Rutgers football vs. Value per SL

[jakeknight]

Star Ledger has posted s letter from two supposed Seton Hall "professors of economics " questioning the value of the state using "Tax dollars" to fund Rutgers Football, if you follow their logic these public tax dollars could be better spent in other non football areas. One wonders about their ability to research or teach anybody anything when they fully fail to acknowledge or seemingly understand that the state funds RU at about a 20 percent level in any given budget year, so it us highly unlikely that any tax dollars are funding RU football, plus they conveniently fail to mention that the new Big 10 media rights dramatically increases funding for RU athletics.
Based on there letter it pretty obvious that any serious economics/ finance major wouldn't want to go anywhere near Seton Hall if these two "professors?" Are representative of the analytical minds available at the Hall, of course the SL jjumps with both feet, which also brings to mind the lack of Journalistic integrity available in this excuse for a newspaper

 

[bigmatt718]

What's the difference between a Rutgers alum and a Seton Hall alum? A Rutgers alum doesn't have a rejection letter from Rutgers. Also as an Econ alum, I'll be the first to tell you that an Econ degree without specializing in something with substance like accounting or finance or supply chain is as useless a degree in the professional working world as a history degree is.

 

[rutgersal]

Star Ledger has posted s letter from two supposed Seton Hall "professors of economics " questioning the value of the state using "Tax dollars" to fund Rutgers Football, if you follow their logic these public tax dollars could be better spent in other non football areas. One wonders about their ability to research or teach anybody anything when they fully fail to acknowledge or seemingly understand that the state funds RU at about a 20 percent level in any given budget year, so it us highly unlikely that any tax dollars are funding RU football, plus they conveniently fail to mention that the new Big 10 media rights dramatically increases funding for RU athletics.
Based on there letter it pretty obvious that any serious economics/ finance major wouldn't want to go anywhere near Seton Hall if these two "professors?" Are representative of the analytical minds available at the Hall, of course the SL jjumps with both feet, which also brings to mind the lack of Journalistic integrity available in this excuse for a newspaper

Football is self funding. The problem is the other sports which are a drain on the athletic department. Football needs to be built up into a cash cow so that it can Fund other sports as well.

 

[RU-Kidding]

Football is self funding. The problem is the other sports which are a drain on the athletic department. Football needs to be built up into a cash cow so that it can Fund other sports as well.

Star Ledger has posted s letter from two supposed Seton Hall "professors of economics " questioning the value of the state using "Tax dollars" to fund Rutgers Football, if you follow their logic these public tax dollars could be better spent in other non football areas. One wonders about their ability to research or teach anybody anything when they fully fail to acknowledge or seemingly understand that the state funds RU at about a 20 percent level in any given budget year, so it us highly unlikely that any tax dollars are funding RU football, plus they conveniently fail to mention that the new Big 10 media rights dramatically increases funding for RU athletics.
Based on there letter it pretty obvious that any serious economics/ finance major wouldn't want to go anywhere near Seton Hall if these two "professors?" Are representative of the analytical minds available at the Hall, of course the SL jjumps with both feet, which also brings to mind the lack of Journalistic integrity available in this excuse for a newspaper

Correct, it's rarely pointed out in these agenda driven hits jobs that the state only funds approximately 20% of the university budget. Meanwhile, they want you (and your neighbors) to think that there's dollar for dollar state funding of the athletic department.

 

[newell138]

If there is no football there is no BIG and we then become SHU with nothing but a basketball team and what’s the fun in that?

 

[e5fdny]

Correct, it's rarely pointed out in these agenda driven hits jobs that the state only funds approximately 20% of the university budget. Meanwhile, they want you (and your neighbors) to think that there's dollar for dollar state funding of the athletic department.

And of that 20%, a small portion goes to Athletics with an even smaller portion going to Football.

Didn’t we just do this math a few weeks ago?🤷‍♂️🙄

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Correct, it's rarely pointed out in these agenda driven hits jobs that the state only funds approximately 20% of the university budget. Meanwhile, they want you (and your neighbors) to think that there's dollar for dollar state funding of the athletic department.

Did it go up? It used to be like 13%.

 

[mdk01]

If they showed their assumptions and calculations they'd get shredded but that won't happen
And the SL can hide behind "those aren't our calculations"

 

[BeantownKnight]

Sorry - we have to put a ban on posting these SL articles which are published only to get clicks from RU fans. No one with even the slightest understanding of the media rights deal or AD budgeting would bother reading this article.

