ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Fiscal year 2023 audited financial statements for Rutgers athletics

Your position is that Rutgers University should not spend any money on intercollegiate athletics at all. That would make Rutgers the only NJ college or university that does not spend any money on intercollegiate athletics.

Having a position that Rutgers University shouldn't ensure collegiate athletic opportunities for athletes is bold.

Maybe we're looking the OP wrong.
He actually wants to cut all non-revenue sports and funnel all money to Football/Basketball? Since those are the only sports living even close to their means.
 
Your position is that Rutgers University should not spend any money on intercollegiate athletics at all. That would make Rutgers the only NJ college or university that does not spend any money on intercollegiate athletics.
Rutgers University shouldn't fund athletics? Okay. Thats a bold proposal.

Should the Athletic DDepartment feel free to cut non-revenue sports to "live within its means"?
It only makes sense to prioritize revenue generating activities and deprioritize non-revenue activities.
Having a position that Rutgers University shouldn't ensure collegiate athletic opportunities for athletes is bold.

Maybe we're looking the OP wrong.
He actually wants to cut all non-revenue sports and funnel all money to Football/Basketball? Since those are the only sports living even close to their means.

Rutgers should not rank 107 out of 107 on athletic department operating deficit. That is my point.

Hobbs must do better. Rutgers is soaking students, their families, and NJ taxpayers like no university in the history of the world to fund athletics, especially football coach paychecks.
 
Rutgers should not rank 107 out of 107 on athletic department operating deficit. That is my point.

Hobbs must do better. Rutgers is soaking students, their families, and NJ taxpayers like no university in the history of the world to fund athletics, especially football coach paychecks.

Why not?
"Rutgers University cares about providing athletic opportunities to students and spends the most to fund collegiate athletics for their students"
Why is that a bad thing?

Ok. How much is acceptable to fund the 27 varsity sports from Rutgers University?
Is $700k to much to spend on non-revenue Baseball travel?
Just say that you want Rutgers University to stop funding so many non-revenue sports because that's the logical conclusion to your line of reasoning.
 
Rutgers should not rank 107 out of 107 on athletic department operating deficit. That is my point.

Hobbs must do better. Rutgers is soaking students, their families, and NJ taxpayers like no university in the history of the world to fund athletics, especially football coach paychecks.
.....do you know the ranking of big10 coaches salaries? the link below does not reflect recent increases of coaches but schiano's pay current pay is not outrageous....

https://nittanylionswire.usatoday.com/lists/big-ten-football-coaching-salaries-ranked-for-2023/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
Rutgers should not rank 107 out of 107 on athletic department operating deficit. That is my point.

Hobbs must do better. Rutgers is soaking students, their families, and NJ taxpayers like no university in the history of the world to fund athletics, especially football coach paychecks.
Is the football program not self sustaining? You're suggesting that they pay the football coaches less to help cover the losses from other programs? Then when we get our asses kicked revenues go down more driving deficit higher?

There's a difference between accounting math and reality.

"We're fishing in the bay today" said the party boat captain. "We don't have enough passengers on board to pay the gas to get to the ocean. Please disregard that other full boat heading out. We look forward to serving you on our next trip". LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimpeg
Rutgers should not rank 107 out of 107 on athletic department operating deficit. That is my point.

Hobbs must do better. Rutgers is soaking students, their families, and NJ taxpayers like no university in the history of the world to fund athletics, especially football coach paychecks.
It’s well-known that Rutgers had been under funding athletics for a long time, despite competing in the big east, and that it had the biggest transition to make, which was exacerbated by going to the Big Ten. It’s all very predictable and there’s no mystery. It appears that, at a minimum, UCLA, as it transitions into the Big Ten, will be spending more than Rutgers on athletics next year.

Look, it’s fine for you to think that athletics is not worth the money. But it’s not cool to keep coming here with misleading half truths and cherry picked stats to support your opinion.
 
Having a position that Rutgers University shouldn't ensure collegiate athletic opportunities for athletes is bold.

Maybe we're looking the OP wrong.
He actually wants to cut all non-revenue sports and funnel all money to Football/Basketball? Since those are the only sports living even close to their means.
Yes, let’s pass a law that says Rutgers is the only college in New Jersey not allowed to spend money on intercollegiate athletics.

