Whipping Boys

[aged_wolverine]

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 cant speak for others. I haven't kicked Rutgers any more than I would any other B1G program. I was quite happy with the pick up of you guys and Md.

Hell, I was hoping G Tech and Duke would be picked up as well. The more states, the better. Especially if the schools are academic powerhouses.

 

[jason21psu]

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.

Out of curiosity how much do you think RU has been shorted? And UMD?

 

[Dpgru]

Out of curiosity how much do you think RU has been shorted? And UMD?

I don't know. I was only pointing out that if the argument that we receive equal funding is based on the scenario described to me that claimed we had to buy into the league and we were actually receiving a full share and that our buy in costs were deducted was false. If it worked that way the deduction each year would have been announced not the amount we were to receive. There would be no way of knowing up to six years in advance what the full share would be so only the deduction could be known since e buy in cost would be known. So, since I don't know how the numbers were reached in the first place I don't know if we are being shorted. But clearly the addition of UM and RU increased the full share received by the others and the payout to each of us was not readjusted.

 

[chase07470]

Nothing more annoying than having to watch the second team of four and five star guys come in, all energized and enthusiastic, long after the game is over...a QB who never plays but is somehow way better than any we've had in 15 years...ready and willing to inflict yet more damage on the scoreboard, more wear and tear on our extremely thin roster. All the starters are on the sidelines whooping it up, encouraging them. It's humiliating.

Just once I'd love to see Ash pull the team off the field and walk to the locker room down 40 in the 3rd. "FU, go scrimmage against yourselves, my guys are done for the day."

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Nothing more annoying than having to watch the second team of four and five star guys come in, all energized and enthusiastic, long after the game is over...a QB who never plays but is somehow way better than any we've had in 15 years...ready and willing to inflict yet more damage on the scoreboard, more wear and tear on our extremely thin roster. All the starters are on the sidelines whooping it up, encouraging them. It's humiliating.

Just once I'd love to see Ash pull the team off the field and walk to the locker room down 40 in the 3rd. "FU, go scrimmage against yourselves, my guys are done for the day."

You would love to see Rutgers give up at Half time?

WTF?!?

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

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 think this is the closest answer, at least mostly:

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.

Big Ten fans view the addition of Rutgers and Maryland as a cash grab. I don't think fans of the "original" 10 schools were ever wild about expansion, but Penn State and Nebraska are BRANDS in college football. They brought prestige, they brought national titles and Heisman winners. Maryland was viewed, at best, as an East Coast Indiana or Purdue (no football, good basketball) and Rutgers, no offense intended, was viewed as a TV market. With the Big Ten already suffering from perception problems with football, many people see Rutgers and Maryland as exacerbating the problem. I would imagine Rutgers bears the brunt though, coming from both their pre-2006 reputation and from the fact that Maryland has been good at basketball and at least has the Texas wins on their resume.

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.

I would be shocked if during the negotiations they did not know the revenues would be increasing. There's now more mouths to feed and the same amount of pie, so we need to go get a bigger pie. So, there's a few options here. 1) Rutgers didn't realize this fact. If so, shame on them. 2) Rutgers realized it, and fought it, but had to accept the terms as stated because they were barganning from a position of relative weakness. 3) Rutgers realized it, and didn't fight it because they were barganning from a position of relative weakness and were just happy to have a life preserver thrown to them.

No matter what the situation was, it probably doesn't change much that's happened to this point, honestly. So, Rutgers might have received $5-10 million more than year than they actually are, so what? What percentage would go to athletics and what percentage would go towards paying the subsidy? Of the part that went to athletics, what percentage would go towards football?

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

I think this is the closest answer, at least mostly:

Big Ten fans view the addition of Rutgers and Maryland as a cash grab. I don't think fans of the "original" 10 schools were ever wild about expansion, but Penn State and Nebraska are BRANDS in college football. They brought prestige, they brought national titles and Heisman winners. Maryland was viewed, at best, as an East Coast Indiana or Purdue (no football, good basketball) and Rutgers, no offense intended, was viewed as a TV market. With the Big Ten already suffering from perception problems with football, many people see Rutgers and Maryland as exacerbating the problem. I would imagine Rutgers bears the brunt though, coming from both their pre-2006 reputation and from the fact that Maryland has been good at basketball and at least has the Texas wins on their resume.

I would be shocked if during the negotiations they did not know the revenues would be increasing. There's now more mouths to feed and the same amount of pie, so we need to go get a bigger pie. So, there's a few options here. 1) Rutgers didn't realize this fact. If so, shame on them. 2) Rutgers realized it, and fought it, but had to accept the terms as stated because they were barganning from a position of relative weakness. 3) Rutgers realized it, and didn't fight it because they were barganning from a position of relative weakness and were just happy to have a life preserver thrown to them.

No matter what the situation was, it probably doesn't change much that's happened to this point, honestly. So, Rutgers might have received $5-10 million more than year than they actually are, so what? What percentage would go to athletics and what percentage would go towards paying the subsidy? Of the part that went to athletics, what percentage would go towards football?

Here is the thing when Rutgers was invited or right before we had winning seasons every year and went and won bowl games every year. We were not world beaters per say but we sure as hell were not anyone's doormat. Those teams wouldn't have been able to beat OSU, but it wouldn't have been blowouts at least. However, everything bad that could had happen, happen. Schaino left, his replacement Flood was a fraud and took a good football program and transformed it into a terrible one. He was fired and he got probation for Rutgers. Ash is hired but he doesn't appear to be having much success turning things around. We are stuck in a giant pile of cow dung.

The sad part is that if Rutgers had not dropped the ball with Schiano's replacement, no one would be talking smack about us now. Heck we would have been 2nd best in the B1G east, until UM, MSU and PSU got good again. But even after that far ahead of Maryland and Indiana and most of the B1G West.

But, the opposite happen. Now we are fighting to not be dead last in the whole B1G. It sucks, this should have never been allowed to happen. That is why everyone is upset.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

Here is the thing when Rutgers was invited or right before we had winning seasons every year and went and won bowl games every year. We were not world beaters per say but we sure as hell were not anyone's doormat. Those teams wouldn't have been able to beat OSU, but it wouldn't have been blowouts at least. However, everything bad that could had happen, happen. Schaino left, his replacement Flood was a fraud and took a good football program and transformed it into a terrible one. He was fired and he got probation for Rutgers. Ash is hired but he doesn't appear to be having much success turning things around. We are stuck in a giant pile of cow dung.

The sad part is that if Rutgers had not dropped the ball with Schiano's replacement, no one would be talking smack about us now. Heck we would have been 2nd best in the B1G east, until UM, MSU and PSU got good again. But even after that far ahead of Maryland and Indiana and most of the B1G West.

But, the opposite happen. Now we are fighting to not be dead last in the whole B1G. It sucks, this should have never been allowed to happen. That is why everyone is upset.

Rutgers was a solid program for a decade, 2005-2014. You went to 9 bowls in 10 years and won 6 of them. There's a lot of programs that would love to have a run like that. You guys obviously know that. Big fans of football, like myself, know that. The casual fan (most fans) does not.

Here's your problem: Outside the Rutgers bubble, that run was almost entirely forgettable. It happened in the post-Miami, post-VT Big East, and it was middle-of-the-road bowls. There was the big, memorable win against Louisville and...not a lot else that sticks out.

So, for most fans, they have memories of "Rutgers is bad, hey that's right that game against Louisville!, Rutgers is forgettable", which leaves the lasting impression of "Rutgers is bad except that one game." I'm not saying it's right or fair or you have to like it, it's just the way it is.

I understand why people are upset and frustrated. You climbed the mountain, but never quite made it to the top and now you're stuck down in a chasm. It's hard to not to sit here and play "If only..." I'm just talking to why the other fans might pick on Rutgers. It's all about perception.

 

[Randal7]

Rutgers was a solid program for a decade, 2005-2014. You went to 9 bowls in 10 years and won 6 of them. There's a lot of programs that would love to have a run like that. You guys obviously know that. Big fans of football, like myself, know that. The casual fan (most fans) does not.