 

[NickRU714]

Did it go up? It used to be like 13%.

I was shocked to see 20%
Last I remember it was where you had it around 13%.

And then athletics is like 9% of the RU budget or something.

 

[bethlehemfan]

It’s sad that people are paying tuition to be lectured by dopes.

 

[ru8081]

F seton hall! What do they have 6 sports

 

[Plum Street]

Yes because all tax revenues are used appropriately by our government.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

It’s sad that people are paying tuition to be lectured by dopes.

In most schools

 

[Knight Shift]

Here's the letter. You can find a link.

As New Jersey taxpayers, it is a shame that we continue to fund the Rutgers University athletic department to the point where its total revenue is $131 million annually.

Rutgers spends more than six other schools in their Big Ten Conference on athletics and lost $53 million last year— the biggest shortfall among any Big Ten school.
As former college student-athletes, we love college sports. Like most people, we do not want to see sports programs cut, but where our tax dollars are spent matters. For every tax dollar spent on Rutgers athletics, that dollar cannot be spent on other things, like K-12 schools, preschool or sheltering the homeless.

We can continue to use tax dollars for college coaches, mainly football and basketball, to possibly win more. But Rutgers football has an abysmal 12-22 record since it rehired Greg Schiano as head coach. And although he is among the lowest-paid head coaches in the Big Ten, we still have to decide if this is the best use of taxpayer dollars.

It could be argued that winning brings in revenue through donations and increased ticket sales, but this would also mean that Rutgers should be willing to use this money alone to build its athletic programs, and not need any taxpayer funds for it.

If alumni are unwilling to donate enough money and ticket sales do not justify the cost Big Ten membership and stadium expansion, why should taxpayers pay? While winning national championships in football and basketball can bring in more students, losing $53 million a year to possibly gain 2,000 to 3,000 more applicants to the school does not pass any economic test.

Ticket sales and alumni donations sit at roughly $30 million, but net losses are $53 million. The math does not line up. Changes need to be made, but why would the university spend its own money when they know Gov. Phil Murphy and the Legislature will give them “free” money?

It is beyond time that taxpayers stop paying for sports that can be self-funded.

Danielle Zanzalari and Kurt W. Rotthoff, South Orange

The writers, respectively, are an assistant professor of economics, and a professor of economics and finance, both at Seton Hall University.
------------------

Taking their last line--OK. Cut all sports except Football and Men's Basketball. Problem solved.
Net Losses for Football and Men's Basketball are at $53 Million? Doubtful.

Profile Danielle Zanzalari - Seton Hall University

FACULTY Profile Page

www.shu.edu

Interesting from her LinkedIn:

Seton Hall UniversitySeton Hall University
BS, Finance, EconomicsBS, Finance, Economics 2006 - 20102006 - 2010

Activities and societies: Walked-on to the university's softball team and earned a scholarship. Was active within Sports Management Student Association and Finance Club while also participating in sports polling and working in the trading room.

Profile Kurt Rotthoff - Seton Hall University

Faculty Profile Page for Kurt Rotthoff, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Economics and Legal Studies

www.shu.edu

 

[DJ Spanky]

Dr. Zanzalari has made her way back to her alma mater, Seton Hall University, from the University of North Texas Dallas where she was also an Assistant Professor of Economics.

Sounds like she took a demotion to come back to her alma mater.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Is it possible to get a Rutgers professor to counter this BS with facts? Write a response in the Star Liar pointing out misinformation with the names of the liars such as Sh*t Hall U professors

 

[Fat Koko]

Football is self funding. The problem is the other sports which are a drain on the athletic department. Football needs to be built up into a cash cow so that it can Fund other sports as well.

Football is not self funding. The team lost $22 million last year, according to figures given by Rutgers to the NCAA. The big cost of the program, by far, is coaching compensation.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Football is not self funding. The team lost $22 million last year, according to figures given by Rutgers to the NCAA. The big cost of the program, by far, is coaching compensation.

If football lost money, so did all other sports (non-revenue). Also, I'm sure the numbers you're referring to are covid related. The reported finances are usually connected to info from previous years. You are making seem like 2022 was a bad year.

 

[NotInRHouse]

If there is no football there is no BIG and we then become SHU with nothing but a basketball team and what’s the fun in that?

Rutgers will never become Shoe because we don't admit anyone with just a pulse.

Shoe is also just a commuter school, they have no real campus culture.