While We’re being stupid, let’s also pass law that says colleges can only spend money on athletics if nobody cares about those athletics. But if it’s wildly popular, and on TV, then you can’t spend any money.
 
It’s well-known that Rutgers had been under funding athletics for a long time, despite competing in the big east, and that it had the biggest transition to make, which was exacerbated by going to the Big Ten. It’s all very predictable and there’s no mystery. It appears that, at a minimum, UCLA, as it transitions into the Big Ten, will be spending more than Rutgers on athletics next year.

Look, it’s fine for you to think that athletics is not worth the money. But it’s not cool to keep coming here with misleading half truths and cherry picked stats to support your opinion.
Here's a truth that some people refuse to see
Budget Address to University Senate | Rutgers University
Jonathan Holloway
President, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
February 18, 2022


>Only 2 percent of major college athletics programs run in the black, and not many more than that break even. The better way to think about athletics is that it represents a commitment by the university that helps tell a compelling story about this institution—one that will inspire applicants, alumni, and friends to learn more about we have to offer as a university in 2022. In this regard, the story-telling capability of athletics far outstrips any other thing that we do at Rutgers. Some of you may not like to hear it, but this is just honest talk. Despite the brilliance of our faculty, the importance of our impressive research breakthroughs, and the many talents of our students outside of athletics, there are no other activities at the university that can summon tens of thousands of people together in person to support Rutgers, not to mention the millions more who will follow us on television or online. What deepens my support for athletics at Rutgers is that we have coaches who are strongly committed to integrity and to seeing their players graduate. I take great pride in the fact that we have one of the top-performing athletic programs in the country in terms of academic performance. I hope you share in that pride<

https://www.rutgers.edu/president/budget-address-university-senate
 
I've repeatedly corrected people that said we had a delayed "Big Ten Conference buy in" which isn't true. We were paying for an equity stake in the Big Ten Network corporation (we've been a full member since the beginning and receiving a full share since the beginning - however part of the share was allocated towards that equity stake purchase).

Interesting, never heard it quite put that way.
 
Here's the key takeaway from this thread: when someone claims to have read financial disclosure documents, its completely unrelated to their ability to (a) understand the content, or (b) make sound logical arguments.

Word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scarlet Shack
Here's a truth that some people refuse to see
Budget Address to University Senate | Rutgers University
Jonathan Holloway
President, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
February 18, 2022


>Only 2 percent of major college athletics programs run in the black, and not many more than that break even. The better way to think about athletics is that it represents a commitment by the university that helps tell a compelling story about this institution—one that will inspire applicants, alumni, and friends to learn more about we have to offer as a university in 2022. In this regard, the story-telling capability of athletics far outstrips any other thing that we do at Rutgers. Some of you may not like to hear it, but this is just honest talk. Despite the brilliance of our faculty, the importance of our impressive research breakthroughs, and the many talents of our students outside of athletics, there are no other activities at the university that can summon tens of thousands of people together in person to support Rutgers, not to mention the millions more who will follow us on television or online. What deepens my support for athletics at Rutgers is that we have coaches who are strongly committed to integrity and to seeing their players graduate. I take great pride in the fact that we have one of the top-performing athletic programs in the country in terms of academic performance. I hope you share in that pride<

https://www.rutgers.edu/president/budget-address-university-senate
Jon did not include the fact that all B1G programs run in the black, except Rutgers and Maryland.

In addition, Jon made this statement before the B1G announced its new media deal, worth $7 billion according to ESPN and more than $8 billion according to The Athletic.

Still, Jon was brave to discuss honestly the athletic budget in his budget address.
 
I am looking forward to the next FOIA audit of actual Rutgers football attendance figures vs. the b.s. numbers released by the athletic department. That is going to be a fun read.
 
Jon did not include the fact that all B1G programs run in the black, except Rutgers and Maryland.

In addition, Jon made this statement before the B1G announced its new media deal, worth $7 billion according to ESPN and more than $8 billion according to The Athletic.

Still, Jon was brave to discuss honestly the athletic budget in his budget address.

