Page 5 of 33
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:32 pm
by GaitsRightHand
I was wondering the same about Mitchell... I looked him up but didn't see anything about him playing collegiately in the states. Just a lacrosse profile that says hes 21. He also has a highlight tape up, granted the competition doesn't look great but he looks pretty skilled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ_Vy7lYQQw
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:51 pm
by 1766
He's very athletic. How that translates to a step up in comp and where he will fit remains to be seen, but the ability is there. Top tier D1 lacrosse is a step up from the Australian club league, though he does play in the best one.
I can see him playing a role at midfield. I know the RU guys at the U21's (Ross Scott/Shane Knobloch) are already working with him to try and get him ready.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:34 pm
by lorin
1766 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:51 pm
He's very athletic. How that translates to a step up in comp and where he will fit remains to be seen, but the ability is there. Top tier D1 lacrosse is a step up from the Australian club league, though he does play in the best one.
I can see him playing a role at midfield. I know the RU guys at the U21's (Ross Scott/Shane Knobloch) are already working with him to try and get him ready.
Maybe you can get someone from the space station next. LMAO
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:50 pm
by 1766
lorin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:34 pm
1766 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:51 pm
He's very athletic. How that translates to a step up in comp and where he will fit remains to be seen, but the ability is there. Top tier D1 lacrosse is a step up from the Australian club league, though he does play in the best one.
I can see him playing a role at midfield. I know the RU guys at the U21's (Ross Scott/Shane Knobloch) are already working with him to try and get him ready.
Maybe you can get someone from the space station next. LMAO
If they can ball, why not?
Make sure you are in West Point in the Spring to watch them throw a beat down on Army. All those glorious transfers making plays all over the field at Michie. It's going to be wonderful!
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:01 am
by lorin
1766 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:50 pm
lorin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:34 pm
1766 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:51 pm
He's very athletic. How that translates to a step up in comp and where he will fit remains to be seen, but the ability is there. Top tier D1 lacrosse is a step up from the Australian club league, though he does play in the best one.
I can see him playing a role at midfield. I know the RU guys at the U21's (Ross Scott/Shane Knobloch) are already working with him to try and get him ready.
Maybe you can get someone from the space station next. LMAO
If they can ball, why not?
Make sure you are in West Point in the Spring to watch them throw a beat down on Army. All those glorious transfers making plays all over the field at Michie. It's going to be wonderful!
Yes just like the last time at Michie.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:41 pm
by 1766
lorin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:01 am
1766 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:50 pm
lorin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:34 pm
1766 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:51 pm
He's very athletic. How that translates to a step up in comp and where he will fit remains to be seen, but the ability is there. Top tier D1 lacrosse is a step up from the Australian club league, though he does play in the best one.
I can see him playing a role at midfield. I know the RU guys at the U21's (Ross Scott/Shane Knobloch) are already working with him to try and get him ready.
Maybe you can get someone from the space station next. LMAO
If they can ball, why not?
Make sure you are in West Point in the Spring to watch them throw a beat down on Army. All those glorious transfers making plays all over the field at Michie. It's going to be wonderful!
Yes just like the last time at Michie.
More like last year. Don't miss the show. Army's generational players are gone or transferred. Ouch!
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:50 pm
by 1766
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:08 pm
by Asgot
I doubt it as most of the revenue is football money and we all know that football coaches are not good sharer’s
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
by InsiderRoll
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:34 pm
by wgdsr
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
they have a new teevee contract.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:32 pm
by InsiderRoll
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:34 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
they have a new teevee contract.
Thanks, I’ve been under a rock.
Getting $100 million a year is only so beneficial if 75% is paying off debt. It will widen the gap for places like Ohio State, Michigan, now USC in regards to football and basketball. All of this money will have only a minimal impact to lacrosse.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:15 pm
by wgdsr
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:32 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:34 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
they have a new teevee contract.
Thanks, I’ve been under a rock.
Getting $100 million a year is only so beneficial if 75% is paying off debt. It will widen the gap for places like Ohio State, Michigan, now USC in regards to football and basketball. All of this money will have only a minimal impact to lacrosse.
football drives the bus. if you're of the mindset (still) that college sports needs to be about academics, and amateurism... then it's just rampant misuse of funds.
if someone is resigned to today's paradigm, it's not.
then again, a place like rutgers or ucla that's been allowed to go virtually unchecked in running up debt to compete, at the expense of other stakeholders -- the finger needs to be pointed at those allowing that. and that goes up the chain.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:48 pm
by InsiderRoll
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:15 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:32 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:34 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
they have a new teevee contract.
Thanks, I’ve been under a rock.
