Rutgers athletics, even in B1G, still in bad shape
I am one of the many who hates the B1G expansion, as I can't stand how it spreads out the schedule and takes UM away from its traditional rivals (e.g., not playing Wisky in football for something like 5-6 years). To play out east for the benefit our considerable alum network, just schedule home & away with Rutgers, UConn, UVa, etc and be done with it.
Regardless, I'm not here to re-argue that, but to point out that I was really surprised to learn today the Rutgers, even with B1G network cash, is projecting athletic dept deficits of "$183 million between now and 2022." That's just astonishing. It's EMU-level bad in terms of the school having to take money from academics just so it can pay for athletics .
Beyond that, I think Rutgers is probably being overly optimistic in how things will be better in the next decade. Sports fees paid by cable subscribers (as covered by Brian and elsewhere) is likely at its crest, and ESPN, Fox Sports, B1G, etc are soon going to have deal with unbundling and find out how to make do without relying on the majority of subscribers who would rather keep their dollars than subsidize a network they don't give two hoots about.
If/when Rutgers has to start cutting sports, I wonder how attractive they still will be to the B1G (though I know they will still bring the NYC market...cough
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/opinion/joe-nocera-at-rutgers-its-books-vs-ballgames.html
no idea about any of this, thanks for posting.
HOW!? What are they spending money on? Or does nobody go to games?
Those New Jersey winters can get pretty cold.I don't think Rutgers has fans
Sort of....
"Rutgers’ inaugural Big Ten football season played a key role in the conference setting an attendance record in 2014, with the Scarlet Knights playing to 97 percent capacity at High Point Solutions Stadium.
The Big Ten this week announced a record total football attendance of 6,359,218, marking just the third time the league has topped the six million mark.
Rutgers averaged a program-record 50,632 for its six home games, and the school’s 8.8 percent attendance increase was the second largest in the 14-school conference."
So they nearly sell out, but they have a relatively small stadium and we know that their BB program isn't bringing the money in.
Thanks Jim Delaney.
This is BAD. I am surprised that the B1G commish didn't take the financial picture into account. And by "I am surprised that the B1G commish didn't take the financial picture into account", I mean #FireDelaney.
"adding Pitt or Missouri to the Big Ten is stupid.... we have to expand the footprint into NYC and Jersey!!!"
Let's not forget their horrific performances in almost every single sport in B1G conference games.
- Baseball: 5-16
- Men's Basketball: 2-16
- Women's Basketball: 12-6
- Field Hockey: 2-6
- Football: 3-5
- Women's Gymnastics: 0-9
- Men's Lacrosse: 1-4
- Women's Lacrosse: 1-4
- Men's Soccer: 1-6-1
- Women's Soccer: 8-4-1
- Softball: 11-12
- Women's Tennis: 0-11
- Volleyball: 0-20
- Wrestling: 2-7
So you're telling me at least they're running up deficits for a good reason, then?
I knew they had a good women's b-ball team but I didn't realize that's basically *all* they had.
can we renegotiate the B1G contract and just admit the women's half?
wait, 3 winless sports . . . nevermind.
I recycled a comment of mine from 2 weeks ago, still applies....
Dear Rutgers,
Thank you for being the B1G's doormat for so many sports, we are glad you came as it makes us look good.
Sincerely,
Northwestern & Purdue
In the last academic year, Rutgers athletics generated $40.3 million in revenue, but spent more than $76.7 million, leaving a deficit of more than $36 million. In other words, revenue barely covered half the department's expenses.
Good thing the author pointed out this bolded part. I could have never subtracted 40 from 76 on my own or figured out what half of 76 is.
Wasn't this move predicated on the inclusion of the B1G Network in the lucrative east coast cable sports package, a thing that might not even exist in a few years? I really wish the B1G would have stopped after Nebraska and enacted a nine-game B1G football schedule so we'd have had the same scheduling scenarios we had before Nebraska joined. Missing out on playing two teams for two years didn't seem like a bad deal, even if one of them were a Wisconsin.
Maryland might turn into the best basketball school in the conference though. I don't mind Maryland at all.
midwest-based. I would have rather seen us take Mizzou and Kansas ( some argue that may have not been an option due to KSU). AAU schools, one an elite basketball school, and a school with a very good basketball and football program. Rivals of Nebraska, would have been excellent pieces of a Great Plains B1G division. The cable money is going to dry up soon anyway. Both would be better long-term members than Maryland and Rutgers in my opinion.
Academically, comparing Rutgers and Maryland with Kansas and Mizzou is like comparing U of M with Western or State. They'd both be at the bottom of the conference with Nebraska by a comfortable margin.
Also, I'm pretty sure Maryland is closer to Michigan than Nebraska and Kansas, but don't quote me on that one.
What I said was Kansas and Mizzou are both AAU schools, which is sort of a prerequisite for joining the B1G (aside from Nebraska, who lost their status around the time they joined). I don't think academics were a primary consideration. I think UConn has better rankings than UMD and Rutgers and a basketball program that has won two championships in the last few years, but Connecticut doesn't offer the cable money like UMD and Rutgers do. Regarding proximity to Michigan, I think you should consider proximity to other B1G schools instead. Lawrence and Columbia are fairly close to Champaign, Iowa City, Lincoln, as well as each other. I think they'd have made a lot of sense as being part of a western division.
I agree Maryland is a) better academically and b) much better in revenue sports than Rutgers, and thus a better fit. But if I recall, one of the things Delaney & co trumpted about the expansion was that the B1G was adding *two* east coast teams, so they could link up with Penn State to form a nice set of "natural" rivalries.
So I'm not sure if the B1G would have added Maryland and, say, Pitt or Mizzou.
And if I had a choice, I'd rather take neither UMD and Rutgers than have to take both. UMD will be very, very good in b-ball next year, but they've never maintained their success for long. Perhaps this time it will be different, but still, Rutgers is such an anchor and the B1G is so good in basketball anyway, adding UMD was very nice, but not worth it.
....is not very flattering and clarifies where Rutgers athletics is severely bleeding money - LINK
Table 5 is the ten-year history of Rutgers' athletic revenues and expenditures and the subsidies used to make up for the loss. Holy crap, that department probably maxes out every credit card it can find too.
wtf? How are we spending more money than Ohio State?
As of 2013, U-M spent the most of any B1G school on field hockey, m & w gymnastics, softball, m & w swimming and women's tennis.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I was really surprised to learn today the Rutgers, even with B1G network cash, is projecting athletic dept deficits of "$183 million between now and 2022."But doesn't the article say that Rutgers isn't getting a normal cut of Big Ten TV money for another six years?
- They're not getting a "full" share, but they are getting some. They'd still have a deficit with B1G money.
- More to the point, Rutgers seems to assume that when B1G Network money comes fully "on" for them, that it will still be as high (or higher) than it is today. I think that is a terrible assumption, as unbundling will very likely be in meaningful, if not full, effect by then (e.g., Verizon already fire the first big shot about a month ago, and is currently being sued by ESPN and Fox). Sports networks are going to have to make it on their own, and the B1G Network won't be able to ride the coattails of the 95%-plus viewers who don't care about their network.
- Finally, Rutgers administration seems incompetent, and has been for a long time. Even with more money coming in, it seems they would figure out a way to have many more millions going out.
If the universities start cutting sports, you can kiss being competitive at the Olympics goodbye.
Just out of curiousity, why? I always thought we were the only country that has spectator sports as part of universities.
Because it wouldn't be basketball and football that would get cut. The first sports to go would be the men's olympic sports because they don't bring in money, and then the women's olympic sports because if you don't have the men's teams then you don't need the women's teams to balance it out.
I'm not trying to argue, but I still don't get how this would matter to Olympic sports in the USA. As far as I know, all the other countries compete just fine without using universities as a framework.
Well, it's fairly simple. Take away the millions that the universities invest in these athletes, don't replace it with anything, see how it goes. I mean... where do you expect that lost money to come from? Congress? You can't compare our model to China's or Russia's because they fund their athletes directly from a very early age. Here that will never happen.
Yeah, pick the one or two sports that are not supported by universities and focus your argument on those exceptions. 80% of American medal winners in the London olympics were NCAA athletes. A big portion of the money that went into train those athletes came from the universities they attended. If you take that away the government isn't going to step in to fill the gap and a lot of those athletes won't be able to afford coaching+going to college+feeding themselves+tutoring because they won't have any scholarships or special concessions at school because of their status as student athletes.
I mean... if you don't care about USA's performance in the olympics that fine, it's a fair viewpoint to have; but to pretend that eliminating olympic sports from a lot of athletic departments won't heavily impact the athletes that will be left without a scholarship? Jeez...
BTW, I wouldn't brag about figure skating if I were you, that's not a sport USA dominates. The Russians are much better, both historically and currently. Maybe colleges not supporting it has something to do with it.
It's not close to being prestigious enough academically for the B1G and its self-image. It's not considered a close to Top 100 school.
For example, I just looked it up: WVU's acceptance rate is 85%. Both Pitt and UMD are around 50% (and UM is 33%, FWIW). Even MSU is 67%.
Plus, if you got Pitt, you don't need the (very tiny) WVU market.
Fact 1: Every student who got into MSU also got into Michigan.*
Fact 2: 33,000 students applied to MSU last year. Approximately 22,000 got into MSU.**
Fact 3: 50,000 students applied to Michigan. Approximately 16,000 got into Michigan.***
How is it possible that more people got into MSU than Michigan then? Huh?!?!
It's unpossible!
Sources: *Innumerable MSU students and alums with whom I've spoken. **Wikipedia. ***www.admissions.umich.edu
Hey Brah, I *wanted* to go to State. I totally got into Michigan but my buddies were going to State so that's where I went too.
/s
Should have added Texas and Mizzou.
the author of that article used the present tense when describing Michigan as a football power.
26-24
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I hope Michigan kicks the shit out of them this Fall.
What's the case, other than the need to satisfy a bonded debt obligation on their stadium expansion, for Rutgers to continue to offer D-1 sports? It's bad at almost all of them, the AD serves as a financial burden, stripping money out of both the academic side of the university and out of students through required fees, and they have seemingly few fans. The fact that they have D-1 sports may actually hurt the school's academic reputation on the East Coast, given the association that many in the NY metro area make between big time sports and a lack of academic rigor.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I will never forgive Delany for that move. It was like if the SEC targeted Northwestern to get the Chicago market. Just beyond stupid.
I know they suck, but Michigan isn't in any position to make fun of their football team.