They are a total afterthought and NJ.com should be ashamed posting that crap.

 

[bigmatt718]

Rutgers will never become Shoe because we don't admit anyone with just a pulse.

Shoe is also just a commuter school, they have no real campus culture.

They are a total afterthought and NJ.com should be ashamed posting that crap.

Rutgers-Newark and NJIT are academically better than SHU these days, let alone Rutgers-NB, and schools like Rowan are probably closing the gap on SHU academically as well.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Rutgers-Newark and NJIT are academically better than SHU these days, let alone Rutgers-NB, and schools like Rowan are probably closing the gap on SHU academically as well.

Law School ranking compared to RU?

 

[Fat Koko]

If football lost money, so did all other sports (non-revenue). Also, I'm sure the numbers you're referring to are covid related. The reported finances are usually connected to info from previous years. You are making seem like 2022 was a bad year.

Rutgers football financial results, the numbers Rutgers reported to the NCAA.

2017-2018 -$25 milllion
2018-2019 -$12 million
2019-2020 -$22 million
2020-2021 -$23 million
2021-2022 -$22 million

Greg owns these outcomes.

 

[brgRC90]

At least if you have a really bad team, there is validity to the criticism that universities shouldn't be sinking money into football. Good teams bring in tons of money--and attention--from many directions, bad ones don't. But sports has never made money for most universities. The saving grace for Rutgers is the ever-larger payouts from media deals.

 

[Knight Shift]

Rutgers football financial results, the numbers Rutgers reported to the NCAA.

2017-2018 -$25 milllion
2018-2019 -$12 million
2019-2020 -$22 million
2020-2021 -$23 million
2021-2022 -$22 million

Greg owns these outcomes.

He was not the coach until 2020. Why does he own anything prior to his tenure as HC?

 

[Mr_Twister]

But the Star-Ledger rebuttal is that they are an expert on losing money …

 

[cubuffsdoug]

He was not the coach until 2020. Why does he own anything prior to his tenure as HC?

Greg must have screwed him over back in the day. It sounds personal. 😁
Anyway, I wonder if the numbers he's pushing is solely football's responsibility? Or non-re-revenue sports hidden inside of football since those sports don't generate any revenue. Also, didn't the athletic department just cover the cost for the use of the stadium and parking during graduation?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Is it possible to get a Rutgers professor to counter this BS with facts? Write a response in the Star Liar pointing out misinformation with the names of the liars such as Sh*t Hall U professors

c'mon, you know the drill. If SL gets a letter that totally eviscerates the "logic" behind that anti-rutgers letter they won't publish it. if they feel some need to produce a counter-argument they will find some half-baked version likely written by an imaginary "alum" patsy that just makes those who support athletics look like idiots.

 

[RU Cheese]

Rutgers football financial results, the numbers Rutgers reported to the NCAA.

2017-2018 -$25 milllion
2018-2019 -$12 million
2019-2020 -$22 million
2020-2021 -$23 million
2021-2022 -$22 million

Greg owns these outcomes.

Do those figures include B1G media? Or are they excluded because it's not just football?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

First off.. Rutgers getting 20.1% of its $5.1B budget from the state does not take into account what is COSTS Rutgers to take that money.

That is, that money comes with a whole lot of strings attached. Costly, costly strings. Like using union labor for everything. Like certain numbers of in-state scholarship programs for the disadvantaged. Like all kinds of crazy majors and department heads and having more chiefs than indians on the payroll.

I'd venture to guess that when you factor in all the state programs that Rutgers runs.. that taking money from the state actually costs Rutgers more money than they get.

But let's take the numbers as they say they are.

Rutgers budget.. $5.1B
State funding at 20.1%.. that's slightly over $1B,
2.7% of Rutgers budget is athletics spending... almost $138M

So.. at most.. 2.7% of that $1B state support goes to athletics... that's $27M

Now, $27M is nothing to sneeze at.. but in terms of New Jersey's state budget where they predict $52.8B in tax revenue in 2023? That's 0.005% of the state budget. That's not a percent.. not a tenth of a percent.. not a hundredth of a percent... it is half of that hundredth of a percent.

Let's put that in perspective. If the state budget were $200.. that's like giving a shiny penny to the State University for athletics. And that 20.1%.. that $1B.. that's 1/58th of what they take in.. 1.7% ain't bad..

..but that $58B is only what NJ takes in taxes. It actually spent $86.9B in 2022 and $95.1B in 2020. So when were talking about the neighborhood of $90B of spending... the flagship state U's $1B begins to approach the 1% area.

