It blows me away how far behind the curve RU is spending money.

[ruready4somefootball]

It doesn't seem to matter where these other schools play, or what states they come from. Small conferences, like the MAC, poor states like Michigan, that have cities going bankrupt,whatever their circumstances,money gets poured into those schools, and they have world class facilities.It's depressing how long things take to get done at Rutgers, and all the while, we fall further and further behind in the arms race.It should not be only on the backs of Alumni,but I guess in a state that can't even promise retirement packages to state employees that were bargained for years ago, giving money to The State University of New Jersey, your flagship school, is out of the question. Yet despite that, Rutgers continues to rise in the ranks of world class schools across the board in academics.We sit here,with this gem of a school, and as a state, we treat it as an after thought!:angry:

 

[jmc11201]

It should not be only on the backs of Alumni...

Why not on the backs of alumni? If it is not important enough to alumni, then why should it be important enough for the politicians and taxpayers with no connection to the university? We can't expect others to buy stuff for us that we want...if we want facilities, a culture of supporting the program financially should be developed. Somehow other places get stuff done largely off the back of their alumni, and considering how many Rutgers graduates are out there, they should be the ones footing the bill if having first class facilities and programs is important to them.

 

[TDIrish1]

Agreed

 

[chrisru99]

A mass email to all living alumni asking for 5 to 25 dollar donation to get this done. I think this would work well in the email a nice explanation of why we need the money and how we are going to use the money.

 

[RUfinal4]

A mass email to all living alumni asking for 5 to 25 dollar donation to get this done. I think this would work well in the email a nice explanation of why we need the money and how we are going to use the money.

It may be more successful if the donations could earn gifts.

Example -
1. $10 donation earns a RU basketball lapel pin or patch
2. $25 donation earns a basketball t shirt
3. $75 donation earns a replica basketball jersey
4. $150 donation earns a t shirt and 2 tickets to select games

 

[Knight_Light]

Why not on the backs of alumni? If it is not important enough to alumni, then why should it be important enough for the politicians and taxpayers with no connection to the university? We can't expect others to buy stuff for us that we want...if we want facilities, a culture of supporting the program financially should be developed. Somehow other places get stuff done largely off the back of their alumni, and considering how many Rutgers graduates are out there, they should be the ones footing the bill if having first class facilities and programs is important to them.

Its almost embarrassing that the OP wants others (non-RU Alums) to pay for things RU Alums want for their athletic program.

Good post.

 

[RUJMM78]

Why not on the backs of alumni? If it is not important enough to alumni, then why should it be important enough for the politicians and taxpayers with no connection to the university? We can't expect others to buy stuff for us that we want...if we want facilities, a culture of supporting the program financially should be developed. Somehow other places get stuff done largely off the back of their alumni, and considering how many Rutgers graduates are out there, they should be the ones footing the bill if having first class facilities and programs is important to them.

Based on the very low percentage of alumni that donate even $50 dollars waiting for them to contribute will be as successful as waiting for the mens basketball team getting a NCAA bid after 24 years of waiting.

 

[BLewis1968]

Why not on the backs of alumni?...Somehow other places get stuff done largely off the back of their alumni

He did not say not on the backs of alumni. He said not ONLY on the backs of alumni. You took his sentence - whether it was purposefully or not - and completely changed the meaning. And for the record, while "largely" is subjective, few if any state flagship schools are asked to do more purely off the back of alumni than Rutgers, because at one point it was the worst-funded state flagship (per capita income) in the entire country. I think that's changed since I came off the beat, but it's still bottom 10.

 

[jmc11201]

He did not say not on the backs of alumni. He said not ONLY on the backs of alumni. You took his sentence - whether it was purposefully or not - and completely changed the meaning. And for the record, while "largely" is subjective, few if any state flagship schools are asked to do more purely off the back of alumni than Rutgers, because at one point it was the worst-funded state flagship (per capita income) in the entire country. I think that's changed since I came off the beat, but it's still bottom 10.