So 12 of 14 Big Ten schools "run in the black" and receive zero University funding?
Interesting.
How do those schools do that? We should do that then I guess.
I mean - they all pay their football coach more than Rutgers has been paid though.
So clearly a lower football coach salary isn't the magic bullet.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...tball-coach-2023-salary-rankings/71045755007/

What is their football/basketball budgets?
What is their non-revenue sport budgets?

Is it possible they don't spend as much on non-revenue sports?
Oh thats right. We can't possibly quantify how much "non-revenue sports" as losing because it's "difficult" to spread out the revenues and costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRU2RU
So 12 of 14 Big Ten schools "run in the black" and receive zero University funding?
Interesting.
How do those schools do that? We should do that then I guess.
I mean - they all pay their football coach more than Rutgers has been paid though.
So clearly a lower football coach salary isn't the magic bullet.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...tball-coach-2023-salary-rankings/71045755007/

What is their football/basketball budgets?
What is their non-revenue sport budgets?

Is it possible they don't spend as much on non-revenue sports?
Oh thats right. We can't possibly quantify how much "non-revenue sports" as losing because it's "difficult" to spread out the revenues and costs.
Fiscal 2022 athletic department operating expenses

Football

Illinois $29,035,739
Indiana $31,835,580
Iowa $49,396,133
Maryland $30,801,233
Michigan $52,408,535
Michigan State $51,227,199
Minnesota $40,749,035
Nebraska $35,006,033
Ohio State $69,127,911
Penn State $57,627,338
Purdue $24,857,827
Rutgers $43,644,477 (6 of 13)
Wisconsin $39,255,866

Basketball
Illinois $13,195,872
Indiana $15,994,596
Iowa $10,277,054
Maryland $16,352,454
Michigan $10,733,046
Michigan State $17,887,479
Minnesota $8,113,503
Nebraska $10,715,451
Ohio State $12,121,000
Penn State $8,295,784
Purdue $8,821,891
Rutgers $10,544,732 (7 of 13)
Wisconsin $8,849,874

Other sports plus amounts not allocated to a specific sport
Illinois $86,887,636
Indiana $84,562,420
Iowa $91,471,674
Maryland $67,231,775
Michigan $130,417,794
Michigan State $87,335,117
Minnesota $81,422,925
Nebraska $85,460,467
Ohio State $144,484,507
Penn State $104,618,928
Purdue $59,346,092
Rutgers $84,249,868 (10 of 13)
Wisconsin $99,701,443

Total
Illinois $129,119,247
Indiana $132,392,596
Iowa $151,144,861
Maryland $114,385,462
Michigan $193,559,375
Michigan State $156,449,795
Minnesota $130,285,463
Nebraska $131,181,951
Ohio State $225,733,418
Penn State $170,542,050
Purdue $93,025,810
Rutgers $138,439,077 (7 of 13)
Wisconsin $147,807,183

Source: NCAA filings
Note: Northwestern data not available
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegock
Interesting that a certain someone has chimed in under its latest new name to grind his personal axe about reported attendance numbers.

So 12 of 14 Big Ten schools "run in the black" and receive zero University funding?
Interesting.
How do those schools do that? We should do that then I guess.

On a side note, doesn't Rutgers do accounting differently from most of our peers? I seemed to recall we include certain items that most schools don't
 
Interesting that a certain someone has chimed in under its latest new name to grind his personal axe about reported attendance numbers.



On a side note, doesn't Rutgers do accounting differently from most of our peers? I seemed to recall we include certain items that most schools don't
NCAA Bylaw 20.2.4.17.1 requires division one universities to submit a annual athletics department financial report audited by an independent accountant and certified by the university president or chancellor.

Here are the accounting procedures division one universities follow.