Here's your problem: Outside the Rutgers bubble, that run was almost entirely forgettable. It happened in the post-Miami, post-VT Big East, and it was middle-of-the-road bowls. There was the big, memorable win against Louisville and...not a lot else that sticks out.

So, for most fans, they have memories of "Rutgers is bad, hey that's right that game against Louisville!, Rutgers is forgettable", which leaves the lasting impression of "Rutgers is bad except that one game." I'm not saying it's right or fair or you have to like it, it's just the way it is.

I understand why people are upset and frustrated. You climbed the mountain, but never quite made it to the top and now you're stuck down in a chasm. It's hard to not to sit here and play "If only..." I'm just talking to why the other fans might pick on Rutgers. It's all about perception.

I appreciate your perspective because you seem like a true fan of college football. And you are probably right about much of what you wrote. Forgettable on field accomplishments, for the most part. "Flash in the pan", even.

But, there's one item you are excluding. That's our game day atmosphere! New Jersey is chock full of hot and bothered philadelphia and NY metro a-holes who are ready to burst from all the pressure and want to go to football games on the weekend (pro and college) to yell their heads off and act like heathens for 5 hours to other fans. We want it, we need it, and we do it. The only thing we need is something good to cheer for. When our teams do well, this atmosphere, the fervor, is second to none! I know that sounds *insane*, coming at you, the mighty OSU, the "shoe", the 80,000+ strong. But, trust me when I say, when we are good our fanbase is rabid. Possibly even alittle dangerous. It's exciting, it's entirely unique, it's possibly a "must witness" thing.

So you can say our on field accomplishments do not create a lasting impression -- but I can tell ya that our gameday atmosphere absolutely will and does. From the tailgate through the final profanity yelled. It's our brand of fandom, for better or worse.

 

[johnmpsu]

Has the B1G done itself a competitive disservice by creating perennial "Whipping Boys" in the conference?

I am not exonerating Rutgers for the dreadful performance this weekend. But irrespective of that performance, there is a situation in the conference that I think deserves some attention -- that is the systematic degradation by fellow fans and the conference administration of the "bottom dwellers".

We see it now while we struggle -- our B1G brethren have nothing but contempt for us as we try to climb out of the depths and make our way. The "automatic W" which everyone pencils into their schedule for Illinois, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana -- it's not only a terrible standard for building a competitive conference, it's a horrible way to perpetuate the brand.

The way we are represented by B1G fans, the financial "arrangement" we are tied to (if you can call it that), and the way we are brought to the alter for slaughter week in and week out is indicative of this whipping boy arrangement. And we know that if Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State had it their way, we would suck forever! It's in their best interest for us to be what we are.

This Whipping Boy role is one we must climb out of, and FAST, lest it become a permanent fixture in this conference. We've barely maintained credibility the last couple of years with some close victories against other whipping boys in our bunch.

Other P5 conferences have no such thing -- they have no such concept as 5 teams which perennially get their asses kicked, their states looted of talent, their fan bases / programs / schools disparaged.

I am thankful we found a conference to join that is as illustrious and notable as the big ten. And I know we have to hold up our end of the bargain by fielding a competitive team. I just thought we would get some more support from our big ten brethren, not a kick to the ribs while we are down.

If this continues, our fanbase will become even more insulated from the b1g then we already are. And we'll need to do it for our own preservation.

The big 10 would hate you even more if you were winning. The big has been and always will be about Ohio St. and Michigan. Oh they will put up with a Michigan State or Wisconsin but don't kid yourself, they don't want anybody outside the original 10 winning. I would have loved to have NB, RU, and MD come in and kick some big 10 butt but it hasn't happened. Good luck going forward.
It's the Big 10 not the Big 14.

 

[BoogieKnight]

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.

Agree 100%. And Chris Partridge would be the ideal person to lead the program through that. He’d “embrace the hate” better than anyone and use it for us not against us.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

The big 10 would hate you even more if you were winning. The big has been and always will be about Ohio St. and Michigan. Oh they will put up with a Michigan State or Wisconsin but don't kid yourself, they don't want anybody outside the original 10 winning. I would have loved to have NB, RU, and MD come in and kick some big 10 butt but it hasn't happened. Good luck going forward.
It's the Big 10 not the Big 14.

