New Director of Marketing and Fan Experience at RU .. from PSU
- Thread starter ScarletDave
- Start date
If he was so great there, what's he doing here now?
But as you say.. change is needed..
Lol okay bud. I’ll put it on this page for your lazy a$$. The students pay millions of dollars in student fees. I’d say they’re paying customers.
I'd like to see the number per student and the list of things it goes to. I suspect 99% of the fees goes to other things. Let's not be misleading and act like all the fees go to football. They don't. And even if they did. Students only show up unless the team is in the top 25. Otherwise they're nowhere to be found.
“New Brunswick students subsidized athletics, paying about $400 each in mandatory student fees that amounted to a total of $12.6 million in 2019–2020—which is more than Rutgers Athletics made from ticket sales and double total donations.”
And where the fees go is irrelevant. Both football ticket sales and student fees go to the same place… to the department to help balance its operating budget.
How about all of the other good hires, like Goodale, Brecht, O'Neill, Civico, Stringer for many years, and others are doing well too. Bad take.
Agree that they need to cleanup the team entrance. Many college and pro stadiums play a lot of music and PSU is even louder. The speaker volume is wildly inconsistent from game to game because even the temperature and wind impacts it, so it's fine some games and in certain sections. I give them a pass on the volume issues because they're limited by the sound system tech we have. You need a distributed speaker system with tons of small speakers all over the stadium so that everyone gets consistently pleasant audio, not our speaker system on the videoboard which is subject to a ton of issues trying to balance it for everyone at different distances and the weather. Here's an old but good article on stadium sound systems: https://www.athleticbusiness.com/fa...ound-systems-to-meet-stadium-audio-challenges. We probably need several million dollars just to upgrade the sound system, and we should add a new larger videoboard over the North entrance.
Goodale sure - but it's wrestling and affects a small subset of the university experience. The others - they affect so little of the university's public face I don't even know who they are. Well Stringer and that we're wasting money on her.
Further I was referring, though not clearly, to the university overall. The public face of outspoken professors (LOL-SMH), the performance of the administration in general. Not just the athletics.
But as how you took it yeah I guess you have a point.
https://finance.rutgers.edu/student-abc/tuition-fees/fee-descriptions
"The Student Fee is charged to all full-time students at the New Brunswick*, Newark and Camden campuses to support a portion, but not all, student-centered activities including: student life, student government, recreation, health services, athletics, career counselling, tutoring and other programs that are integral to a vibrant student life and to successful academic careers."
So each student is charged $400 which is applied to things like the Targum, radio station, intramural sports, student center activities, no end of a list of silly SJ crap, health services and the rest of the list from the web site above.
So basically about $1.50 from each student might be targeted for football, and about 90% of said students never bother to even go to a football game.
And where the fees go is absolutely exactly relevant to my point. Student fees are negligible for football specifically compared to paying fans who pay and donate THOUSANDS of dollars a year, by choice (unlike students who are forced and would ask for their $1.50 back if the option existed). Drive away the paying fans with a shitty (student targeted?) experience and there wouldn't be a football program, your $1.50/year not withstanding.
So yeah it's a really good idea to tailor the experience to the PAYING fans who actually ATTEND.
If it makes you feel better I'll but an extra beer at the stadium next year to match your $1.50 fee with profits from beer the sale.
Last edited:
Which directory are you looking in?
He's not in this one - https://scarletknights.com/staff-directory
He obviously has a boss who covers a wider area. I guess i could have said "TEAM" instead of 'DEPT." Doesnt mean he doesnt manage a group of people which a 'Director' usually does considering the directory shows people below his level on that team.
This is wrong. You’re completely incorrect and this is way off base. The athletic department specifically makes millions off of student fees — as do many major ADs across the country; this isn’t unique to Rutgers.
And no, it doesn’t matter where it goes because that’s not how ADs budget their operating funds.
You’re just wrong on this. I’m sorry, but you are.
He’s not on it yet, but you can clearly see the individuals within the marketing department who are this persons superiors. There are 3, one of which (Lisa) certainly covers a wider area as you suggest. Note how there’s already a director on staff, so there will be two of them. Somebody mentioned this earlier in the thread, but titles are funny in college athletics.
