I wonder if people on the board would now be more supportive of a Meadowlands game once a year given the financial crunch the athletic dept is in. Not sure what the economics are of holding a game there vs at Rutgers - but if it could marginally add another $1.5-$2m or more in revenue. We would have to consider that at this point. That alone could pay for a new coach, upgraded staff, facility improvements, etc.
With Dynamic pricing I don't think there is much of a gap. We gouged the crap out of OSU for every dime we could.
Even without dynamic pricing the gap wasn't as large as Kid2008 expected.
In 2010, Rutgers was paid $2.7MM to play Army at the Meadowlands. Rutgers claimed they would have netted $1.5 MM if the game was at Rutgers Stadium, so Rutgers got an additional $1.2MM to play at the Meadowlands. But this was really an artificial profit. Ticket and parking prices for the Army game were higher than prices in Piscataway. If fans were willing to pay the higher price, then why not just charge the higher price for games in Piscataway (which is what Rutgers does now).
Today, with higher ticket and parking prices, Rutgers probably nets about $2.2 MM per home game (not counting donations). So the net increase to play a team like Army at the Meadowlands would only be about $500K.
If you add in the dynamic pricing premium for a game against an OSU or PSU, Rutgers probably clears $2.7 MM per game. So to move a high profile game to the Meadowlands would require an even bigger payout to make it worthwhile. The Meadowlands has an additional 30,000 seats to sell to finance a bigger payout. But they'd have to do it without increasing prices beyond what the seats would cost in Piscataway (if fans are willing to pay higher prices for the game, Rutgers can just sell tickets for the higher price in Piscataway).