Have athletics departments violated these procedures in the past? Yes. Rutgers was one of the worst offenders. Today, financial reporting across athletics departments is as consistent and comparable as it has ever been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RULegacy
Fiscal 2022 athletic department operating expenses

Football

Illinois $29,035,739
Indiana $31,835,580
Iowa $49,396,133
Maryland $30,801,233
Michigan $52,408,535
Michigan State $51,227,199
Minnesota $40,749,035
Nebraska $35,006,033
Ohio State $69,127,911
Penn State $57,627,338
Purdue $24,857,827
Rutgers $43,644,477 (6 of 13)
Wisconsin $39,255,866

Basketball
Illinois $13,195,872
Indiana $15,994,596
Iowa $10,277,054
Maryland $16,352,454
Michigan $10,733,046
Michigan State $17,887,479
Minnesota $8,113,503
Nebraska $10,715,451
Ohio State $12,121,000
Penn State $8,295,784
Purdue $8,821,891
Rutgers $10,544,732 (7 of 13)
Wisconsin $8,849,874

Other sports plus amounts not allocated to a specific sport
Illinois $86,887,636
Indiana $84,562,420
Iowa $91,471,674
Maryland $67,231,775
Michigan $130,417,794
Michigan State $87,335,117
Minnesota $81,422,925
Nebraska $85,460,467
Ohio State $144,484,507
Penn State $104,618,928
Purdue $59,346,092
Rutgers $84,249,868 (10 of 13)
Wisconsin $99,701,443

Total
Illinois $129,119,247
Indiana $132,392,596
Iowa $151,144,861
Maryland $114,385,462
Michigan $193,559,375
Michigan State $156,449,795
Minnesota $130,285,463
Nebraska $131,181,951
Ohio State $225,733,418
Penn State $170,542,050
Purdue $93,025,810
Rutgers $138,439,077 (7 of 13)
Wisconsin $147,807,183

Source: NCAA filings
Note: Northwestern data not available
can you show us a breakdown of Rutgers's "operating expenses" ? I'd love to see the elements driving this number.

The average across the 13 programs is $147mm so we're 6% below that. To me that's not an expense issue but an income one.

How much was our loan payback last fiscal year? Take that from the -$28mm and that's how close we are to break even (IF we want to be there which I am not sure we do or should given the lack of historical investment).
 
So if we cut other sports by $25 million to match Purdue other sports then we are very close to the black. The stadium cost are probably handled and reflected differently than Rutgers considering our coaches salaries are lower than most B10 schools. The loan is also a big difference.
 
can you show us a breakdown of Rutgers's "operating expenses" ? I'd love to see the elements driving this number.

The average across the 13 programs is $147mm so we're 6% below that. To me that's not an expense issue but an income one.

How much was our loan payback last fiscal year? Take that from the -$28mm and that's how close we are to break even (IF we want to be there which I am not sure we do or should given the lack of historical investment).
The NCAA financial statement contains 88 pages of figures. I'm not going to retype hundreds of operating expense line items here.

The NCAA financial statement does not contain details for individual loans.

Rutgers paid $11,212,834 in athletics facilities debt service last year, according to the NCAA financial statement. The largest component is the debt service on the football stadium expansion. These figures are not included in the NCAA financial statement. I got the numbers from the bond prospectus. Debt service on the 2009 bonds used to fund the football stadium project was $5,234,007 in calendar 2021 and $5,293,045 is calendar 2022.


The debt service on the loans used to finance the Rodkin and RWJ Barnabas buildings makes up most of the remainder of the athletics facilities debt service.

The repayment of the money given to Rutgers by the B1G is counted by reducing the amount of conference distributions, not as debt service. Rutgers does not disclose the amount of this reduction however figures I have seen suggest it is about $10 million per year through 2026.

Debt service on the $100 million or so in loans Rutgers athletics received from the university's internal bank is not included in the NCAA financial statement. Probably because the university doesn't bother to collect interest or pursue repayment.
 
The NCAA financial statement contains 88 pages of figures. I'm not going to retype hundreds of operating expense line items here.

The NCAA financial statement does not contain details for individual loans.

Rutgers paid $11,212,834 in athletics facilities debt service last year, according to the NCAA financial statement. The largest component is the debt service on the football stadium expansion. These figures are not included in the NCAA financial statement. I got the numbers from the bond prospectus. Debt service on the 2009 bonds used to fund the football stadium project was $5,234,007 in calendar 2021 and $5,293,045 is calendar 2022.


The debt service on the loans used to finance the Rodkin and RWJ Barnabas buildings makes up most of the remainder of the athletics facilities debt service.

The repayment of the money given to Rutgers by the B1G is counted by reducing the amount of conference distributions, not as debt service. Rutgers does not disclose the amount of this reduction however figures I have seen suggest it is about $10 million per year through 2026.

Debt service on the $100 million or so in loans Rutgers athletics received from the university's internal bank is not included in the NCAA financial statement. Probably because the university doesn't bother to collect interest or pursue repayment.
you spent more time on your reply then what I was really asking for in the original ask lol. I figured you had some summary data. I would never ask you to go into THAT much detail lol.
 
All these reports with huge deficits "when you remove institutional support" miss the story.

The university is SUPPOSED to be supporting athletics.

Who else is supposed to support all the non-revenue sports if not the University?
According to who? I think the vast majority of the population would disagree with you. If the music department was losing millions of dollars a year while paying the band director $3 million a year do you think people would just accept the university is SUPPOSED to be supporting music? Would you be ok with raising tuition so the band can have three sets of uniforms? Would you be ok with cutting funds to the health science programs so the music department can hire a new flute teacher for $1 million a year salary? Would you not question the music department spending if the two highest university employees were the Marching Band Director and band front coach at the same time they cutting faculty positions?
 
According to who? I think the vast majority of the population would disagree with you. If the music department was losing millions of dollars a year while paying the band director $3 million a year do you think people would just accept the university is SUPPOSED to be supporting music? Would you be ok with raising tuition so the band can have three sets of uniforms? Would you be ok with cutting funds to the health science programs so the music department can hire a new flute teacher for $1 million a year salary? Would you not question the music department spending if the two highest university employees were the Marching Band Director and band front coach at the same time they cutting faculty positions?
If flute playing was the most popular thing in the country, and the quality of the flute players drove up applications and selectivity of the university, and hundreds of thousands came out to watch the flute team, and if because of all these reasons there was intense demand for flute teachers and other flute teachers made 1 mil, then it would be expected that we would do that also.
 
According to who? I think the vast majority of the population would disagree with you. If the music department was losing millions of dollars a year while paying the band director $3 million a year do you think people would just accept the university is SUPPOSED to be supporting music? Would you be ok with raising tuition so the band can have three sets of uniforms? Would you be ok with cutting funds to the health science programs so the music department can hire a new flute teacher for $1 million a year salary? Would you not question the music department spending if the two highest university employees were the Marching Band Director and band front coach at the same time they cutting faculty positions?
When it comes to a University running a deficit
Rutgers isn't alone.
>In 2023 : Administrators at Penn State University have acknowledged that its general funds budget has a deficit of $140 million. In a memo sent to campus leaders in February, President Neeli Bendapudi admitted that while the university was “not in a financial crisis,” it was “in a vulnerable state.”

In a budget address to the university community in February, Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway indicated that the institution would need to take steps to eliminate a $125 million budget deficit over the next three years.

Officials at the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota recently announced that tuition revenue is projected to come in at $17.3 million less than what they had expected. That revelation came as part of a biennial request for a $1.7 billion appropriation from the state, about $302 million more than its current allocation.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln indicated in February that it was facing a new $13 million shortfall in its current budget, caused largely by decreasing enrollment.<

Following your way of thinking, maybe Universities not making a profit should be closed.
Or football, band and other extra curricular activities tied to the school should be eliminated because of the school's financial situation .
Make the school just about education and everything else eliminated so the school can show a profit and pride in your school can be expressed by telling everyone how much profit the school is making by just serving academic needs and nothing else , unless it turns a profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickRU714
If flute playing was the most popular thing in the country, and the quality of the flute players drove up applications and selectivity of the university, and hundreds of thousands came out to watch the flute team, and if because of all these reasons there was intense demand for flute teachers and other flute teachers made 1 mil, then it would be expected that we would do that also.
Those BS excuses have proven wrong time and time again. Yes school do tend to have a small bump when winning things like the national championship but those are very minor compared to other influences on applications. They certainly do not match the amount of funding spent on college athletics.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to a University running a deficit
Rutgers isn't alone.
>In 2023 : Administrators at Penn State University have acknowledged that its general funds budget has a deficit of $140 million. In a memo sent to campus leaders in February, President Neeli Bendapudi admitted that while the university was “not in a financial crisis,” it was “in a vulnerable state.”