Not sure I took his comment out of context. Basically what I am saying is that it should be on the backs of alumni...not partly from the state.

Notre Dame is a private school and they have very nice facilities. Their alumni donate a ton.
Northwestern is a private school and they are in the process of upgrading a lot of their facilities.
Oregon gets money from Phil Knight.
I'm guessing Nebraska gets a ton from their alumni.

If Rutgers gets state money for athletics, then other institutions throughout the state will want their handout as well, and that is how taxes get so out of control. Theoretically, a nice basketball practice facility or arena or sports field should be most important to Rutgers alumni and fans. If it isn't important enough for them to step up and foot the bill, then it shouldn't happen and we will end up at the bottom of the standings in athletics. The purpose of state government isn't to tax the population to build sports facilities.

Quite frankly, I'd rather they support Rutgers pharmaceutical faculty and other academic areas which have better, more lasting impact on the state as a means of attracting and incubating companies to the area. Much better ROI from that.

 

[RutgHoops]

He did not say not on the backs of alumni. He said not ONLY on the backs of alumni. You took his sentence - whether it was purposefully or not - and completely changed the meaning. And for the record, while "largely" is subjective, few if any state flagship schools are asked to do more purely off the back of alumni than Rutgers, because at one point it was the worst-funded state flagship (per capita income) in the entire country. I think that's changed since I came off the beat, but it's still bottom 10.

Every school in the country builds their facilities on the largesse of their donor base. Villanova, Oklahoma State, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Duke, Texas A+M, Ole Miss, Nebraska and VCU all built basketball practice facilities in the last decade that were funded almost 100% by donors. I do not argue that Rutgers does not get its appropriate share from Trenton, but that is a separate and distinct argument from the fact that Rutgers cannot fund a project in a similar manner to the way just about every other program in the country does.....thru its donor base.

 

[BLewis1968]

Not sure I took his comment out of context. Basically what I am saying is that it should be on the backs of alumni...not partly from the state.

Notre Dame is a private school and they have very nice facilities. Their alumni donate a ton.
Northwestern is a private school and they are in the process of upgrading a lot of their facilities.
Oregon gets money from Phil Knight.
I'm guessing Nebraska gets a ton from their alumni.

If Rutgers gets state money for athletics, then other institutions throughout the state will want their handout as well, and that is how taxes get so out of control. Theoretically, a nice basketball practice facility or arena or sports field should be most important to Rutgers alumni and fans. If it isn't important enough for them to step up and foot the bill, then it shouldn't happen and we will end up at the bottom of the standings in athletics. The purpose of state government isn't to tax the population to build sports facilities.

Quite frankly, I'd rather they support Rutgers pharmaceutical faculty and other academic areas which have better, more lasting impact on the state as a means of attracting and incubating companies to the area. Much better ROI from that.

Well, 1) maybe its because I'm a reporter. But I certainly can't get away with dropping "only" from somebody's quote to turn it to all, or I'd be out of a job. But I'm anal retentive. And I do forget this is a message board sometimes lol. 2) I wasn't really comparing states and privates, so I would've put Rutgers in the bracket with Oregon and Nebraska, not with Northwestern or Notre Dame. 3) I may not have been specific enough. To be clear, I wasn't limiting the figures to athletic improvements, but overall funding. Rutgers isn't underfunded when it comes to athletic facilities: It's underfunded when it comes to EVERYTHING, including pharmaceutical faculty, including a basketball practice facility, etc, etc. Even if it's improved from being dead last to being in the bottom ten for funding (per $1000 of state income) that's not good enough. Once they get it, they can best determine what to use it for, but you can't use it if you're being denied for decades what everybody else has enjoyed. That's all I meant.

 

[TDIrish1]

Every other State isn't burdened with the Pension and Abbott District burden that NJ has.

We have 3 levels of local Govt Employees------Town , County and State.

We fund our schools with property taxes and our Abbott Districts are in areas where home ownership is lacking. So the burden is on the state to fund these schools at levels that are historically high.

I'm retired and fine but truly glad my kids are living out of state.