$400 divided by a hundred different programs times 25000 students does not equal what the athletic department makes from paying customers. I gave you research and math.
The math doesn't support your conclusion based on what RU says the fees are used for.
Last edited:
@RUScrew85 directly quoted from the linked page (linked again below), and all you come back with is "This is wrong. You're completely incorrect and way off base." ?
So, you are saying Rutgers is lying? How do you think things like tutoring, Glee Club, student government, etc. are paid for at Rutgers?
You also realize that football is self-supporting, and the portion of the student fees that goes to athletics goes to support non-revenue sports such as golf, tennis, swimming, women's rowing, etc. Are you proposing that those programs should be eliminated if the student fee is eliminated, while maintaining other student activities and programs?
"to support a portion, but not all, student-centered activities including: student life, student government, recreation, health services, athletics, career counselling, tutoring and other programs that are integral to a vibrant student life and to successful academic careers. "
Fee Descriptions | University Finance and Administration
@RUScrew85 directly quoted from the linked page (linked again below), and all you come back with is "This is wrong. You're completely incorrect and way off base." ?
So, you are saying Rutgers is lying? How do you think things like tutoring, Glee Club, student government, etc. are paid for at Rutgers?
You also realize that football is self-supporting, and the portion of the student fees that goes to athletics goes to support non-revenue sports such as golf, tennis, swimming, women's rowing, etc. Are you proposing that those programs should be eliminated if the student fee is eliminated, while maintaining other student activities and programs?
"to support a portion, but not all, student-centered activities including: student life, student government, recreation, health services, athletics, career counselling, tutoring and other programs that are integral to a vibrant student life and to successful academic careers. "
Fee Descriptions | University Finance and Administration
finance.rutgers.edu
I think we're going to need to see some math from him.
You think $400 per student is "massive?" They spend that much going out drinking on a weekend. Stop it.
Don't tell him that University of Maryland has total student fees of $977, with $199.50 specifically for athletics.
Just looked it up - Rutgers claims 66 thousand students? Yikes I though it was around 30K.
So how many of those 66K actually pay full tuition and fees? I don't know.
But for the sake of math let's say 50K. That's $20M in fees. I'm still not buying $12.6M of $20M is going to football. I'd be stunned if football was the highest priority of the school (LOL) for fees and maybe $5M, considering all of the other things listed to which fees are allocated. I just don't buy it.
Rutgers, RUTGERS, allocates more money from fees to Football then student healthcare? C'mon man.
Let's not forget the other sports, Targum, concerts, student gov, activities, tutoring, SJ crap, etc...
Just doesn't add up. And I'm not buying even 50K students paying the full boat.
I think my $1.50 per student (50K), $75K is closer to what football sees from student fees than $12.6M
But hey maybe he has the math.
ETA: 74% of Rutgers students receive some form of aid. So the pot is even smaller than 50K paying.
IIRC the vast majority of your $400 "student fee" does not go towards "varsity" sports but instead to pay for the upkeep and usage of all the campus athletic facilities which non-athletes have access to, intramural sports, etc, etc..
Yeah that's my understanding too.
Eh whatever. Bottom line is students don't go unless they're front running. Chase away the non student ticket buying fans with a crazy and uncomfortably loud experience if they want.
I got a HD TV at home and the B1G network. And it's climate controlled and dry on my couch.
Am I in the twilight zone here? It’s highly publicized how much money in student fees athletics specifically generates. There have been so many hit pieces over the years, it’s wild to me you (and the people in this thread blindly supporting you) have forgotten.
Students pay thousands in student fees yearly, not 100s (as noted here: https://admissions.rutgers.edu/costs-and-aid/tuition-fees). Of those thousands, usually about $300-$400 goes to athletics. Not a recent example, but the 2016 figure is here: https://amp.mycentraljersey.com/amp/83552374
For example: “In 2017, the department reported an operating deficit of $2.3 million while getting $11.8 million in student fees, in addition to the $21.3 million in direct institutional support.”
Rutgers $15.2 million subsidy to athletics one of highest in Power 5
The Rutgers subsidy remained high for 2018, but it's $6 million less than previous year
amp.app.com
Do you know what $11.8 is greater than? The total football ticket revenue generated from Rutgers football. THAT’S the number that’s “massive.” All of this revenue goes towards the athletic department… directly to football and outside of it.
Regardless of how wrong you are about this, the suggestion that this marketing director shouldn’t focus on students is laughable and short-sighted and not surprising coming from an old man (I’m assuming).
You’re wrong about the composition of this fees (like RU Screw is), but if you actually read what I said you’ll see that I explicitly noted that these fees are commonplace at big time athletic departments… this isn’t unique to Rutgers.Don't tell him that University of Maryland has total student fees of $977, with $199.50 specifically for athletics.
Somehow my comments are being taken by people like you as attacks on Rutgers Athletics, when in reality they are simply noting that the athletic department staff (because of revenue and tons of other reasons) can’t ignore the student fan experience.
And to more clearly illustrate how wrong you are about the student fees, take a look here: https://finance.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2021-07/2021-2022 NB Undergraduate Schools.pdf
You’re confusing the athletics-specific fee total (~$400) with the total fee, which you’ll see if you take a look at the link above.
Is it time for you to just admit you’re wrong about the fees yet? Do you think we’ll ever get there?
Last edited:
Am I in the twilight zone here? It’s highly publicized how much money in student fees athletics specifically generates. There have been so many hit pieces over the years, it’s wild to me you (and the people in this thread blindly supporting you) have forgotten.
Students pay thousands in student fees yearly, not 100s (as noted here: https://admissions.rutgers.edu/costs-and-aid/tuition-fees). Of those thousands, usually about $300-$400 goes to athletics. Not a recent example, but the 2016 figure is here: https://amp.mycentraljersey.com/amp/83552374
For example: “In 2017, the department reported an operating deficit of $2.3 million while getting $11.8 million in student fees, in addition to the $21.3 million in direct institutional support.”
Rutgers $15.2 million subsidy to athletics one of highest in Power 5
The Rutgers subsidy remained high for 2018, but it's $6 million less than previous yearamp.app.com
Do you know what $11.8 is greater than? The total football ticket revenue generated from Rutgers football. THAT’S the number that’s “massive.” All of this revenue goes towards the athletic department… directly to football and outside of it.
Regardless of how wrong you are about this, the suggestion that this marketing director shouldn’t focus on students is laughable and short-sighted and not surprising coming from an old man (I’m assuming).
Aww did you learn to be agist during your recent indoctrination at "school"?
Why would a marketing director have to market to a set of the population (The Students) that have specifically chose to already SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT by paying tuition to go to school there? Seems tp me marketing to the general public to INCREASE their market share would be a better use of their marketing resources.
But hey, you're young and know everything.
Last edited:
Wait - YOU said the fees were $400. I was quoting you.
If there is confusion it's because YOU were unclear in your original post mentioning $400.
I see now with your clarification that it could be read that way the way you are now positioning it but myself and others were confused by the way you originally presented the number. That's on you sweetie.
Us old folks like to converse with clarity, maybe you will too when you grow up.
Last edited:
Here's another question. Does RU support Sports/FB with additional money other than student fees or is "Student Fees" just a accounting term for non education/tuition/housing costs to enrollees?
Because if that is the full athletic subsidy and it's from the "Student Fees" account, the position that the students are being especially put out to support the athletic department falls apart. That is unless our student friend believe the football team is supported by magic and not income generated from enrolling students who pay "Student Fees" to make accounting clearer - bud are just part of the required tuition.
Because if that is the full athletic subsidy and it's from the "Student Fees" account, the position that the students are being especially put out to support the athletic department falls apart. That is unless our student friend believe the football team is supported by magic and not income generated from enrolling students who pay "Student Fees" to make accounting clearer - bud are just part of the required tuition.
Oh good, we’re making progress. You’re admitting you’re wrong… albeit you’re blaming me for your misunderstanding lol. I’ll take it.