Getting $100 million a year is only so beneficial if 75% is paying off debt. It will widen the gap for places like Ohio State, Michigan, now USC in regards to football and basketball. All of this money will have only a minimal impact to lacrosse.
football drives the bus. if you're of the mindset (still) that college sports needs to be about academics, and amateurism... then it's just rampant misuse of funds.
if someone is resigned to today's paradigm, it's not.
then again, a place like rutgers or ucla that's been allowed to go virtually unchecked in running up debt to compete, at the expense of other stakeholders -- the finger needs to be pointed at those allowing that. and that goes up the chain.
I spent nearly a decade in a power 5 athletic department, I get it .I’m saying that by running a 73million dollar deficit Rutgers would get a better rate of return by just investing their money in several funds rather than their football program. This windfall of money to the entire B1G will only cause Rutgers to increase spending on football to try and catch up with top power 5 teams. That may lead to larger deficits - that leads to more challenging conversations for the university.
I guess my point is, throwing more money at a failing business model rarely turns it around.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:03 pm
by wgdsr
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:48 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:15 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:32 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:34 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
they have a new teevee contract.
Thanks, I’ve been under a rock.
Getting $100 million a year is only so beneficial if 75% is paying off debt. It will widen the gap for places like Ohio State, Michigan, now USC in regards to football and basketball. All of this money will have only a minimal impact to lacrosse.
football drives the bus. if you're of the mindset (still) that college sports needs to be about academics, and amateurism... then it's just rampant misuse of funds.
if someone is resigned to today's paradigm, it's not.
then again, a place like rutgers or ucla that's been allowed to go virtually unchecked in running up debt to compete, at the expense of other stakeholders -- the finger needs to be pointed at those allowing that. and that goes up the chain.
I spent nearly a decade in a power 5 athletic department, I get it .I’m saying that by running a 73million dollar deficit Rutgers would get a better rate of return by just investing their money in several funds rather than their football program. This windfall of money to the entire B1G will only cause Rutgers to increase spending on football to try and catch up with top power 5 teams. That may lead to larger deficits - that leads to more challenging conversations for the university.
I guess my point is, throwing more money at a failing business model rarely turns it around.
this was evident at the inclusion of rutgers and umd. given a propensity to do this and needing a lifeline to escape, unless a fundamental way of doing things changes, nothing does. kicking the can down the road. we have a (very) large organization that will do this until it pops.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:51 pm
by 1766
Syracuse is going to need a lifeline to compete. If the benchmark is "turning a profit", there would be about 10 schools competing.
College sports are marketing. They should be no more expected to turn a profit than the philosophy department. Only they are more valuable in certain ways.
But if we are having an honest discussion, schools like Syracuse are in trouble. At least if they plan on competing at the highest levels.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:56 pm
by 1766
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
Football obviously drives the bus. That's not going to change. The more interesting question is what is going to happen to programs not in the Big Ten or SEC? They are severely behind the eight ball when it comes to the financial game. The other interesting question is how do these additional funds impact so called Olympic sports like lacrosse at Big Ten schools not named Hopkins.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:07 pm
by AreaLax
1766 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:56 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
Football obviously drives the bus. That's not going to change. The more interesting question is what is going to happen to programs not in the Big Ten or SEC? They are severely behind the eight ball when it comes to the financial game. The other interesting question is how do these additional funds impact so called Olympic sports like lacrosse at Big Ten schools not named Hopkins.
Would love to know this answer
https://twitter.com/adamjardy/status/15 ... T6Cj3Dw_-A
“ athletic director Gene Smith says this new broadcast deal will make accessing hoops and games in other sports different, but not necessarily harder. There could still be a partnership/package with ESPN for some hoops games, he said.”
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:03 pm
by wgdsr
1766 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:51 pm
Syracuse is going to need a lifeline to compete. If the benchmark is "turning a profit", there would be about 10 schools competing.
College sports are marketing. They should be no more expected to turn a profit than the philosophy department. Only they are more valuable in certain ways.
