I found this article from USA Today about the financial plight of Rutgers athletics very interesting -

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...576342001/

It does make me wonder, if a school can't balance the books now is there much hope they can survive playing football at the highest level when pay-for-play arrives?

The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

(01-20-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

MD has the same problem but to a lesser degree as they have run a defacto deficit of around $15-$20 million a year. Running a college sports program in the midst of robust professional markets is a losing proposition. When I say robust I don't mean just one pro franchise but 5 or 6. Rutgers competes with 2 NFL and 2 MLB franchises and 2 NHL and 2 NBA franchises. MD competes with 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA, and 1 NHL. A total of 8 NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL franchises in Los Angeles is cutting into UCLA and USC.

When the semi-casual fan has so many choices, even if they are a University athletic booster, they have many other choices to watch games in a venue or in a time slot that better fits who they decide to take to the game.

(01-20-2022 11:06 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

MD has the same problem but to a lesser degree as they have run a defacto deficit of around $15-$20 million a year. Running a college sports program in the midst of robust professional markets is a losing proposition. When I say robust I don't mean just one pro franchise but 5 or 6. Rutgers competes with 2 NFL and 2 MLB franchises and 2 NHL and 2 NBA franchises. MD competes with 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA, and 1 NHL.

Calling the Orioles a MLB franchise. That's a reach even on this board. lol.

(01-20-2022 11:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 11:06 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

MD has the same problem but to a lesser degree as they have run a defacto deficit of around $15-$20 million a year. Running a college sports program in the midst of robust professional markets is a losing proposition. When I say robust I don't mean just one pro franchise but 5 or 6. Rutgers competes with 2 NFL and 2 MLB franchises and 2 NHL and 2 NBA franchises. MD competes with 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA, and 1 NHL.

Calling the Orioles a MLB franchise. That's a reach even on this board. lol.

Steve, many decades ago a great radio man in Raleigh, the legendary Wally Ausley, NC State announcer and Atlanta Brave fan told a story.

His season tickets for the Braves had just come and they were laying in the front seat of his car as he stopped to fill up on gas outside of Clemson but between Easley and 96. When he came back to his vehicle the passenger side window had been broken. His season tickets, he thought. He rush to the car and looked in to see that someone had indeed broken into his car and laid another set of season tickets in the seat.


Wow, I just googled the Braves and they are 63 games over .500 over the course of 22,000 games.

You will never "make it" in a conference where 5 of the 14 regularly seat 90-110 fans at home games while you can barely seat or fill up 33-35K. You are $50 million dollars, minimum, behind the leaders before the first jump ball, before the first coin toss. Many years you are likely $70 million behind. The money that you are behind is both a thing in itself but also a representation of relative support, the support you need to recruit on the margins, the support you need when crazy **** happens and you need supporters to stand behind the program, etc.

People keep laughing at me when I say Rutgers is one of realignment's big losers. There's a price to your dignity.

(01-20-2022 11:35 AM)Statefan Wrote:  You will never "make it" in a conference where 5 of the 14 regularly seat 90-110 fans at home games while you can barely seat or fill up 33-35K. You are $50 million dollars, minimum, behind the leaders before the first jump ball, before the first coin toss. Many years you are likely $70 million behind. The money that you are behind is both a thing in itself but also a representation of relative support, the support you need to recruit on the margins, the support you need when crazy **** happens and you need supporters to stand behind the program, etc.

Indeed, I perhaps didn't phrase the title the best. Certainly I don't think Rutgers or Maryland are ever likely to be able to use their B1G payouts to catch up to the big boys like Ohio State & Michigan. But I would expect that a program getting paid at the level that B1G programs are could balance their books and at least not lose money. I know they haven't been getting full shares until 2021, but this shortfall goes way beyond that.

(01-20-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

If a lot of this deficit is due to investments to upgrade, then that may pay off down the road and help Rutgers get to a sustainable point and be more competitive (which should help attract boosters). So it could be a smart move in the long-term.

It's going to take many years for Rutgers to take a jump athletically in football, but Rutgers has evolved into a top-half basketball program under Pikiell. I am confident that Schiano will raise their profile in the coming years, especially with the guaranteed investments that he got with his coaching deal.

As if it needs to be restated, the B1G adding Rutgers created tremendous financial value to the league. There should be zero second guessing their addition. They were not expected to suddenly become a power in both sports overnight. The financial shortfalls will be made up easily in the coming years (especially when the B1G gets another new TV deal). If football and basketball are can become top-half programs at that point, it's a win/win.

(01-20-2022 11:50 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  People keep laughing at me when I say Rutgers is one of realignment's big losers. There's a price to your dignity.

Disagree. IMO - Rutgers leaders saw deficit spending on athletics as an investment on brand-creation. I believe that they'll write-off most of the loans to the athletic department. They probably can't keep "lending" money to athletics (they have lost that PR battle). They will need to increase student fees to fund some of the athletics shortfall. Per the article, student fees for athletics is $400 per year...undergraduate students would likely vote for $1,000 in student fees in exchange for free admission to home events. It's a benefit of being in the B1G with 30K undergraduates...the opportunity to build passion and comraderies while raising $30M. Rutgers has a relatively wealthy student-body, they enjoy being in an elite conference.

(01-20-2022 11:50 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  People keep laughing at me when I say Rutgers is one of realignment's big losers. There's a price to your dignity.