There just isn't enough money to run the whole thing and I look for a large exodus within the next 5-10 years.

 

[jmc11201]

Well, 1) maybe its because I'm a reporter. Or anal retentive. But I certainly can't get away with dropping "only" from somebody's quote to turn it to all, or I'd be out of a job. 2) I wasn't really comparing states and privates, so I would've put Rutgers in the bracket with Oregon and Nebraska, not with Northwestern or Notre Dame. 3) I may not have been specific enough. To be clear, I wasn't limiting the figures to athletic improvements, but overall funding. Rutgers isn't underfunded when it comes to athletic facilities: It's underfunded when it comes to EVERYTHING, including pharmaceutical faculty, including a basketball practice facility, etc, etc. Even if it's improved from being dead last to being in the bottom ten for funding (per $1000 of state income) that's not good enough. Once they get it, they can best determine what to use it for, but you can't use it if you're being denied for decades what everybody else has enjoyed. That's all I meant.

I can edit my original to add 'Why not only on the back of alumni' if that makes it better...but certainly that is what I meant and a counter to his argument that the state should help foot the bill. Philosophically, I don't believe that states funding athletic facilities...particularly for their state universities...is a good idea, especially when there is no return component.

In response to state funding of the university, I do, in general, believe that State U, whether Rutgers, Minnesota, Iowa, Texas, or Washington, is a state resource that should be cultivated and supported to enhance the cultural and economic well-being of the state. I may be wrong, and I don't have any data to back it up, but I have to assume that state funding of universities, in general, have been declining, and in an over-taxed state like NJ, that has pension problems and other fiscal issues, the expectation for increased funding (particularly for practice facilities) is a dream and shouldn't be counted on and isn't a great use of state resources.

I think investments in universities have very long and ambiguous payoffs that are very difficult to justify when viewed with near-term and very real financial problems. I think consistent, long-term funding is a great idea and does generate a return, but if you can calculate that return and make the investment case with any credibility, you would be the first to do so.

I would continue to view Rutgers best shot at getting funding parity with others is to get alumni to donate more, grow the endowment, get people to give to Rutgers in their will, and foster a sense that we are all in this together and all have a stake in the outcome. Waiting for someone else to write a big check ain't going to get it done...it is like waiting for the first big domino to fall in football recruiting...everyone just looks around and says 'you go first'.

 

[higgins3]

Wouldn't these kinds of financial responsibilities somewhat be covered in a 24,000 a year tuition payment? I guess that tuition is just for the education. I would be willing to donate.

 

[rutcor]

Wouldn't these kinds of financial responsibilities somewhat be covered in a 24,000 a year tuition payment? I guess that tuition is just for the education. I would be willing to donate.

Tuition is $13.8k. And yes, that's with almost $3k in fees.

 

[ruready4somefootball]

I clearly said not ONLY on the backs of the Alum! This is the flagship school in NJ, and should be treated as such by the state. I stand by my original post.

 

[TDIrish1]

I think the general consensus is that when RU starts getting their full Big Ten share they'll have money to fund all these things.

Just a reminder------the COA is coming down the road-----that will add a significant cost to all D-1 Programs.

AD's have to aggressively fund raise in the private sector pure and simple.

 

[dollarbill]

http://www.olddominionaf.com/news/basketball-practice-facility.aspx

Other places seem to get this done. They also have teams that sneak into the rankings once in awhile. $$$$

 

[higgins3]

Tuition is $13.8k. And yes, that's with almost $3k in fees.

3k for fees for athletics?

 

[HeavenUniv.]

How about the state finally send the $600 MILLION DOLLARS Rutgers was supposed to get for taking on the medical university debt and merger costs. Trenton can hold up their end of the deal and we won't ask them for a new arena.

 

[rutcor]

3k for fees for athletics?

For all sorts of things, but yes, partially for athletics.

 

[Virginiarufan]

If lets say 30,000 students each paid $3000 in fees towards athletics they would be contributing 90 million to the athletics program per year. We could build a practice facility, break ground on a new arena and plan the addition to the football stadium all at once.