In a budget address to the university community in February, Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway indicated that the institution would need to take steps to eliminate a $125 million budget deficit over the next three years.

Officials at the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota recently announced that tuition revenue is projected to come in at $17.3 million less than what they had expected. That revelation came as part of a biennial request for a $1.7 billion appropriation from the state, about $302 million more than its current allocation.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln indicated in February that it was facing a new $13 million shortfall in its current budget, caused largely by decreasing enrollment.<

Following your way of thinking, maybe Universities not making a profit should be closed.
Or football, band and other extra curricular activities tied to the school should be eliminated because of the school's financial situation .
Make the school just about education and everything else eliminated so the school can show a profit and pride in your school can be expressed by telling everyone how much profit the school is making by just serving academic needs and nothing else , unless it turns a profit.
Who said they should be closed? My point is that spending should be better controlled. If schools are running deficits they should make cuts. Penn State is a perfect example of deficit due to outrageous spending. They should not be building an $85 million art museum while facing a $140 deficit. The new president should have canned this project on day 1. There are many other projects, admin salaries and staffing that should be cut.

Following the original post logic would be me arguing hey the state should cover the deficit. That what they are supposed to do. They university shouldn't look at cutting spending or salaries, they should just have the government bail them out like the poster suggest the university do with the athletic department deficit.

I am not saying athletic departments should shut down but they need to look at spending. I mean does any coach need to be making millions?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
Those BS excuses have proven wrong time and time again. Yes school do tend to have a small bump when winning things like the national championship but those are very minor compared to other influences on applications. They certainly do not match the amount of funding spent on college athletics.
I believe this was put out in 2018 going by the works sited section that had this (Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2018). The national collegiate athletic association
cartel: Why it exists, how it works, and what it does. Review of Industrial Organization.)
Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 185–209)

>In 1984 Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie threw a Hail-Mary touchdown pass against

the University of Miami, giving Boston College an unexpected upset victory. In the two years

following this win, applications to Boston College increased by 30 percent<

https://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1905.pdf

Looks like your just stating your opinion, not a fact.
 
Who said they should be closed? My point is that spending should be better controlled. If schools are running deficits they should make cuts. Penn State is a perfect example of deficit due to outrageous spending. They should not be building an $85 million art museum while facing a $140 deficit. The new president should have canned this project on day 1. There are many other projects, admin salaries and staffing that should be cut.

Following the original post logic would be me arguing hey the state should cover the deficit. That what they are supposed to do. They university shouldn't look at cutting spending or salaries, they should just have the government bail them out like the poster suggest the university do with the athletic department deficit.
Maybe your Penn State should move this $386 million to the general funds.
Sports programs are a vital part of pride in one’s school and having the public gain intreat in a University .
Face it, a University might have a Noble Prize winner on it’s faculty, but it’s a winning coach that is more well known and brings the most recognition to the University

College sports top donors: Ranking the most generous athletics boosters
25. Penn State Nittany Lions: $386 million

https://247sports.com/longformartic...enerous-athletics-boosters-214986422/#2225305

Many people care about a University's sports program and show that affection with their wallets.
That type of thing comes from being proud of that sports program and giving one pride in the school they went to.
Go to Alabama, they might not know the name of Bama's president, but you can bet your sweet bippy they know of Bear Bryant and Nick Saban .
Athletes are part of the reason most people know something about Universities located in another state and probably in their state as well
 
All these reports with huge deficits "when you remove institutional support" miss the story.

The university is SUPPOSED to be supporting athletics.

Who else is supposed to support all the non-revenue sports if not the University?
Thank you

I have said this for 30 years
 
I can only judge you by the things you post here.
Presenting the numbers as deficits is is a victory for opponents of college athletics right off the bat due to the framing. Other things that “cost money” at colleges are not presented as deficits. We don’t talk about the grounds and maintenance department as running a deficit. Having manicured grounds on campus is something that costs money and that we pay for because we like it. If you told me that the athletics department at Rutgers, all of it, cost $28 million, I’d say that sounds right, and that we got good value for it.

I wonder how big a deficit there is in the athletics department at Stockton or TCNJ? 10 mil? (In Edit: the figure is about 4mil at Stockton and they don't even have football even at DIII)

So it’s OK for Stockton to run a multimillion dollar deficit for it it’s athletics department that nobody cares about, but it’s scandalous for Rutgers to run a multi million dollar deficit when millions of people follow them.
Any idea on how much a Grouo 3 and group 4 high school athletic program costs to run in New Jersey ??? and how much the local school board funds?

This is why what we spend on athetics and the deficit …is just a bullshit argument for those against college athletics
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eagleton96
Who said they should be closed? My point is that spending should be better controlled. If schools are running deficits they should make cuts. Penn State is a perfect example of deficit due to outrageous spending. They should not be building an $85 million art museum while facing a $140 deficit. The new president should have canned this project on day 1. There are many other projects, admin salaries and staffing that should be cut.

Following the original post logic would be me arguing hey the state should cover the deficit. That what they are supposed to do. They university shouldn't look at cutting spending or salaries, they should just have the government bail them out like the poster suggest the university do with the athletic department deficit.

I am not saying athletic departments should shut down but they need to look at spending. I mean does any coach need to be making millions?
Do PSU donors fund the salaries of Franklin, the coordinators and some of the coaches? Just wondering.

Agree with you on the exorbitant cost of the art museum.

You know what also needs to be cut? The bloated number of deans and assistant deans that seem to have grown like a plague on campuses. To many of them not really serving a useful function.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Koko
Maybe your Penn State should move this $386 million to the general funds.
Sports programs are a vital part of pride in one’s school and having the public gain intreat in a University .
Face it, a University might have a Noble Prize winner on it’s faculty, but it’s a winning coach that is more well known and brings the most recognition to the University

College sports top donors: Ranking the most generous athletics boosters
25. Penn State Nittany Lions: $386 million

https://247sports.com/longformartic...enerous-athletics-boosters-214986422/#2225305

Many people care about a University's sports program and show that affection with their wallets.
That type of thing comes from being proud of that sports program and giving one pride in the school they went to.
Go to Alabama, they might not know the name of Bama's president, but you can bet your sweet bippy they know of Bear Bryant and Nick Saban .
Athletes are part of the reason most people know something about Universities located in another state and probably in their state as well

Rutgers spends 3% of its $5.4 BILLION budget on Athletics. Approx $162m.

This likely means all athletics (club, intramural, varsity) and not just HC Schiano's salary that everyone gets up in arms over.

So they spend 28m (the scary "deficit") of the 162m on varsity sports at NB.
Approx 17%.

Seems like the NB Varsity Sport allowance is a pretty good ROI.

https://www.rutgers.edu/about/budget-facts#:~:text=Rutgers' budget reflects our priorities,the 2023-2024 academic year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdh2003
Now take that deficit, ratio it by the actual funding that comes from NJ (i.e. "the taxpayers") which is only 21.4%

"The taxpayers" are on the hook for less than $6m.
In a state with over 9.2m residents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdh2003
Now take that deficit, ratio it by the actual funding that comes from NJ (i.e. "the taxpayers") which is only 21.4%

"The taxpayers" are on the hook for less than $6m.
In a state with over 9.2m residents.
You forgot the debt the taxpayers are forced to pay. New Jersey taxpayers paid $11,212,834 in Rutgers athletics facilities debt service last year, according to the NCAA financial statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RULegacy
If flute playing was the most popular thing in the country, and the quality of the flute players drove up applications and selectivity of the university, and hundreds of thousands came out to watch the flute team, and if because of all these reasons there was intense demand for flute teachers and other flute teachers made 1 mil, then it would be expected that we would do that also.
And people could debate that all day and night, ironically, on the Rutgers flute playing message board
 
I believe this was put out in 2018 going by the works sited section that had this (Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2018). The national collegiate athletic association
cartel: Why it exists, how it works, and what it does. Review of Industrial Organization.)
Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 185–209)

>In 1984 Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie threw a Hail-Mary touchdown pass against

the University of Miami, giving Boston College an unexpected upset victory. In the two years

following this win, applications to Boston College increased by 30 percent<

https://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1905.pdf

Looks like your just stating your opinion, not a fact.

In a rare situation, I am going to come out in support of my Penn State friends comments in general.

Sports budgets are increasing significantly more than most schools can fund them without running a significant yearly loss.

Penn State like Pitt (State Related University) has faced decreased funding support (per student) from our State over the last 50 years or more. In 2023 Penn State received about $288 million and Pitt about $166 million (Don't know what NJ gives Rutgers). Look at actual state funding in comparison to some sports budgets.

Pa. school tuitions are higher than most other state schools because of PA low state funding (per student) for the state related Universities. Penn State has to also support about 20 or more branch campuses and with decreases in students attending college this will become more problematic in the future with limited state funding increases (Wonder what the state rep in the districts will say if Penn State decides they will have to close some branches due to lack of funding).

Pa gives a finite amount of funding to the state related schools saying live within your means.

West Virginia University actually cut a number of academic programs (due to decreased funding and decreasing student body) resulting in protests.

You referenced that BC had a 30% increase in applicants but that did not result in a 30% increase in student body so the financial impact was minimal.

I support Pitt sports to the extent that I purchase season tickets.

I am more interested in contributing to Pitt's Endowment and Research Projects.

The University of Pittsburgh brings in about $1.0 Billion per year in sponsored Research (significantly higher than sports generated income) and has an endowment of about $ 5.5 Billion.

College sports (are/were) fun but not sure where it is headed in the are of semi-pro teams.

At one point the NCAA passed a rule limiting a school to 85 ship players to make it more fair for schools to compete. In this era of NIL and increasing coaching salaries college sports has changed and will continue to due so.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Koko
don't care about any perceived deficit in Rutgers books as this state wastes so much money on foolish and utterly nonsensical endeavors all the time. Football supports higher education and higher education is a needed body now more than ever

anyone who touches money at RU, anyone who does not give more to RU doesn't get my vote. simple as that
 
In a rare situation, I am going to come out in support of my Penn State friends comments in general.

Sports budgets are increasing significantly more than most schools can fund them without running a significant yearly loss.

Penn State like Pitt (State Related University) has faced decreased funding support (per student) from our State over the last 50 years or more. In 2023 Penn State received about $288 million and Pitt about $166 million (Don't know what NJ gives Rutgers). Look at actual state funding in comparison to some sports budgets.

Pa. school tuitions are higher than most other state schools because of PA low state funding (per student) for the state related Universities. Penn State has to also support about 20 or more branch campuses and with decreases in students attending college this will become more problematic in the future with limited state funding increases (Wonder what the state rep in the districts will say if Penn State decides they will have to close some branches due to lack of funding).

Pa gives a finite amount of funding to the state related schools saying live within your means.

West Virginia University actually cut a number of academic programs (due to decreased funding and decreasing student body) resulting in protests.

You referenced that BC had a 30% increase in applicants but that did not result in a 30% increase in student body so the financial impact was minimal.

I support Pitt sports to the extent that I purchase season tickets.

I am more interested in contributing to Pitt's Endowment and Research Projects.

The University of Pittsburgh brings in about $1.0 Billion per year in sponsored Research (significantly higher than sports generated income) and has an endowment of about $ 5.5 Billion.

College sports (are/were) fun but not sure where it is headed in the are of semi-pro teams.

At one point the NCAA passed a rule limiting a school to 85 ship players to make it more fair for schools to compete. In this era of NIL and increasing coaching salaries college sports has changed and will continue to due so.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

"Significant yearly loss" needs to be in context. I won't speak for Pitt but not sure people realize how massive these University are operating.
Rutgers budget is $5.4B.
The "NB Athletic Department deficit" is $28m.
That's 0.5% of the overall budget.
Cut athletics if you want, but that's not compensating budget constraints.

It sounds like Pitt (and Rutgers) have a state funding problem.
Rutgers gets 21% from the state.

As I asked earlier (and didn't get a response):

should Pitt or Rutgers be funding varsity revenue and non-revenue sports? simple yes or no.

If the answer is yes, then 0.5% of the budget doesn't seem absurd.
If the answer is no, then cut sports until it "breaks even" and get back that 0.5% of the budget and solve all the world problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DennisHajekRC84
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT