is that it if somewhat unlikely to happen given where we are both at. Dan Mullen would be a slam dunk, but that ship has sailed. Mullen makes $6 million a year at Miss State, he ain't going nowhere.
 
To be 100% honest, I would be pretty damn hyped if Schiano came back, all that I am pointing out is that it if somewhat unlikely to happen given where we are both at. Dan Mullen would be a slam dunk, but that ship has sailed. Mullen makes $6 million a year at Miss State, he ain't going nowhere.
Florida. But that's a surprisingly easy move to forget, honestly. I forgot until I was watching some of the Florida-Kentucky game last week.
 
Ok, I read a lot, but not all of this so I hope I don't regurgitate too much of what was already said.

I don't think the BIG, as a conference, wants us to be "whipping boys". The other programs certainly do, but who could blame them.

In 2015, we helped lead BTN to the 2nd highest rating for CFB games on the night we lost to MSU (Laviano spike) with a 1.7HH rating. In 2011, our loss to Ville double the ratings on the Cuse-WVU game (both started at the same time) with a rating of 1.45. Imagine a 9 win Rutgers teams' rating going up against those powerhouses.

A good Rutgers is great for the conference. Unfortunately, B1G powers that be determined and overstated the Starbucks effect (made famous in the Vince Vaughn-Owen Wilson movie The Internship). Basically the Starbucks Effect shows that "when individual companies increase the perceived “premiumness” of a product through innovations in the product itself or the way it’s delivered, the entire category can reap higher prices and profits." I think the thinking was that having bluebloods like tOSU and PSU and Mich roll into town weekly, that locals would care.

And maybe, in theory, they were right. But a few events really destroyed our opportunities at competing. (I will not be going chronologically.)

1) Administrative incompetence on our end - Plenty of blame to go around here. Schiano left, Pernetti hires Flood. Pernetti fired for messing up the Mike Rice situation. The Julie Herrmann tenure. Even though those days are behind us, the poor decision-making on their ends still track some stain. The jury is still out on Hobbs, and he is finally facing real diversity after what seems to be a great job done fundraising.

2) Kyle Flood - I am not blaming Flood for what happened against Kansas. I am blaming Flood and his staff for the endless amount of decommitments over his past couple of seasons. Did we not have like 12 or 13 decommitments within a months time the one year? Those guys would be seniors now, I believe. I think it is understated how important it is to have balanced recruiting classes and developed upperclassmen funneling through your program.

3) Urban Meyer - Meyer changed the game in this conference. He started recruiting players that were already verbaled to other teams (used to be a no-no) and forced these other teams hands to bring in better recruiters. I mean, let's be honest, every year we have one game against a 3-time national champ and another against a coach who coached a team in a Super Bowl. Penn State adapted and brought a coach with juice. Michigan State hit a home run. Minnesota, Purdue and Nebraska went full juice on their hires. Those guys command a room. Not saying they can't coach. I'm saying they can certainly rah-rah you. In retrospect, Golden was that guy. I know people here were torn on Golden, but he certainly was a good recruiter. (Full disclosure, I wanted Moglia, but his health has been an issue.)

4) The year of the dumpster fire - I'm just going to state this and if someone can disprove it, please hold my feet to the fire. This is the first year we have had a senior starting an opener at corner since Logan Ryan and Brandon Jones. Schiano and Flood did not properly recruit the position, forcing Barnwell and Cioffi in as frosh. As those guys got older (and add in Andre Boggs and Tejay Johnson), Cioffi was moved to Safety and Barnwell and Boggs (and Peele) were botted off the team (Johnson was already gone) and we had to start all over again with Austin and Wharton. You don't spend 2 years dealing with a players growing pains just to see him get arrested and booted from your program. Of course, now Austin is done and Young is starting as a freshman.

Look, we are going to continue to be looked down upon by our brethren until we can prove our administration is competent, coaching can hold onto it's first choice of recruits, and the older players can stay on the field. That should lead to us FINISHING in those close games that can be program changers. Someone brought up the opportunities we have had against PSU, MSU and Iowa. And he is right. Had we won 2 of those 3 and no one is circling us as a win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randal7
Ok, I read a lot, but not all of this so I hope I don't regurgitate too much of what was already said.

I don't think the BIG, as a conference, wants us to be "whipping boys". The other programs certainly do, but who could blame them.