And that also means that the tax dollars exposure to NJ's share of the bill for athletics.. $27M would be more like 60% of that, or about $16M.

(I think I got the math right up there.. feel free to check me using the figures and percentages I specifically mentioned with references).

Are you kidding me?

That's $3 per resident per year at the full $27M figure and about $1.75 per person at that $16.2M portion that could be said to come from resident tax dollars.

I have an idea.. cancel the Star-Ledger and use that to pay for athletics for your sons and daughters and pronouns-of-choice can see their ONE flagship state university compete in the Big Ten.

And remember.. that doesn't even take into account the real possibility that New Jersey demands Rutgers spend MORE than what they contribute for the programs and labor and benefits they demand Rutgers offer.

Now, maybe we'd want to support many things the state wants us to support.. like that program for transfers from community colleges and disadvantaged students and that costs money and the state contributes money. A fine arrangement. A fine service for both Rutgers and the state.

But let's stop constantly attacking athletics spending and pretending that it is the taxpayers money. It is not. Never was, never will be. The taxpayers money is going to buildings that cost 3 times what they would in any other state. and all kinds of things many other states' universities need not think about.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

First off.. Rutgers getting 20.1% of its $5.1B budget from the state does not take into account what is COSTS Rutgers to take that money.

That is, that money comes with a whole lot of strings attached. Costly, costly strings. Like using union labor for everything. Like certain numbers of in-state scholarship programs for the disadvantaged. Like all kinds of crazy majors and department heads and having more chiefs than indians on the payroll.

I'd venture to guess that when you factor in all the state programs that Rutgers runs.. that taking money from the state actually costs Rutgers more money than they get.

But let's take the numbers as they say they are.

Rutgers budget.. $5.1B
State funding at 20.1%.. that's slightly over $1B,
2.7% of Rutgers budget is athletics spending... almost $138M

So.. at most.. 2.7% of that $1B state support goes to athletics... that's $27M

Now, $27M is nothing to sneeze at.. but in terms of New Jersey's state budget where they predict $52.8B in tax revenue in 2023? That's 0.005% of the state budget. That's not a percent.. not a tenth of a percent.. not a hundredth of a percent... it is half of that hundredth of a percent.

Let's put that in perspective. If the state budget were $200.. that's like giving a shiny penny to the State University for athletics.

(I think I got the math right up there.. feel free to check me using the figures and percentages I specifically mentioned with references).

Are you kidding me?

That's $3 per resident per year.

I have an idea.. cancel the Star Ledger and use that to pay for athletics for your sons and daughters and pronouns-of-choice can see their ONE flagship state university compete in the Big Ten.

And remember.. that doesn't even take into account the real possibility that New Jersey demands Rutgers spend MORE than what they contribute for the programs and labor and benefits they demand Rutgers offer.

Now, maybe we'd want to support many things the state wants us to support.. like that program for transfers from community colleges and disadvantaged students and that costs money and the state contributes money. A fine arrangement. A fine service for both Rutgers and the state.

But let's stop constantly attacking athletics spending and pretending that it is the taxpayers money. It is not. Never was, never will be. The taxpayers money is going to buildings that cost 3 times what they would in any other state. and all kinds of things many other states' universities need not think about.

 

[RUScrew85]

Star Ledger has posted s letter from two supposed Seton Hall "professors of economics " questioning the value of the state using "Tax dollars" to fund Rutgers Football, if you follow their logic these public tax dollars could be better spent in other non football areas. One wonders about their ability to research or teach anybody anything when they fully fail to acknowledge or seemingly understand that the state funds RU at about a 20 percent level in any given budget year, so it us highly unlikely that any tax dollars are funding RU football, plus they conveniently fail to mention that the new Big 10 media rights dramatically increases funding for RU athletics.
Based on there letter it pretty obvious that any serious economics/ finance major wouldn't want to go anywhere near Seton Hall if these two "professors?" Are representative of the analytical minds available at the Hall, of course the SL jjumps with both feet, which also brings to mind the lack of Journalistic integrity available in this excuse for a newspaper

LOL at any idiot that reads the Star Ledger.

 

[RUScrew85]

Rutgers-Newark and NJIT are academically better than SHU these days, let alone Rutgers-NB, and schools like Rowan are probably closing the gap on SHU academically as well.

SHU is 13th grade. I've met "graduates"