From a fans perspective I would wager a significant amount of money that most Big Ten fans would root for Nebraska or Rutgers or Maryland to win over Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. Personally, I never want to see Michigan win a coin toss, let along a game...so rock on in Ann Arbor, Maryland, Rutgers, and Nebraska.

From the conference home office perspective, it makes no sense for the conference to bring in a top 10 brand in the sport, and then actively try and devalue that brand. That costs everyone money.

 

[topdecktiger]

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 can tell you why. It's because college football fans have been doing it to each other since the 19th century.

I don't know. I was only pointing out that if the argument that we receive equal funding is based on the scenario described to me that claimed we had to buy into the league and we were actually receiving a full share and that our buy in costs were deducted was false. If it worked that way the deduction each year would have been announced not the amount we were to receive. There would be no way of knowing up to six years in advance what the full share would be so only the deduction could be known since e buy in cost would be known. So, since I don't know how the numbers were reached in the first place I don't know if we are being shorted. But clearly the addition of UM and RU increased the full share received by the others and the payout to each of us was not readjusted.

The increase in revenue was known. It was widely reported that Maryland officials, when negotiating to join the Big Ten, were shown a ~5 year revenue projection that culminated in ~$50 million, which is the figure the payout has reached today. The revenue increase was well-known at the time. It wasn't a surprise.

I don't know why you are so upset or confused by the partial shares. That is completely normal. For example, West Virginia only got an equal share from the Big 12 this year. They were in the Big 12 about as long as Rutgers has been in the Big Ten. That's just how college football works.

 

[LDandy]

I can tell you why. It's because college football fans have been doing it to each other since the 19th century.



The increase in revenue was known. It was widely reported that Maryland officials, when negotiating to join the Big Ten, were shown a ~5 year revenue projection that culminated in ~$50 million, which is the figure the payout has reached today. The revenue increase was well-known at the time. It wasn't a surprise.

I don't know why you are so upset or confused by the partial shares. That is completely normal. For example, West Virginia only got an equal share from the Big 12 this year. They were in the Big 12 about as long as Rutgers has been in the Big Ten. That's just how college football works.

Both WVU and TCU gave up far more than Rutgers did to escape a fate in The AAC. They both joined a conference without its own branded network. Therefore the reduced share probationary period they signed on to was nothing more than a means for their new conference's existing members to line their pockets for a few years. The rationale? Why should new guys get as much of a payout as existing members? At least Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland are buying a stake in something tangible.

 

[topdecktiger]

Both WVU and TCU gave up far more than Rutgers did to escape a fate in The AAC. They both joined a conference without its own branded network. Therefore the reduced share probationary period they signed on to was nothing more than a means for their new conference's existing members to line their pockets for a few years. The rationale? Why should new guys get as much of a payout as existing members? At least Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland are buying a stake in something tangible.

It's not completely just to line the pockets of existing members. When a conference expands, the pot has to be split more ways. If the pot has not increased, that means even existing members would get a pay cut. It's unrealistic to think existing members would take a pay cut. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of expansion.

What many people fail to realize is that when a conference expands, it's only the TV revenue that increases, which is around 60% of the payout. The other 40%-- bowl money, basketball tournament, CFP money, etc.--does not increase. That means the TV money has to increase sufficiently to make up the difference. Since TV contracts typically increase gradually, it normally takes a few years before it the difference of adding new teams is covered. So, it makes sense that there is a period where new school don't get a full share.

 

[LDandy]

It's not completely just to line the pockets of existing members. When a conference expands, the pot has to be split more ways. If the pot has not increased, that means even existing members would get a pay cut. It's unrealistic to think existing members would take a pay cut. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of expansion.

What many people fail to realize is that when a conference expands, it's only the TV revenue that increases, which is around 60% of the payout. The other 40%-- bowl money, basketball tournament, CFP money, etc.--does not increase. That means the TV money has to increase sufficiently to make up the difference. Since TV contracts typically increase gradually, it normally takes a few years before it the difference of adding new teams is covered. So, it makes sense that there is a period where new school don't get a full share.

The thing is that the pot increased. A lot. The existing members chose to make themselves more than whole from a pay perspective with the additions of TCU and WVU. They essentially made them buy into the conference by accepting a reduced payout. At least in The B1G the new members are buying into an ownership stake of a branded network.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Hey VISITORS here from other Big Ten schools.

We all get it.. Rutgers had to pay a price for entry. We ALL get that.. and we were happy to do so.

My problem is the price we are paying was not set in stone. Delany was very crafty and, as usual, Rutgers people took whatever was offered when they could have negotiated.

Don't misunderstand me there.. the price should have been high.. higher than Nebraska paid. I have not calculated how much revenue Nebraska did not share in.. aka.. the price they paid.. but it will be FAR LESS than what Rutgers ends up paying.

[EDIT: just looked up Nebraska's payment to the Big Ten.. I think it will have been around $60M.. taking $10M less than a full share for 6 years.. that's a rough calculation]

The problem from my perspective is that Rutgers agreed to accept distribution payments on a schedule instead of accepting a set fee for entry and having the calculation be based on revenue NOT shared our way.

Do you get that?

Suppose the fee was $100M. the deal could have been Rutgers gets $10M less than everyone else for 10 years. Or $20M less for 5 years.. whatever.. it would be a firm number as the COST of entry.

But what happened is that Rutgers agreed to receive a slowing increasing payment.. probably based on what revenues were expected at the time Rutgers joined in 2014.

Rutgers joining and helping deliver what amounts to the 5th largest media market in the nation including a good share of the expensive NYC media market.. helped INCREASE the value of the Big Ten and BTN's media rights. That is not something Nebraska or Maryland could deliver.. not something any Big Ten team can deliver.. though Penn State does have some impact there.

I believe I did a rough calculation where Rutgers will end up having "PAID" about $140M to join the Big Ten and will have missed out on a share of the increased revenues that Rutgers joining helped deliver.

So.. did any of your Big Ten visitors here realize that Rutgers was "paying" more than twice what Nebraska paid to join? while delivering a huge media market? Even if Rutgers only delivers a third of its media market it is multiples of Nebraska's media market.

Great deal for all the other Big Ten teams.. BAD DEAL for Rutgers.. until 2021. But its our fault. I think a set figure of $100M entry fee would have been acceptable to the Big Ten universities. If we agreed to a plan based on that, then we'd be cheering every new deal that comes along that increases the payouts.. because we'd be benefiting from the INCREASED value of the BIG TEN media rights and right now we are not.. not much anyway.

And we really really really need that money.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Big Ten fans view the addition of Rutgers and Maryland as a cash grab. I don't think fans of the "original" 10 schools were ever wild about expansion, but Penn State and Nebraska are BRANDS in college football. They brought prestige, they brought national titles and Heisman winners.

From the fan perspective.. absolutely correct. I can see that. Fans of other Big Ten teams either have season ticket or watch the games on TV. Adding Rutgers or Maryland replacing what could be an exciting OOC game.. unappealing. In particular the western division teams will see some Michigan and OSU and PSU games replaced by games vs Maryland and Rutgers... comparative ticket values for those games? Unappealing.

From a business perspective.. adds inventory for TV (more Big Ten games at Big Ten locations.. a typical OOC pairing would have one game in Big Ten control and one in the other conference's control) revenue access to big TV markets outside of Chicago.. regular trips to fertile recruiting grounds in New Jersey and Maryland.. added access to Big Ten alum politicians in DC area for games.

It is pretty clear the business side has been a huge success and, while Rutgers isn't making any more because the business deal proved lucrative, in 2021 it will share in that success. But Rutgers will end up having paid more than twice the cost to join than Nebraska did.

 

[koleszar]

Hey VISITORS here from other Big Ten schools.

We all get it.. Rutgers had to pay a price for entry. We ALL get that.. and we were happy to do so.

My problem is the price we are paying was not set in stone. Delany was very crafty and, as usual, Rutgers people took whatever was offered when they could have negotiated.

Don't misunderstand me there.. the price should have been high.. higher than Nebraska paid. I have not calculated how much revenue Nebraska did not share in.. aka.. the price they paid.. but it will be FAR LESS than what Rutgers ends up paying.

[EDIT: just looked up Nebraska's payment to the Big Ten.. I think it will have been around $60M.. taking $10M less than a full share for 6 years.. that's a rough calculation]

The problem from my perspective is that Rutgers agreed to accept distribution payments on a schedule instead of accepting a set fee for entry and having the calculation be based on revenue NOT shared our way.

Do you get that?

Suppose the fee was $100M. the deal could have been Rutgers gets $10M less than everyone else for 10 years. Or $20M less for 5 years.. whatever.. it would be a firm number as the COST of entry.

But what happened is that Rutgers agreed to receive a slowing increasing payment.. probably based on what revenues were expected at the time Rutgers joined in 2014.

Rutgers joining and helping deliver what amounts to the 5th largest media market in the nation including a good share of the expensive NYC media market.. helped INCREASE the value of the Big Ten and BTN's media rights. That is not something Nebraska or Maryland could deliver.. not something any Big Ten team can deliver.. though Penn State does have some impact there.

I believe I did a rough calculation where Rutgers will end up having "PAID" about $140M to join the Big Ten and will have missed out on a share of the increased revenues that Rutgers joining helped deliver.

So.. did any of your Big Ten visitors here realize that Rutgers was "paying" more than twice what Nebraska paid to join? while delivering a huge media market? Even if Rutgers only delivers a third of its media market it is multiples of Nebraska's media market.

Great deal for all the other Big Ten teams.. BAD DEAL for Rutgers.. until 2021. But its our fault. I think a set figure of $100M entry fee would have been acceptable to the Big Ten universities. If we agreed to a plan based on that, then we'd be cheering every new deal that comes along that increases the payouts.. because we'd be benefiting from the INCREASED value of the BIG TEN media rights and right now we are not.. not much anyway.

And we really really really need that money.

Exactly what I've always had a problem with. It's not that we have to buy in, that's completely understandable, it's the fact that our equal equity will cost so much more than Nebraska. Nebraska pulled in more during it's buy in every single year than RU was schedule to make. They started at $14 mil., RU at $9 mil. and ended at $19.8 mil while RU was scheduled to end at $19.4 mil. And Nebraska's buy in was when conference teams were making approximately 48% less.

When you calculate it out we were given no value on the new numbers paid out and were held to strictly old numbers when Nebraska joined before the B1G Championship game. And even then we still would be buying equal equity at a 27% higher rate. I know we had no position of power but the B1G really shafted our collection of buffoons who negotiated this deal. My 5 yr. old nephew who's a hell of a negotiator probably could have gotten a better deal.

And don't even try to tell me Nebraska with it's population of 1.9 mil. brought more to the B1G money wise than RU. They needed an extra game the B1G Championship to justify their entrance. Hell they were still showing International Harvester commercials on BTN when we first joined. No more, now those time slots cost a hell of a lot more viewed by a NJ/NY population of 29 mil..

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

Hey VISITORS here from other Big Ten schools.

We all get it.. Rutgers had to pay a price for entry. We ALL get that.. and we were happy to do so.

My problem is the price we are paying was not set in stone. Delany was very crafty and, as usual, Rutgers people took whatever was offered when they could have negotiated.

Don't misunderstand me there.. the price should have been high.. higher than Nebraska paid. I have not calculated how much revenue Nebraska did not share in.. aka.. the price they paid.. but it will be FAR LESS than what Rutgers ends up paying.

[EDIT: just looked up Nebraska's payment to the Big Ten.. I think it will have been around $60M.. taking $10M less than a full share for 6 years.. that's a rough calculation]

The problem from my perspective is that Rutgers agreed to accept distribution payments on a schedule instead of accepting a set fee for entry and having the calculation be based on revenue NOT shared our way.

Do you get that?

Suppose the fee was $100M. the deal could have been Rutgers gets $10M less than everyone else for 10 years. Or $20M less for 5 years.. whatever.. it would be a firm number as the COST of entry.

But what happened is that Rutgers agreed to receive a slowing increasing payment.. probably based on what revenues were expected at the time Rutgers joined in 2014.

Rutgers joining and helping deliver what amounts to the 5th largest media market in the nation including a good share of the expensive NYC media market.. helped INCREASE the value of the Big Ten and BTN's media rights. That is not something Nebraska or Maryland could deliver.. not something any Big Ten team can deliver.. though Penn State does have some impact there.

I believe I did a rough calculation where Rutgers will end up having "PAID" about $140M to join the Big Ten and will have missed out on a share of the increased revenues that Rutgers joining helped deliver.

So.. did any of your Big Ten visitors here realize that Rutgers was "paying" more than twice what Nebraska paid to join? while delivering a huge media market? Even if Rutgers only delivers a third of its media market it is multiples of Nebraska's media market.

Great deal for all the other Big Ten teams.. BAD DEAL for Rutgers.. until 2021. But its our fault. I think a set figure of $100M entry fee would have been acceptable to the Big Ten universities. If we agreed to a plan based on that, then we'd be cheering every new deal that comes along that increases the payouts.. because we'd be benefiting from the INCREASED value of the BIG TEN media rights and right now we are not.. not much anyway.

And we really really really need that money.

I feel like I've addressed most of this in other posts, but a few points. Yes, I understand the model. I understand the deal. It's the same base deal Nebraska and Maryland got. Maryland had leverage and got some of their money frontloaded. Both were coming from higher conference payouts previously, so they started with higher payouts in the Big Ten. Rutgers agreed to the deal because in 2021 they'll be making well north of $50 million a year while the AAC will be paying out a total of $70-80 million.

Second, there's a short and long term way to look at the value each school brings. Rutgers and Maryland brought a lot of cable households and a lot of short term revenue. What happens if the cable model continues the trends we've seen the last few years? It could be argued that Nebraska is a more valuable long term addition because they bring significantly more attendance and significantly more viewers, nationwide.

It's a great deal for Rutgers too. In 6 years they're sextupling (or more) their conference revenue. How often does that happen?

From the fan perspective.. absolutely correct. I can see that. Fans of other Big Ten teams either have season ticket or watch the games on TV. Adding Rutgers or Maryland replacing what could be an exciting OOC game.. unappealing. In particular the western division teams will see some Michigan and OSU and PSU games replaced by games vs Maryland and Rutgers... comparative ticket values for those games? Unappealing.

From a business perspective.. adds inventory for TV (more Big Ten games at Big Ten locations.. a typical OOC pairing would have one game in Big Ten control and one in the other conference's control) revenue access to big TV markets outside of Chicago.. regular trips to fertile recruiting grounds in New Jersey and Maryland.. added access to Big Ten alum politicians in DC area for games.

It is pretty clear the business side has been a huge success and, while Rutgers isn't making any more because the business deal proved lucrative, in 2021 it will share in that success. But Rutgers will end up having paid more than twice the cost to join than Nebraska did.

I get the business perspective, TV inventory, etc. My response was to a question about why "conference mates $hit" on Rutgers. My answer you quoted is why.

 

[koleszar]

.
Second, there's a short and long term way to look at the value each school brings. Rutgers and Maryland brought a lot of cable households and a lot of short term revenue. What happens if the cable model continues the trends we've seen the last few years? It could be argued that Nebraska is a more valuable long term addition because they bring significantly more attendance and significantly more viewers, nationwide.

But our buy in has nothing to do with any of that. We're supposed to be buying in equal equity to BTN. All members are treated equal for a 1/14th share. That's why the conference is so stable and a conference like the Big 12 isn't. What you just proposed is that all teams aren't treated equal, some are put on a pedestal and others are left to rot. That value is in the eye of the beholder. Your premise makes no sense.

 

[BoroKnight]

I find the entire premise nutty. So fans of other Big Ten schools didn't want us in the conference and enjoy beating the crap out of us. So what? What does that have to do with the price of a full share of conference revenue?