In 2015, we helped lead BTN to the 2nd highest rating for CFB games on the night we lost to MSU (Laviano spike) with a 1.7HH rating. In 2011, our loss to Ville double the ratings on the Cuse-WVU game (both started at the same time) with a rating of 1.45. Imagine a 9 win Rutgers teams' rating going up against those powerhouses.

A good Rutgers is great for the conference. Unfortunately, B1G powers that be determined and overstated the Starbucks effect (made famous in the Vince Vaughn-Owen Wilson movie The Internship). Basically the Starbucks Effect shows that "when individual companies increase the perceived “premiumness” of a product through innovations in the product itself or the way it’s delivered, the entire category can reap higher prices and profits." I think the thinking was that having bluebloods like tOSU and PSU and Mich roll into town weekly, that locals would care.

And maybe, in theory, they were right. But a few events really destroyed our opportunities at competing. (I will not be going chronologically.)

1) Administrative incompetence on our end - Plenty of blame to go around here. Schiano left, Pernetti hires Flood. Pernetti fired for messing up the Mike Rice situation. The Julie Herrmann tenure. Even though those days are behind us, the poor decision-making on their ends still track some stain. The jury is still out on Hobbs, and he is finally facing real diversity after what seems to be a great job done fundraising.

2) Kyle Flood - I am not blaming Flood for what happened against Kansas. I am blaming Flood and his staff for the endless amount of decommitments over his past couple of seasons. Did we not have like 12 or 13 decommitments within a months time the one year? Those guys would be seniors now, I believe. I think it is understated how important it is to have balanced recruiting classes and developed upperclassmen funneling through your program.

3) Urban Meyer - Meyer changed the game in this conference. He started recruiting players that were already verbaled to other teams (used to be a no-no) and forced these other teams hands to bring in better recruiters. I mean, let's be honest, every year we have one game against a 3-time national champ and another against a coach who coached a team in a Super Bowl. Penn State adapted and brought a coach with juice. Michigan State hit a home run. Minnesota, Purdue and Nebraska went full juice on their hires. Those guys command a room. Not saying they can't coach. I'm saying they can certainly rah-rah you. In retrospect, Golden was that guy. I know people here were torn on Golden, but he certainly was a good recruiter. (Full disclosure, I wanted Moglia, but his health has been an issue.)

4) The year of the dumpster fire - I'm just going to state this and if someone can disprove it, please hold my feet to the fire. This is the first year we have had a senior starting an opener at corner since Logan Ryan and Brandon Jones. Schiano and Flood did not properly recruit the position, forcing Barnwell and Cioffi in as frosh. As those guys got older (and add in Andre Boggs and Tejay Johnson), Cioffi was moved to Safety and Barnwell and Boggs (and Peele) were botted off the team (Johnson was already gone) and we had to start all over again with Austin and Wharton. You don't spend 2 years dealing with a players growing pains just to see him get arrested and booted from your program. Of course, now Austin is done and Young is starting as a freshman.

Look, we are going to continue to be looked down upon by our brethren until we can prove our administration is competent, coaching can hold onto it's first choice of recruits, and the older players can stay on the field. That should lead to us FINISHING in those close games that can be program changers. Someone brought up the opportunities we have had against PSU, MSU and Iowa. And he is right. Had we won 2 of those 3 and no one is circling us as a win.

Very good post. And the last sentence is definitely right too. The near misses not only deflated the fanbase, they hurt our once-feared home reputation. We used to be a home team that could beat ANYBODY on any given day. A place where ranked teams came to die. No more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoogieKnight
Very good post. And the last sentence is definitely right too. The near misses not only deflated the fanbase, they hurt our once-feared home reputation. We used to be a home team that could beat ANYBODY on any given day. A place where ranked teams came to die. No more.

When was that?

From 2005, the first year he went to a bowl, Schiano went 15-13 in home games against conference opponents and nonconference games against teams from major conferences. He went 3-4 in home games against ranked opponents.

The atmosphere was great for Louisville and USF in 2006-2007, no doubt, but the idea that RU was a feared place to play, or that individual results like PSU in 2014, would have made a difference in the perception of the program today, has been overstated. There are fundamental problems and issues with Rutgers athletics that need to change if RU is to ever rise above "whipping boy" status.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RUnTeX
ZMR512 keeps proving our points for us, without even trying.
I'm surprised we haven't gotten a single "not even our little brother" or "your garbage program" yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randal7
To zmr512 and Buckeyelegion :
1. Don't tell me to zip it, this is a Rutgers board. You guys are the interlopers.
2. You are either deliberately or, more likely ignorantly, misrepresenting what I have been saying. I never, repeat never, said I didn't understand the nature of the requirements for entry to the BIG. I never said it was unfair, I never said we were being treated differently than Maryland or Nebraska.
3. I objected to your use of the term "we must buy in" as if we need to prove our worthiness to enter. We are not on provisional status. We are in the BIG. Granted not fully funded, by agreement, but partners nonetheless.
4. I responded to your point that the BIG was equalling funding, it is a fact, which you have repeatedly also made, that we are not equally funded.
5,. I have made the point that the fact that we are not equally funded has made it difficult to catch up with the rest of the league financially. That is a fact, not an opinion.
6. As for buying in, there have been two posts which have done a much better job at the numbers than I can do here but we have "bought in" and added to the funding received by every other team significantly.
 
ZMR512 keeps proving our points for us, without even trying.
I'm surprised we haven't gotten a single "not even our little brother" or "your garbage program" yet.

Exactly. The backhanded compliments without even realizing it are amazing.
 
When was that?

From 2005, the first year he went to a bowl, Schiano went 15-13 in home games against conference opponents and nonconference games against teams from major conferences. He went 3-4 in home games against ranked opponents.

The atmosphere was great for Louisville and USF in 2006-2007, no doubt, but the idea that RU was a feared place to play, or that individual results like PSU in 2014, would have made a difference in the perception of the program today, has been overstated. There are fundamental problems and issues with Rutgers athletics that need to change if RU is to ever rise above "whipping boy" status.

Mainly from 2006-2009. We played teams tough in Piscataway
 
To zmr512 and Buckeyelegion :
1. Don't tell me to zip it, this is a Rutgers board. You guys are the interlopers.
2. You are either deliberately or, more likely ignorantly, misrepresenting what I have been saying. I never, repeat never, said I didn't understand the nature of the requirements for entry to the BIG. I never said it was unfair, I never said we were being treated differently than Maryland or Nebraska.
3. I objected to your use of the term "we must buy in" as if we need to prove our worthiness to enter. We are not on provisional status. We are in the BIG. Granted not fully funded, by agreement, but partners nonetheless.
4. I responded to your point that the BIG was equalling funding, it is a fact, which you have repeatedly also made, that we are not equally funded.
5,. I have made the point that the fact that we are not equally funded has made it difficult to catch up with the rest of the league financially. That is a fact, not an opinion.
6. As for buying in, there have been two posts which have done a much better job at the numbers than I can do here but we have "bought in" and added to the funding received by every other team significantly.

A smart buy in negotiator would have recognized we were going to grow the value of the product intrinsically just by showing up. They would have reduced our monetary payment proportionately to that intrinsic rise in value.

It's like when you sell a business but the valuation you receive is contingent on hitting specific revenue markers over a 3 year period. As the seller, you have the golden handcuffs and have to stick around to make it happen, but in effect you wind up paying yourself with your own money when you hit those revenue markers...We are that business owner, paying himself with his own money.
 
To zmr512 and Buckeyelegion :
1. Don't tell me to zip it, this is a Rutgers board. You guys are the interlopers.
2. You are either deliberately or, more likely ignorantly, misrepresenting what I have been saying. I never, repeat never, said I didn't understand the nature of the requirements for entry to the BIG. I never said it was unfair, I never said we were being treated differently than Maryland or Nebraska.
3. I objected to your use of the term "we must buy in" as if we need to prove our worthiness to enter. We are not on provisional status. We are in the BIG. Granted not fully funded, by agreement, but partners nonetheless.
4. I responded to your point that the BIG was equalling funding, it is a fact, which you have repeatedly also made, that we are not equally funded.
5,. I have made the point that the fact that we are not equally funded has made it difficult to catch up with the rest of the league financially. That is a fact, not an opinion.
6. As for buying in, there have been two posts which have done a much better job at the numbers than I can do here but we have "bought in" and added to the funding received by every other team significantly.

Being part of the B1G does not give you an equal share of the BTN. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? That is what the buy in is for. The other schools took less money for several seasons to pay off the start up costs associated with the network.

Now you think you should walk in, and get equal money? No, it doesn't work that way. The conference itself is the oldest P5 in the NCAA. It has been cultivated for 100 yrs. You weren't there at the beginning. So you pay your dues, and be happy to have a seat in the most stable conference.

Once again, sit down and zip it. Watching you post is akin to witnessing a petulant child stomping their feet. We get it, you don't think it is fair. Well too flippen bad. Welcome to the real world.


For the poster that chimed in about getting whipped 78-0....Harbaugh asked Ash to have a coaching clinic with him, and not only did he turn him down, he invited Urban into area on same day. Ash started the fued, and Harbaugh spanked his tushy. It happens. That had nothing to do with B1G, and everything to do with individual school clash.
 
Being part of the B1G does not give you an equal share of the BTN. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? That is what the buy in is for. The other schools took less money for several seasons to pay off the start up costs associated with the network.



Now you think you should walk in, and get equal money? No, it doesn't work that way. The conference itself is the oldest P5 in the NCAA. It has been cultivated for 100 yrs. You weren't there at the beginning. So you pay your dues, and be happy to have a seat in the most stable conference.

Once again, sit down and zip it. Watching you post is akin to witnessing a petulant child stomping their feet. We get it, you don't think it is fair. Well too flippen bad. Welcome to the real world.
For the poster that chimed in about getting whipped 78-0....Harbaugh asked Ash to have a coaching clinic with him, and not only did he turn him down, he invited Urban into area on same day. Ash started the fued, and Harbaugh spanked his tushy. It happens. That had nothing to do with B1G, and everything to do with individual school clash.

Another person who can't read! I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, in any post said we should be getting an equal share. I said that because we are not getting an equal share it prevents us from competing, financially, with the schools that do. go back and read my posts. If any one should zip it it is people like you who criticize a post without reading it.
 
I'll going point by point.
To zmr512 and Buckeyelegion :
1. Don't tell me to zip it, this is a Rutgers board. You guys are the interlopers.
Didn't do this.
2. You are either deliberately or, more likely ignorantly, misrepresenting what I have been saying. I never, repeat never, said I didn't understand the nature of the requirements for entry to the BIG. I never said it was unfair, I never said we were being treated differently than Maryland or Nebraska.
I would argue the same of you. Based on the next point.
3. I objected to your use of the term "we must buy in" as if we need to prove our worthiness to enter. We are not on provisional status. We are in the BIG. Granted not fully funded, by agreement, but partners nonetheless.
That's exactly what it is. You're buying into the partnership created by the Big Ten schools. I never said anything about worthiness. Anything you interpreted that way is all on you. It's purely a business transaction. You want the revenue, you have to acquire equity in the business in order to share in the revenues.
4. I responded to your point that the BIG was equalling funding, it is a fact, which you have repeatedly also made, that we are not equally funded.
It is equal. After you acquire equity. Which you are in the process of doing. Indiana, Illinois, and Purdue make the same as Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. No matter the attendance, no matter the ratings, no matter the wins and losses.
5,. I have made the point that the fact that we are not equally funded has made it difficult to catch up with the rest of the league financially. That is a fact, not an opinion.
No doubt that's true. However, over 6 years you will be essentially sextupling your conference revenue. Maybe you'd prefer to get $5mm from the AAC this year instead of $50mm from the Big Ten in 3 years (and every year after that). That's your decision.
6. As for buying in, there have been two posts which have done a much better job at the numbers than I can do here but we have "bought in" and added to the funding received by every other team significantly.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not in the industry and familiar enough with the numbers to judge the fair value of a 1/14 share of the network and everything else that goes along with conference membership. Your leadership signed the deal, and I'm sure with facing prospects of being in the AAC or the Big Ten, they didn't need a gun to the head to do it.
 
I'll going point by point.

Didn't do this.

I would argue the same of you. Based on the next point.

That's exactly what it is. You're buying into the partnership created by the Big Ten schools. I never said anything about worthiness. Anything you interpreted that way is all on you. It's purely a business transaction. You want the revenue, you have to acquire equity in the business in order to share in the revenues.

It is equal. After you acquire equity. Which you are in the process of doing. Indiana, Illinois, and Purdue make the same as Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. No matter the attendance, no matter the ratings, no matter the wins and losses.