Go back and read the sentence again and I think you’ll start to understand how poor your comprehension is. It explains that students subsidize athletics by contributing $400 in student fees to it. The entire quote, as well as the article you noted you checked out, was discussing athletics. How you took that and somehow framed your whole argument around the fact that $400 was the total student fee number all students pay between all campus services is on you, whether you want to project that blame on me or not lol.
Further, the very link you provided as support for your incorrect argument included the total student fee number on it ($3,268+). That should have been a signal for you right there that perhaps you were way off base…
Yeah, I’m not a student. Haven’t been for 15 years. But here’s how it works (I’ll keep the numbers simple due to your demonstrated lack of comprehension):
Athletic department X has an operating budget of $55M. To support those operations, it uses the following revenue streams: $10M in ticket revenue. $18M in conference TV payout revenue. $12M in student fee revenue. $10M in sponsorship revenue. $5M in Licensing/concessions/etc. revenue.
Because every single year across the country student governments challenge the fact that they have to pay athletic student fees. “Why should we have to pay a student fee to athletics if most of us don’t go to games? It’s not the same as a library fee, which we all use and supports the core mission of the university.” — That’s the argument… obviously not one I agree with as a lifetime Rutgers fan who wants them to succeed in everything they do.
One way athletic departments can combat that is to at minimum provide a good experience to the ones that do go… build some good will, invest resources in the student experience, etc.
And on a more fundamental level, the students make the atmosphere better for people like us… at MBB, at FB, at every sport… if there’s a raucous student crowd it makes it more fun for everybody. Not to mention I assure you, considering all of the personal, public appeals to students from Schiano on social media, etc., he cares about them being there.
No matter what… we’re spinning our tires here… you said students aren’t paying customers, I challenged that statement, and this devolved into a student fee discussion that ultimately we’ve discovered you don’t quite understand. But this conversation it all rooted in disagreement about what this new director should be focusing on. You say ignore students, I say that’s a bad idea. Agree to disagree. Can we just leave it at that?
See there ya go ya condescending prick. Assuming these numbers are accurate and just because the school calls its direct support of the football team "Student Fees" makes you think the students deserve some kind of special attention. It's the school's direct support of the program. They pay it because they want a football team - regardless of what they call it on the bill.
It's part of the tuition required to attend. Just happens RU labels it Student Fees on the bill. They don't pay it optionally or above the required tuition. It's a accounting point. So why should grant that students, 90% of which don't attend anyway, any special right to be catered to with the gameday experience especially if it drives away the paying fan?
1. They don't attend the game.
2. They don't spend money there.
3. The financial support you cite is just Rutgers' support of the program.
4. If you take the $10M in ticket rev + plus the concession/parking/licensing revenue plus donations to the program I'm pretty sure the "Student Fees" you're so hung up on are actually lower than the contribution of the attendees of the game.
So yeah I think the stadium should pay attention to the interests in the game day experience from the actual ticket buying public because without them the program would be wildly unsuccessful and played in an empty stadium which is exactly what they don't want.
WHICH WAS THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
Oh and if they drive away ticket purchasing fans... your precious "Student Fees" will go up.
Ss yeah you won the point about your misleading $400 student fee quote - the number paid by the school for the FB team it wants is much higher than my math indicated. The term student fees is misleading you.
However, the thread is about the gameday experience and your point IIRC was that students, who lightly attend, should be the driving factor. You cite student fees which according to your later post is just Rutgers support of the FB program. So your point becomes sillier. Then you split hairs between $10M+ other money spent by ticket buyers vs. $12M, and after a closer look might actually undermine your point of Student Fees being larger than ticketholder revenue (after parking, concessions and donations are added in).
Further no one here is saying we want Lawrence Welk played at the stadium - just some moderation in the deafening night club gameday experience.
So declare your shitty victory anywhere you want here. My final response is above you tedious jackass.
hired by or extensions? ...Brecht was hired by Prunetti in 2011...Goodale by Mulcahy in 2007...Stringer was not hired by but extended by Hobbs..and that extension is not looking to favorable
