Meadowlands would net Rutgers millions
by Tom Luicci/The Star-Ledger
Wednesday August 19, 2009, 10:37 PM
William Perlman/The Star-LedgerCoach Greg Schiano confirmed Wednesday that Rutgers has "had discussions'' about possibly moving next year's home game against Army to the new Meadowlands stadium.

Rutgers is in line for a big payday -- possibly as much as $2.7 million, most of which will be clear profit -- if negotiations to move next year's home football game against Army to the new Meadowlands stadium are successful.

Head coach Greg Schiano acknowledged Wednesday following practice that the school has "had discussions" with the New Meadowlands Stadium Corp. (NMSC) to make next year's scheduled home game against Army the first college game at the new facility. The possibility that Rutgers was seeking to move the game to the new Meadowlands stadium was first reported by The Record.

According to Rutgers officials, the school projects a profit of $1.5 million per home game in newly expanded Rutgers Stadium, which will have a capacity of 52,454 once the $102 million construction project is completed in time for the Sept. 7 opener against Cincinnati.

To put in perspective what it means for Rutgers to net $2.7 million just for shifting the Army game, the school grossed $1.8 million under the Big East bowl formula for appearing in the PapaJohns.com Bowl last season. After expenses, Rutgers netted just $16,000 from the bowl game.
"We've had discussions with the Meadowlands, with Yankee Stadium. We've had discussions down in Philly as well," Schiano said. "We're always willing to listen and if all of the factors are good for Rutgers and Rutgers football, then we've got to really seriously consider it.

"Right now, I don't have anything to report."

Ron VanDeVeen of NMSC declined to confirm that Rutgers and Army were in negotiations to play the first college game in the new stadium next year. But those familiar with those negotiations said both schools are now simply trying to work out the details. Those people requested anonymity because discussions are ongoing.

"In answer to that, we are talking to everyone," VanDeVeen said.

Syracuse announced on Tuesday that it will play games in 2012 (vs. USC), 2014 (vs. Notre Dame) and 2016 (vs. Notre Dame) in the new Meadowlands stadium.

For now, the first college game scheduled for the facility is Notre Dame-Navy in October of next year -- the first season of the stadium.

Schiano has stated repeatedly that the timing and money would have to be right for Rutgers to move one of its home games. An additional $1.2 million over what Rutgers stands to make for a typical home game apparently makes the money right -- even after New Jersey Turnpike tolls are deducted.

The school previously announced that it will play Army at Yankee Stadium in 2011. But that is Army's home game.

(08-20-2009 06:38 AM)UltimateCFBfan Wrote:  Meadowlands would net Rutgers millions
by Tom Luicci/The Star-Ledger
Wednesday August 19, 2009, 10:37 PM
William Perlman/The Star-LedgerCoach Greg Schiano confirmed Wednesday that Rutgers has "had discussions'' about possibly moving next year's home game against Army to the new Meadowlands stadium.

Rutgers is in line for a big payday -- possibly as much as $2.7 million, most of which will be clear profit -- if negotiations to move next year's home football game against Army to the new Meadowlands stadium are successful.



To put in perspective what it means for Rutgers to net $2.7 million just for shifting the Army game, the school grossed $1.8 million under the Big East bowl formula for appearing in the PapaJohns.com Bowl last season. After expenses, Rutgers netted just $16,000 from the bowl game.

That explains the situation very clearly.

Too bad that RU could have made even MORE $$$ if they agreed to play ND in the new Stadium instead of just Army.

So, if a game vs. Army gets moved off campus....I hate to even ask...what is the issue about moving a home game vs. Notre Dame there, particularly if the profit could be even greater?

(08-20-2009 06:42 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  So, if a game vs. Army gets moved off campus....I hate to even ask...what is the issue about moving a home game vs. Notre Dame there, particularly if the profit could be even greater?

I think the 3 game deal Syracuse got with the new Meadowlands Stadium and the $$$$$ (not even counting the exposure) that Cuse will earn from those games...finally WOKE UP someone at Rutgers.

While RU has trying to be "high and mighty" as possible in wanting ND to play at RU again...its hard to turn down HUGE sums of $$$$$$ in a 82,000 seat stadium, virtually located right "next door" to the University, and a stadium that is LOADED with high revenue amenities which RU's on-campus stadium can't come close to matching .

I wouldn't be surprised if its the Finance/Administration side now pushing for RU games in the new NFL Stadium...as RU as a whole, not even counting Athletics, is hurting for $$$$$, its hard to turn down several million $$$$$ for a 25 minute bus ride.

That is the main reason why I was not against UCONN playing ND at Giants and Patriots stadiums. Anyway, I hope they can work out something. The exposure is important for young football programs. ND wants to use the Big East, why not use them and get some exposure too.

I don't really get where all the excess money comes from with moving these games off campus. Obviously, the extra seats are a huge part of it -- though would a game versus Army sell all those extra seats? -- and there's parking, concessions, etc. but there would also be the stadium owners and game organizers taking their cut of those things. Whereas a game at Rutgers Stadium, all the revenue sources would be controlled by the Scarlet Knights. Plus, they can leverage popular games into season ticket sales (I don't know if Army would fall into that cetegory, but ND certainly would).

In a better example, you see teams like Alabama and Virginia Tech playing in Atlanta this season and are reportedly doing it for the more. These are teams with huge home stadiums -- how are they convinced to give up a potential home date to play at a neutral site? How does that money work out?

(08-20-2009 09:10 AM)SideshowBob Wrote:  I don't really get where all the excess money comes from with moving these games off campus. Obviously, the extra seats are a huge part of it -- though would a game versus Army sell all those extra seats? -- and there's parking, concessions, etc. but there would also be the stadium owners and game organizers taking their cut of those things. Whereas a game at Rutgers Stadium, all the revenue sources would be controlled by the Scarlet Knights. Plus, they can leverage popular games into season ticket sales (I don't know if Army would fall into that cetegory, but ND certainly would).

In a better example, you see teams like Alabama and Virginia Tech playing in Atlanta this season and are reportedly doing it for the more. These are teams with huge home stadiums -- how are they convinced to give up a potential home date to play at a neutral site? How does that money work out?

The new 82,000 seat Meadowlands Stadium will have HUNDREDS of suites...and THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of high paying club seats...a heck of a lot more than what RU has.

Also...these new NFL Stadiums are basically a cash carnival/casino...as there are money sucking amenities every 5 feet (i.e. advertising, bars, clubs, restaurants, etc...) where most college stadiums in the non-premium seating areas are mostly just "general concession stuff".

Also...since all seat holders purchase PSL's to the new Meadowlands stadium...one of the perks is to get dibs (or at least be eligible) to purchase tix to other events...such as college football.

NFL Stadiums for neutral site games can charge a LOT MORE for college football games (especially marquee games) vs what the schools can charge in their mostly "bleacher seat" stadiums.

(08-20-2009 06:42 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  So, if a game vs. Army gets moved off campus....I hate to even ask...what is the issue about moving a home game vs. Notre Dame there, particularly if the profit could be even greater?

In a word: Politics.
Recall at the time that the fund raising effort was a flop, Rutgers had to seek out other financing options, and the expansion was scaled down. Signing onto to play at the Meadowlands would have sent the signal that the Knights didn't need a bigger on-campus facility. They could just play all their big games 35 minutes away.


So RU - Army can take in $2.7 in profit and apparently WVU brings in $2M per home game (and that may only be revenue)? OK. I've got a solution to the 7 conference game issue. Have every one plays a neutral site conference game at the Meadowlands. Hosting the conference 4 Saturdays a year should secure NYC for Big East football. Maybe include Philadelphia to secure another region and to keep NMSC honest.
Split up the cash, buy home games from the MAC and FCS to get at least 5 home games. Then you have 3 games left to play BCS and rivals meaning quality games. In some years you could have 7 home games and 1 neutral.

This is a no-brainer for Rutgers. And it will be a nice event game, the first college game in the facility.

Yes Rutgers - Army is a big draw. People now like to see Rutgers play in this area and they've always enjoyed seeing Army play. Its a rivalry that has been played in 3 different centuries including the second oldest rivalry for each school. It being a Rutgers home game will allow the AD to sell the game as part of the season ticket package to season ticket holders. We have a nice but relatively small club seat section now at the stadium but let's face it it doesn't compare to what they will have over at the NMS. I'd imagine the ND deal could be back on the table provided its a true 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 setup and that we control everything at the NMS not the Domers as was the idea previously as I recall. I'd prefer to play them at home but realistically I do understand the financial issues of the University. Or I'd prefer to see a 3-3 with ND where we visit South Bend 2x, Soldier Field (as their home field) 1x, NMS 2x (as our home field), and Piscataway 1x. I think it would be cool for us to play a game in Soldier Field given how amazing the facility is and the history in the place. I'd probably also mosey my butt out to Chicago for the game as I love it out there.

(08-20-2009 09:10 AM)SideshowBob Wrote:  In a better example, you see teams like Alabama and Virginia Tech playing in Atlanta this season and are reportedly doing it for the more. These are teams with huge home stadiums -- how are they convinced to give up a potential home date to play at a neutral site? How does that money work out?

In Alabama's case, the Crimson Tide still have 7 home games PLUS that neutral site game vs. VT. So, instead of having that series an OOC home-and-home, it gets a huge one-off paycheck from Atlanta while getting a split of that game's revenue. It gets OOC marquee opponent without having to play on the road while also getting 3 OOC body bag home games. For VT, they still also have 6 home games - this neutral site game is on top of all of that. As a result, it's a bit different than actually moving a home game to an off-campus location.

(08-20-2009 09:28 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  This is a no-brainer for Rutgers. And it will be a nice event game, the first college game in the facility.

First game - period...

(08-20-2009 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-20-2009 09:10 AM)SideshowBob Wrote:  In a better example, you see teams like Alabama and Virginia Tech playing in Atlanta this season and are reportedly doing it for the more. These are teams with huge home stadiums -- how are they convinced to give up a potential home date to play at a neutral site? How does that money work out?

In Alabama's case, the Crimson Tide still have 7 home games PLUS that neutral site game vs. VT. So, instead of having that series an OOC home-and-home, it gets a huge one-off paycheck from Atlanta while getting a split of that game's revenue. It gets OOC marquee opponent without having to play on the road while also getting 3 OOC body bag home games. For VT, they still also have 6 home games - this neutral site game is on top of all of that. As a result, it's a bit different than actually moving a home game to an off-campus location.

Yes, money-wise, VT and Bama make out like bandits, and one of them will get a big poll-boosting win to boot.

Can someone forward this to Bungles' owner Mike Brown?

(08-21-2009 12:08 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Can someone forward this to Bungles' owner Mike Brown?

Why he won't listen anyway. The Bungles are already # 3 in Ohio behind Ohio Sate and the Browns. He doesn't want to fall to #4 behind UCinn too.