But if we are having an honest discussion, schools like Syracuse are in trouble. At least if they plan on competing at the highest levels.
no one said anything about turning a profit. the horse is way out of the barn on that one. athletics departments can't spend $$ fast enough on revenue coming in. their stock price doesn't rely on profit metrics. they'll put up a new building or add more admin staff for new dough that rolls in. then there's all the accounting shenanigans.
ftr, pre-covid... syracuse brought in about $100 mill. and listed a $16 mill profit. i don't know how much of that was student fees, $$ shifting... but the hoops team alone made $20 mill on $35 mill in revenue. why? because it's a university town, there's nothing else to do in the winter, and they have a facility that allows for it.
but when you start talking about major debt and deficits, even while being funded by the state and the rest of the university, that's altogether different. because that doesn't go away magically. live within your means.
so let's say cuse several years down the road they have $40 million less per year than they otherwise could have, $140 vs 100. they're in a death spiral bc of that? their football team already would need a miracle to "compete" regularly. a number of other sports are well supported as philosophy. you think rutgers, or indiana, or minnesota or on and on in the b1g are in some kind of better position for what? football? they're going to topple tosu, mich, psu, wisco, usc in trying to compete there with the top dogs in conference?
anything's possible, but i say there's a chance that nfw will end up being the case for many teams in the b1g. have you seen what the revenue generated by actual sports sans conference payouts is at many of the b1g schools? what's going to be the impetus for that to change?
the focus on media deals as being the be all end all has reached silly season. ohio state is laughing at another $35 million. they do 200-250 already. that's before all the support they'll get for nil. indiana looks at that and says... now we'll be able to compete?
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:13 am
by Farfromgeneva
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:48 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:15 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:32 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:34 pm
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:12 pm
It would seem Rutgers really needs it
.
https://twitter.com/fos/status/15607159 ... mgNyoq6Lxg
I get power 5 spending on football, I really do. But there is just rampant misuse of funds by so many football programs.$450000 on door dash by football, it is very likely that is greater than (or very close to) mens lacrosse’s entire operational budget.
they have a new teevee contract.
Thanks, I’ve been under a rock.
Getting $100 million a year is only so beneficial if 75% is paying off debt. It will widen the gap for places like Ohio State, Michigan, now USC in regards to football and basketball. All of this money will have only a minimal impact to lacrosse.
football drives the bus. if you're of the mindset (still) that college sports needs to be about academics, and amateurism... then it's just rampant misuse of funds.
if someone is resigned to today's paradigm, it's not.
then again, a place like rutgers or ucla that's been allowed to go virtually unchecked in running up debt to compete, at the expense of other stakeholders -- the finger needs to be pointed at those allowing that. and that goes up the chain.
I spent nearly a decade in a power 5 athletic department, I get it .I’m saying that by running a 73million dollar deficit Rutgers would get a better rate of return by just investing their money in several funds rather than their football program. This windfall of money to the entire B1G will only cause Rutgers to increase spending on football to try and catch up with top power 5 teams. That may lead to larger deficits - that leads to more challenging conversations for the university.
I guess my point is, throwing more money at a failing business model rarely turns it around.
They followed the 2010s, zero interest rate VC model of making it up in volume. Assuming the fan bas has actually grown much.
Re: Rutgers 2023
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:17 am
by Farfromgeneva
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:03 pm
1766 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:51 pm
Syracuse is going to need a lifeline to compete. If the benchmark is "turning a profit", there would be about 10 schools competing.
College sports are marketing. They should be no more expected to turn a profit than the philosophy department. Only they are more valuable in certain ways.
But if we are having an honest discussion, schools like Syracuse are in trouble. At least if they plan on competing at the highest levels.
no one said anything about turning a profit. the horse is way out of the barn on that one. athletics departments can't spend $$ fast enough on revenue coming in. their stock price doesn't rely on profit metrics. they'll put up a new building or add more admin staff for new dough that rolls in. then there's all the accounting shenanigans.
ftr, pre-covid... syracuse brought in about $100 mill. and listed a $16 mill profit. i don't know how much of that was student fees, $$ shifting... but the hoops team alone made $20 mill on $35 mill in revenue. why? because it's a university town, there's nothing else to do in the winter, and they have a facility that allows for it.
but when you start talking about major debt and deficits, even while being funded by the state and the rest of the university, that's altogether different. because that doesn't go away magically. live within your means.
so let's say cuse several years down the road they have $40 million less per year than they otherwise could have, $140 vs 100. they're in a death spiral bc of that? their football team already would need a miracle to "compete" regularly. a number of other sports are well supported as philosophy. you think rutgers, or indiana, or minnesota or on and on in the b1g are in some kind of better position for what? football? they're going to topple tosu, mich, psu, wisco, usc in trying to compete there with the top dogs in conference?
anything's possible, but i say there's a chance that nfw will end up being the case for many teams in the b1g. have you seen what the revenue generated by actual sports sans conference payouts is at many of the b1g schools? what's going to be the impetus for that to change?
the focus on media deals as being the be all end all has reached silly season. ohio state is laughing at another $35 million. they do 200-250 already. that's before all the support they'll get for nil. indiana looks at that and says... now we'll be able to compete?
Competing doesn’t matter. I was told this explicitly before by the experts.
.