No doubt that's true. However, over 6 years you will be essentially sextupling your conference revenue. Maybe you'd prefer to get $5mm from the AAC this year instead of $50mm from the Big Ten in 3 years (and every year after that). That's your decision.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not in the industry and familiar enough with the numbers to judge the fair value of a 1/14 share of the network and everything else that goes along with conference membership. Your leadership signed the deal, and I'm sure with facing prospects of being in the AAC or the Big Ten, they didn't need a gun to the head to do it.

Great point about the prospects of being in the AAC vs Big Ten. It was obviously a deal we all were happy to make, and we still would probably make today (truth be told). But -- that doesn't change the fact that we are seeing, in real, gruesome detail, how outmanned, outgunned, and outplayed we are with that inherent disadvantage.

We are the whipping boy. I hope it doesn't stay that way!
 
Great point about the prospects of being in the AAC vs Big Ten. It was obviously a deal we all were happy to make, and we still would probably make today (truth be told). But -- that doesn't change the fact that we are seeing, in real, gruesome detail, how outmanned, outgunned, and outplayed we are with that inherent disadvantage.

We are the whipping boy. I hope it doesn't stay that way!

Has nothing to do with that disadvantage, or at least not as much as you make it out.

It's the good ol' RU screw. Imagine if Schiano had stayed for at least 2012 .. we very likely (finally) win the Big East and go to BCS bowl. Same year, we get our B1G acceptance. Nothing but positive hype machine now, and recruiting bump. Even if Schiano leaves, we don't have to settle for promoting our OL coach. Remember for a part of the 2013 season we were recruiting quite competively in the upper tier of the B1G and everything was looking up. Well, except for our mediocre play and the Great Flood that washed away top recruit after top recruit.

Had we had Schiano - or someone halfway competent - we could actually have held those recruits, built on that momentum and have much nicer depth by now. It's a totally different trajectory. Instead we got unprepared Flood just destroying that house and burning the rubble.

The second part is that not only did we manage to join during our worst coached run in nearly 20 years, we managed to join at the exact time the B1G was making a grand resurgence. We got a down Michigan the first year and shoulda beaten PSU, but beyond that we have a historically great MSU, a perennial NC contender in OSU, an NY6 level PSU, and a resurging UM with a Super Bowl-pedigree coach. Every year. That slate was never going to be easy, but I don't think there's a four-year stretch in recent history where it would have been harder. This year's early results aside, B1G is a top 1 or 2 conference again.

Mother-fkn RU Screw manages to take the wind out the sails of the best thing ever to happen to RU football. I don't think it is possible for events to have played out any worse around our entry into the league.
 
Buckeye legion, I posted a response to two people simultaneously rather than two separate posts. Each of the statement to which I responded were made by either of you in one post or another. Crticizing a response to what zmr512 said because it wasn't you doesn't change the validity of the response. Also, your statement of, and I am quoting you, "it is equal. After you acquire equity". Is just dumb. It isn't equal until we acquire equity. As of now it is not equitable. It will be. And how much more we receive then doesn't change the fact that we are behind the financial 8ball now. I am not argueing whether it is fair or not, I fully acknowledge it is part of the deal, that doesn't change the fact that it prevents us from improving.
 
Last edited:
Being part of the B1G does not give you an equal share of the BTN. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? That is what the buy in is for. The other schools took less money for several seasons to pay off the start up costs associated with the network.

Now you think you should walk in, and get equal money? No, it doesn't work that way. The conference itself is the oldest P5 in the NCAA. It has been cultivated for 100 yrs. You weren't there at the beginning. So you pay your dues, and be happy to have a seat in the most stable conference.

Once again, sit down and zip it. Watching you post is akin to witnessing a petulant child stomping their feet. We get it, you don't think it is fair. Well too flippen bad. Welcome to the real world.


For the poster that chimed in about getting whipped 78-0....Harbaugh asked Ash to have a coaching clinic with him, and not only did he turn him down, he invited Urban into area on same day. Ash started the fued, and Harbaugh spanked his tushy. It happens. That had nothing to do with B1G, and everything to do with individual school clash.

Fair points. How many additions to the B1G over the last 20 years has brought in the media / carriage revenue that Rutgers has ?
 
Has nothing to do with that disadvantage, or at least not as much as you make it out.

It's the good ol' RU screw. Imagine if Schiano had stayed for at least 2012 .. we very likely (finally) win the Big East and go to BCS bowl. Same year, we get our B1G acceptance. Nothing but positive hype machine now, and recruiting bump. Even if Schiano leaves, we don't have to settle for promoting our OL coach. Remember for a part of the 2013 season we were recruiting quite competively in the upper tier of the B1G and everything was looking up. Well, except for our mediocre play and the Great Flood that washed away top recruit after top recruit.

Had we had Schiano - or someone halfway competent - we could actually have held those recruits, built on that momentum and have much nicer depth by now. It's a totally different trajectory. Instead we got unprepared Flood just destroying that house and burning the rubble.

The second part is that not only did we manage to join during our worst coached run in nearly 20 years, we managed to join at the exact time the B1G was making a grand resurgence. We got a down Michigan the first year and shoulda beaten PSU, but beyond that we have a historically great MSU, a perennial NC contender in OSU, an NY6 level PSU, and a resurging UM with a Super Bowl-pedigree coach. Every year. That slate was never going to be easy, but I don't think there's a four-year stretch in recent history where it would have been harder. This year's early results aside, B1G is a top 1 or 2 conference again.

Mother-fkn RU Screw manages to take the wind out the sails of the best thing ever to happen to RU football. I don't think it is possible for events to have played out any worse around our entry into the league.

A very nice recap of the tortured recent history of an RU fan. You are truly a loyal son. I agree, alot had to go wrong for us to wind up back here. And unfortunately we have a state full of jerseyans and an administration that is not keen for it to go back the other direction....
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsg2
Fair points. How many additions to the B1G over the last 20 years has brought in the media / carriage revenue that Rutgers has ?

How much prestige did Rutgers get to sign their name to by joining the conference that was established by the other schools? How much was it worth without Rutgers? Who needed who more?

You guys are acting like Rutgers was bargaining from a position of power. They weren't.

Now you will take your lumps like Wisconsin did for decades. Maybe you will do it in years. How fast you build up will depend on the leadership in school. Top schools are paying 4M plus for a coach alone, plus 1M or more for each Co-Ordinator.

In the meantime, you will build up your share of the BTN, and if you ever decide to leave, you will have to be bought out of the network.
 
How much prestige did Rutgers get to sign their name to by joining the conference that was established by the other schools? How much was it worth without Rutgers? Who needed who more?

You guys are acting like Rutgers was bargaining from a position of power. They weren't.

Now you will take your lumps like Wisconsin did for decades. Maybe you will do it in years. How fast you build up will depend on the leadership in school. Top schools are paying 4M plus for a coach alone, plus 1M or more for each Co-Ordinator.

In the meantime, you will build up your share of the BTN, and if you ever decide to leave, you will have to be bought out of the network.

That's correct -- we were not bargaining from a position of power. Far from it.

I'll take my lumps. I don't mind. What I don't want is for our conference mates to $hit on us every chance they get while we take those lumps.

Can you tell me why that happens? Is it a perverse pleasure?
 
Great point about the prospects of being in the AAC vs Big Ten. It was obviously a deal we all were happy to make, and we still would probably make today (truth be told). But -- that doesn't change the fact that we are seeing, in real, gruesome detail, how outmanned, outgunned, and outplayed we are with that inherent disadvantage.

We are the whipping boy. I hope it doesn't stay that way!
I do think that Rutgers, as we speak, is probably the most disadvantaged program in the conference. Some of that is outside the schools control, some of it comes from poor decisions or leadership from the school itself. And while some of it is recent, there's a lot that dates back decades too.
Buckeye legion, I posted a response to two people simultaneously rather than two separate posts. Each of the statement to which I responded were made by either of you in one post or another. Crticizing a response to what zmr512 said because is wasn't you is doesn't change the validity of the response. Also, your statement of, and I am quoting you, "it is equal. After you acquire equity". Is just dumb. It isn't equal until we acquire equity. As of now it is not equitable. It will be. And how much more we receive then doesn't change the fact that we are behind the financial 8ball now. I am not argueing whether it is fair or not, I fully acknowledge it is part of the deal, that doesn't change the fact that it prevents us from improving.
Sure it is. Rutgers cut is the same as everyone else's. They're just withholding a portion as payment. Let's look at it slightly differently. Rutgers gross cut of revenue is the same. Their net cut is different, because they have to purchase equity. Unequal payments would be something like the Big 12 (and I believe the Big East?) used to do, which is pay some programs more based on TV appearances, bowl appearances, etc.
 
That's correct -- we were not bargaining from a position of power. Far from it.

I'll take my lumps. I don't mind. What I don't want is for our conference mates to $hit on us every chance they get while we take those lumps.

Can you tell me why that happens? Is it a perverse pleasure?

I'll take a stab. Other fans around the conference, especially those of the 10 pre-Penn State programs, viewed Rutgers and Maryland as a money grab by Delany and the B1G that didn't add to the conference's prestige. If anything, they detracted from it in the primary sport. This is a stark contrast from the additions of PSU and Nebraska, two of the 11 programs nationally with 800+ wins.

Then you add on everything that has happened at Rutgers since the announcement was made - Mike Rice, Julie Hermann, the Kyle Flood debacle, the general inability of the Olympic sports to compete outside of wrestling and women's soccer, the blowouts on the football field, losses to Eastern Michigan and Kansas - and it adds fuel to the fire.

Outside of its positive impact on Big Ten Network and the expansion of the league's borders east - which is why I personally wouldn't say adding RU and Maryland was a poor decision - anyone who believes the B1G sold its soul, trading a series of embarrassing headlines involving RU, for extra cash isn't necessarily incorrect.

So as much as this is all about money, for the B1G and Rutgers, the perception/reality of Rutgers hasn't become what it is simply because RU is taking in $25 million less annually than other B1G universities. It's the result of a series of bad decisions, rooted in a culture that doesn't seem to support athletics to the same level as its new peers, that have led to disaster after disaster. The dumpster fire meme is overplayed. But it's fitting here. And as I've said many times in this thread, it's on RU to change that. And that extra cash alone isn't going to get it done. It isn't a cure-all. The entire culture needs to change.
 
The entire culture needs to change.

Hopefully for the positive in Rutgers' case, unlike the status quo of the PSU culture. That will always remain a national embarrassment for the conference. OSU, MSU, and even Maryland have been feeling left out so they've made recent pushes to carry the embarrassment torch on behalf of the B1G.
 
Hopefully for the positive in Rutgers' case, unlike the status quo of the PSU culture. That will always remain a national embarrassment for the conference. OSU, MSU, and even Maryland have been feeling left out so they've made recent pushes to carry the embarrassment torch on behalf of the B1G.

OK. But this thread isn't about Penn State and Jerry Sandusky. And deflecting isn't going to make Rutgers better.
 
I do think that Rutgers, as we speak, is probably the most disadvantaged program in the conference. Some of that is outside the schools control, some of it comes from poor decisions or leadership from the school itself. And while some of it is recent, there's a lot that dates back decades too.

Sure it is. Rutgers cut is the same as everyone else's. They're just withholding a portion as payment. Let's look at it slightly differently. Rutgers gross cut of revenue is the same. Their net cut is different, because they have to purchase equity. Unequal payments would be something like the Big 12 (and I believe the Big East?) used to do, which is pay some programs more based on TV appearances, bowl appearances, etc.


I could agree with you if, when RU was invited and accepted entrance to the BIG there was a dollar amount established that would be deducted from RU's share each year for six years. But it doesn't work that way. RU was told what they would be getting and that number did not get adjusted as revenues for the league increased. Thus, the defference between what RU received and the established teams received widened from what it was when the deal was made. Thus, we are not being treated equitably. Your position implies an amount RU would be paying each year and that amount would be deducted from a full share. Clearly that is not happening. The amount received by RU stayed as agreed (and I know RU received an advance and the full share date was pushed back) but the full share number increased significantly. If what you are saying is true then RU's share each year would have increased from the originally agreed upon number because it's payment would have been subtracted from a larger number. So that is not how it worked.
 
OK. But this thread isn't about Penn State and Jerry Sandusky. And deflecting isn't going to make Rutgers better.

So essentially your saying that our conference mates shit on us bc we are an institutional embarassment? That our reputation preceeds us and nothing we do now matters. Ipso facto, the pre-eminent whipping boys.

...arent we back to my original assertion?!?!??!
 
ADVERTISEMENT