OT: B10 expands/PAC B12 TBD
- Thread starter rutgersguy1_rivals
- Start date
Does USC realize adding one or two west coast teams would ease the financial hardship experienced from always traveling east most weekends? I get not wanting to share newfound riches with former conference mates, but it wouldn't hurt to have a travel buddy.
If Oregon and Washington have an issue with not getting a full share, go pound dirt. You're getting a lifeline and weren't factored into the media deal like USC or UCLA. You would be stealing money from other schools. The other schools would suffer (money-wise) from debt because you would take money from the end of the deal to cover OU and UW's full share.
Like I said earlier, USC is cute to think the B1G is gonna take orders from them when they aren't even in the conference yet.
no, no and no.
the research $s a school brings in doesn't add a penny to the bottom line of other schools. the research $s are spent on research equipment/supplies, research personnel, overhead, development and other purposes at the institution.
Stanford could bring in a zillion dollars a year in research funding but that doesn't matter to sports broadcast rights & payouts. You think ESPN pays more for that ? If so Johns Hopkins and UCSF would have the biggest payouts and ND wouldn't be on TV at all.
And there's no such thing as AAU funding.
Some people just have no idea what they're talking about. Absolutely zero understanding.
Last edited:
Is it any surprise a team named Trojans acting like dickheads when they don't even have a seat at the table yet?
This ^^^ Stanford is Northwestern on steroids as far as academic meddling in athletics and Cal is irrelevant in athletics. I would be surprised if they were targets in themselves for the B1G, maybe one of them packaged with ND would be a consideration.
You are greatly overestimating the research $ impact . (You're not alone in this.) The academic consortium makes a modest contribution by increasing cooperation, but it doesn't do much tangibly to increase the research dollars that the schools each receive.
They aren’t adding more schools unless they add more revenue, by bringing another media partner for late night games. None of the existing schools are interested in subsiding anyone. If the numbers don’t work there is no expansion,
There are people who post here who desperately want to believe this is not true. Unfortunately it is, you are absolutely correct.
Are schools losing their way?
Lost in all of this is the mission of the universities, which is to educate and prepare the next generation of society. Sports is a bonus, but it's gotten out of hand. FYI: I benefited from sports to get through college.
Wetzel's initial report gave the possibility of Cal/Stanford but the more I've read since the more it just looks like Oregon/Washington. Can't rule out Cal/Stanford 100% but hope seems to be dimming for them. If it takes some effort to find the money for Oregon/Washington, it for sure will be a tough hill for Cal/Stanford.
I've always thought Oregon/Washington were the best options to join from the west and stop there and save 2 spots for the ACC when the time comes and halt at 20. If ND ever comes on board then you go can past 20 and maybe Stanford, UVA or whomever up to 24 teams at most can be added as well in a grouping with ND.
I've always thought Oregon/Washington were the best options to join from the west and stop there and save 2 spots for the ACC when the time comes and halt at 20. If ND ever comes on board then you go can past 20 and maybe Stanford, UVA or whomever up to 24 teams at most can be added as well in a grouping with ND.
Stanford is also an Olympic juggernaut and I think college sport content will grow to other sports. Of course a small amount versus the major ones but still will be more valuable than today.
Some universities are spending billions in research. (I was shocked to see that. )
I don't know if research funding and impact is as minimal as some believe.
Outdated , but show RU &MD research impact back when invited
It will make BIG money and RU will clearly benefit (even if we are the Vandy of the B1G) but a 20-24 team league (not a conference) is unappealing. 14 was already a bit much. Complaining about it is pointless (but here I am). We have nothing on common with the west coast or Deep South yet we are potentially in a conference with all of those. Who will the non playoff B1G team play in the Rose Bowl now? The B12? The SEC?
Michigan vs BYU
Wisconsin vs Kansas
Michigan vs BYU
Wisconsin vs Kansas
I don’t watch them but Olympic sports are gaining popularity and are getting more air time and ratings as well. IIRC NCAA is also breaking up its Olympic sports tournaments to package and sell them separately.
I read this past week a college women’s volleyball match will be put on a broadcast network up against NFL. Different demographics so it might work for them. Olympic sports are likely cheap programming that get enough ratings to justify the cost.
The answer to your question is “yes.” But athletics is not the only reason IMHO.
Research dollars are key to a place like Rutgers. Scientists have to be entrepreneurs who figure out how to attract support. Universities benefit because grants include payments for “overhead “ — that is, the cost of supporting the scientists. That said, the financial benefit of being part of the Big Ten’s consortium is pretty marginal.
Well this confirms the impression I was getting from what’s out there today. Hope seems to have dimmed for Stanford and Cal.
It hinges on Arizona and I assume ASU in tow.