The Big Ten as a conference doesn't want ANYONE to suck. It hurts the perception of the league and hurts TV ratings. What fans of individual schools think is absolutely, positively irrelevant. If Indiana fans are happy we suck moose balls, do you think the league office will sit back and say, "You know, it would be awesome if Rutgers kept sucking moose balls forever!" I think not. And would you expect them and fans of other schools to welcome us with open arms? Rutgers? Really? The Big Ten has a century of history, most of it pretty cohesive with the only additions in our lifetimes of two of football's greatest brands. Then you add Rutgers? If I was a fan of Minnesota, or Michigan State, or pretty much anyone other than Penn State, I would not have been happy about it either.

We have a post analyzing who to blame from within and a post analyzing who to blame from without. Enough already. Heal thyself.

As to minor points brought up, they already have been addressed. But think about it. How bad was Northwestern for decades? Wake Forest? TCU? Both Kansas schools were wastelands for years. What, a conference is supposed to have some kind of football bailout program for bad teams? The only time I can remember that happening was the Ivy League with Columbia (speaking of long-term football horror) and that relief came in the form of lower academic standards. That's as silly as suggesting they want "whipping boys." Nonsense.

And what do all of those schools have in common? Resurgences. Every single one of them got back on its feet. Sure, some didn't last (Kansas) but others have not only lasted but ascended into the top ranks of the sport (those pesky Horned Frogs). Wake the dead and tell them TCU was a power and Northwestern has been to a Rose Bowl and they would immediately die again from the shock. If we can't do something similar, even the Kansas version (which is kind of what we did under Schiano), it's on us, not some bizarre perceived need for "whipping boys."

The Big Ten took us for obvious reasons, and those reasons still exist. The question is will viewers be tuning in if we don't get our shit together soon. It's up to Rutgers itself to do something about it.

 

[Randal7]

I find the entire premise nutty. So fans of other Big Ten schools didn't want us in the conference and enjoy beating the crap out of us. So what? What does that have to do with the price of a full share of conference revenue?

The Big Ten as a conference doesn't want ANYONE to suck. It hurts the perception of the league and hurts TV ratings. What fans of individual schools think is absolutely, positively irrelevant. If Indiana fans are happy we suck moose balls, do you think the league office will sit back and say, "You know, it would be awesome if Rutgers kept sucking moose balls forever!" I think not. And would you expect them and fans of other schools to welcome us with open arms? Rutgers? Really? The Big Ten has a century of history, most of it pretty cohesive with the only additions in our lifetimes of two of football's greatest brands. Then you add Rutgers? If I was a fan of Minnesota, or Michigan State, or pretty much anyone other than Penn State, I would not have been happy about it either.

We have a post analyzing who to blame from within and a post analyzing who to blame from without. Enough already. Heal thyself.

As to minor points brought up, they already have been addressed. But think about it. How bad was Northwestern for decades? Wake Forest? TCU? Both Kansas schools were wastelands for years. What, a conference is supposed to have some kind of football bailout program for bad teams? The only time I can remember that happening was the Ivy League with Columbia (speaking of long-term football horror) and that relief came in the form of lower academic standards. That's as silly as suggesting they want "whipping boys." Nonsense.

And what do all of those schools have in common? Resurgences. Every single one of them got back on its feet. Sure, some didn't last (Kansas) but others have not only lasted but ascended into the top ranks of the sport (those pesky Horned Frogs). Wake the dead and tell them TCU was a power and Northwestern has been to a Rose Bowl and they would immediately die again from the shock. If we can't do something similar, even the Kansas version (which is kind of what we did under Schiano), it's on us, not some bizarre perceived need for "whipping boys."

The Big Ten took us for obvious reasons, and those reasons still exist. The question is will viewers be tuning in if we don't get our shit together soon. It's up to Rutgers itself to do something about it.

I hear ya. But someone has to finish last in this conference. And if you think it's EVER gonna be Michigan, Ohio St, or Penn State, well then that's a naive notion. They are happy to have us come in dead last or next to dead last. This is a conference where the pecking order is set from start to finish every season.