 

[higgins3]

All I am saying is that students and you alumni paid a lot to go to Rutgers. Why do we raise this money by ourselves?Isn't this something at least four hundred dollars goes to when you pay tuition?

Nonetheless, I would pay a sum to see a practice facility get built. I just want to know more about how our tuition is allocated.

 

[Saint Puppy]

We are a state school in one of the most corrupt and bureaucratic states in the country (if not #1 at both). This is not some school that has had major, consistent success in the past in the major money sports. Put those factors together along with a mostly apathetic alumni and constituency, and you have our current situation. Not really expecting things to change.

 

[mikefla]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/16/bloomberg-philanthropies-gives-100m-to-cornell-nyc-campus/

Nickle-ing and dime-ing the alums is NOT the answer.....its up to deep pocket alums and others

Cornell just got 100 million form a non alum.....Bill Gates kicked in 50 mil for a new tech buuilding

Do good things and people donate

Think small...get small

 

[ruready4somefootball]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/16/bloomberg-philanthropies-gives-100m-to-cornell-nyc-campus/

Nickle-ing and dime-ing the alums is NOT the answer.....its up to deep pocket alums and others

Cornell just got 100 million form a non alum.....Bill Gates kicked in 50 mil for a new tech buuilding

Do good things and people donate

Think small...get small

This is so true, and is the only way great things will happen and get done.

 

[Knight_Light]

I clearly said not ONLY on the backs of the Alum! This is the flagship school in NJ, and should be treated as such by the state. I stand by my original post.

But as in most states today, even flagship schools can't get "free money" from the state legislature for athletic facilities.

 

[RUsojo]

Rutgers doesn't do anything. Complain. Rutgers might have plans soon. Complain. Rutgers releases official plans. Complain. Repeat.

 

[PaKnight]

It doesn't seem to matter where these other schools play, or what states they come from. Small conferences, like the MAC, poor states like Michigan, that have cities going bankrupt,whatever their circumstances,money gets poured into those schools, and they have world class facilities.It's depressing how long things take to get done at Rutgers, and all the while, we fall further and further behind in the arms race.It should not be only on the backs of Alumni,but I guess in a state that can't even promise retirement packages to state employees that were bargained for years ago, giving money to The State University of New Jersey, your flagship school, is out of the question. Yet despite that, Rutgers continues to rise in the ranks of world class schools across the board in academics.We sit here,with this gem of a school, and as a state, we treat it as an after thought!:angry:

Revenue not spending problem.

 

[RU-ROCS]

Why not on the backs of alumni? If it is not important enough to alumni, then why should it be important enough for the politicians and taxpayers with no connection to the university? We can't expect others to buy stuff for us that we want...if we want facilities, a culture of supporting the program financially should be developed. Somehow other places get stuff done largely off the back of their alumni, and considering how many Rutgers graduates are out there, they should be the ones footing the bill if having first class facilities and programs is important to them.

The distinction you're missing is "only" versus "largely." Many successful state Universities build their athletics programs "largely" on alumni donations, but virtually none of them do it "only" with donor money. State universities regularly get some support from their states. Thus, the name "state university." RU needs the state to kick in some real money to get things done. Hopefully, Lesniak's plan for hoops goes through.

 

[Knight_Light]

The distinction you're missing is "only" versus "largely." Many successful state Universities build their athletics programs "largely" on alumni donations, but virtually none of them do it "only" with donor money. State universities regularly get some support from their states. Thus, the name "state university." RU needs the state to kick in some real money to get things done. Hopefully, Lesniak's plan for hoops goes through.

Correct...as that is where much of the State Universities support comes from is directly from the state...however, in many states today, state public $$$ can not go toward Univ Athletic Departments...as most athletic departments today have to be self-sufficient thru alumni donations, student athletic fees, ticket sales, booster memberships, etc...let alone facilities.

Some states can offer up some $$ to cover deficits but most athletic programs can not use public state $$ to build new stadiums, new facilities, new arenas, etc...