Yes, I will laugh at you on this point. This is ridiculous.

Their choice was to join the Big Ten or stay in the AAC.

To the contrary, Rutgers was the biggest winner of realignment of them all. The fact that they can't balance their budget was happening in their old Big East days, too. It wasn't somehow caused by the Big Ten.

(01-20-2022 11:53 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 11:35 AM)Statefan Wrote:  You will never "make it" in a conference where 5 of the 14 regularly seat 90-110 fans at home games while you can barely seat or fill up 33-35K. You are $50 million dollars, minimum, behind the leaders before the first jump ball, before the first coin toss. Many years you are likely $70 million behind. The money that you are behind is both a thing in itself but also a representation of relative support, the support you need to recruit on the margins, the support you need when crazy **** happens and you need supporters to stand behind the program, etc.

Indeed, I perhaps didn't phrase the title the best. Certainly I don't think Rutgers or Maryland are ever likely to be able to use their B1G payouts to catch up to the big boys like Ohio State & Michigan. But I would expect that a program getting paid at the level that B1G programs are could balance their books and at least not lose money. I know they haven't been getting full shares until 2021, but this shortfall goes way beyond that.

(01-20-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

If a lot of this deficit is due to investments to upgrade, then that may pay off down the road and help Rutgers get to a sustainable point and be more competitive (which should help attract boosters). So it could be a smart move in the long-term.

Even with the loans, Rutgers has had the lowest budget of all the B10 schools. Rutgers is borrowing heavily while still getting further behind its peers. Rutgers' management of finances just seems like a mess. They'll get full distribution from the B10, and then they'll need to pay back the principal and interest charges. I would not be optimistic about the next 5 years.

They really need to grow their booster base. Somehow convince billionaire venture capitalists and hedge fund managers to spend their entertainment allowance in New Brunswick.

Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

I might be wrong, but I recall Rutgers had already been invited to the Big Ten before it became a one-year member of the AAC. If that is correct, Rutgers did not transition from a G5 league to the Big Ten in the true sense. Rather, it moved from the Big East to the Big Ten with a transitional year in the AAC.

Still, Rutgers was a huge winner in the realignment moves of the past however many years. And I feel it was a strong addition for the Big Ten.

(01-20-2022 12:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I might be wrong, but I recall Rutgers had already been invited to the Big Ten before it became a one-year member of the AAC. If that is correct, Rutgers did not transition from a G5 league to the Big Ten.

Still, Rutgers was a huge winner in the realignment moves of the past however many years. And I feel it was a strong addition for the Big Ten.

Rutgers was a member of the Big East, which was a power, "AQ" conference. But IIRC, by the time they received their B1G invite, the Big East had already been eviscerated, and was obviously not going to be a power/AQ conference going forward.

So while Rutgers never actually spent any time in a non-AQ conference (the AAC was an AQ conference in 2013), that was the sense in which I meant that - they were staring down the barrel of membership in a rump Big East that would surely lose power status, as it did, and were picked up by the B1G, which was a better place than the ACC that the other Big East teams had been picked up by.

(01-20-2022 12:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 12:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I might be wrong, but I recall Rutgers had already been invited to the Big Ten before it became a one-year member of the AAC. If that is correct, Rutgers did not transition from a G5 league to the Big Ten.

Still, Rutgers was a huge winner in the realignment moves of the past however many years. And I feel it was a strong addition for the Big Ten.

Rutgers was a member of the Big East, which was a power, "AQ" conference. But IIRC, by the time they received their B1G invite, the Big East had already been eviscerated, and was obviously not going to be a power/AQ conference going forward.

So while Rutgers never actually spent any time in a non-AQ conference (the AAC was an AQ conference in 2013), that was the sense in which I meant that - they were staring down the barrel of membership in a rump Big East that would surely lose power status, as it did, and were picked up by the B1G, which was a better place than the ACC that the other Big East teams had been picked up by.

I see what you mean now. Good point and thanks for the clarification.

(01-20-2022 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

(01-20-2022 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

(01-20-2022 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

That's the rationalization. Its not like it will actually be monetized.

(01-20-2022 11:53 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 11:35 AM)Statefan Wrote:  You will never "make it" in a conference where 5 of the 14 regularly seat 90-110 fans at home games while you can barely seat or fill up 33-35K. You are $50 million dollars, minimum, behind the leaders before the first jump ball, before the first coin toss. Many years you are likely $70 million behind. The money that you are behind is both a thing in itself but also a representation of relative support, the support you need to recruit on the margins, the support you need when crazy **** happens and you need supporters to stand behind the program, etc.

Indeed, I perhaps didn't phrase the title the best. Certainly I don't think Rutgers or Maryland are ever likely to be able to use their B1G payouts to catch up to the big boys like Ohio State & Michigan. But I would expect that a program getting paid at the level that B1G programs are could balance their books and at least not lose money. I know they haven't been getting full shares until 2021, but this shortfall goes way beyond that.

(01-20-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

If a lot of this deficit is due to investments to upgrade, then that may pay off down the road and help Rutgers get to a sustainable point and be more competitive (which should help attract boosters). So it could be a smart move in the long-term.

Maryland has been getting more than a full share, it has been advanced millions against future distributions.

Maryland thinks income is the same as net profit. Or at least they think their fans are dumb enough to swallow that. The Baltimore papers cover this closely, while MD's friends at the Post cover it up.