Absorbing 4 schools at once in the B1G's eyes is financially biting off more than the B1G can chew. Godspeed, Stanford and Cal.
College sports lose money. What’s our annual deficit ? The argument for sports is that visibility and winning increases applications, acceptance metrics/rankings and donations. You will never see data to show a net $ positive because that’s fantasy, but sports does have other value, marketing and the student experience (leading to alumni donations), for example.
Football and basketball generally do not lose money, they fund the other sports that are money losers. Don’t know why anyone would look at sports in the aggregate, each has different costs and revenues (ok, well some have essentially no revenue).
Well then if that’s the case then more reason to think all these BOT meetings will resolve things soon.
Rutgers generates over $600 million a year in research grants and programs, but it has little to do with the BIG.
A couple of key points:
-If BIG membership really provided a tangible benefit to our research efforts, Rutgers would measure, report and publicize it, as a way to push back on some of the public criticism of the spending on sports.
-If there was a significant benefit, you would not have a very vocal group of professors complaining about our sports programs, and also complaining about our membership in the BIG. These are the people who are supposed to benefit the most from this research consortium.
-There is very little collaboration between the schools on research, we are all competing for the same research dollars.
Basically the Research Consortium is a glorified library sharing program.
Last edited:
Pretty sure that ship's sailed. And if you look at what colleges are teaching these days maybe it's best for society if they focus on sports.
You might be over estimating the competence of the Rutgers administration.
You know if Oregon Washington come on board for 2024 the B10 will have to change the schedules they released. Maybe USC/UCLA get another permanent rival in the west in addition to each other. Maybe we catch a break too lol.
Yes, as I said above … college sports profitability is fantasy.
If anything, I would think RU would pick up an Oregon or Washington game. With our luck we will lose Illinois and pick up Oregon.
Would love to have Stanford aboard, everything else aside. ACC schools probably make more sense, but can't wait for that shoe to drop.
Don't even think it's helping sports in the long run, either. They seem hellbent on barreling right past the breaking point.
Little by little, they're ceding away everything that's made CFB great to begin with. Big, unwieldy conferences with match-ups no one cares about, loss of traditional rivalries, paid-for-play pro athletes who care solely about themselves, and games spread across 10 different channels, some of which require individual subscriptions.
I'm starting to hope RU remains terrible to middling, and I'll just forget about the whole sport and find a more constructive fall hobby.
This why all the “Rutgers was a huge risk to the Big Ten” is bogus.
If it was a risk, they wouldn’t have been invited.
The hard truth is the earlier you get in - the less financial risk you need to mitigate.
New schools have to show $70-80m value to break even for the conference.
This is also why Rutgers won’t be left out.
We just proved our financial worth.
Many other legacy schools never had to prove they make the financials work: Purdue, Iowa etc.
There was a good piece in nj.com (of all places!) some years ago about the academic benefits of Big Ten membership. It's more than a library sharing program -- it brings academics together to talk about coordinating activities. But the consortium is not of enough financial benefit to justify bringing in a school merely on the basis of its research clout.
The only chance that Cal has is for the Big Ten to decide it wants Stanford, and to then decide then it should take Cal for ease of scheduling and to have a round number. And, again, this is on Cal. It had an excellent football program under Jeff Tedford for a while, but Tedford burned out. It had a men's basketball team under Ben Braun that could at least get into the NCAA tournament. He's gone. Now it has an AD with little relevant experience and a long-term contract. I admire Chancellor Carol Christ (she is a Douglass graduate from the 1960s when Douglass was really its own college), but I don't think she did enough to fix the problems. It is fine to say, as she did, that there is more to judging a coach than wins and losses. Everyone agrees with that -- no one would want a coach who abuses players or who recruits academic incompetents just for the sake of winning. But it's still important that a team win. Rant over.
Last edited:
You have to segment that. D1 college football, when you include TV revenue, merchandise, concession and ticket sales almost certainly makes money. And that happens even with half the teams losing money. Probably not college hoops, because there are what, 350 teams? But I'd bet the Top 100 programs do in aggregate. I doubt there is other profitability though the student experience comes into play.
Don’t think so. The deficits exceed the combined costs of the non-revenue sports.
Not sure why people don’t get this. You can tell them most programs lose money on sports and they will still complain about how schools are making so much money from athletes/sports. You can show them the data and they still will say/believ it.
Because the public at large are sheep and refuse to listen to facts and data.
Stanford has the best athletics department in the country. I wish Rutgers had this type of "meddling."
Never say never. Future revenue models/new structures may contract CFB in ways we dont predict now. I would not be shocked to see an NFL-like Super League with 36 teams, playoffs etc and the weaker programs in all conferences left out and with a much lower payout. Nor would I be shocked if OSU, PSU, USC etc demand more of the pie than the regular conference lightweights
Last edited: