ADVERTISEMENT

Subsidy news link from Michigan

Goes to show, having very popular hoops and football (MSU as an example) isn't enough. You need donors. Really big donors to truly be self supporting.
 
Rutgers numbers will be a bit better in the next version of this.

The more people donate the more can get done.
 
Detroit Free Press
U-M only self-supporting athletic program in state
Just 24 Division I athletics programs are self-sufficient; MSU ranks 18th nationally with nearly $105M in revenue
Im guessing some of this is accounting stuff or managerial choices. In other words - if MSU wanted to run a revenue neutral department, they probably could with no much of a hit to the quality of their overall programs.

But since there is no political/internal pressure to do so, they dont bother. Alot of the Big Ten seems like they are in that boat. WE should be too when we get the full payout - close enough that really its up to us whether we go all the way to zero.
 
From the linked article:

Besides Rutgers (at 47.41%) and Maryland (at 24.68%), no other Big Ten schools received more than 7% of its revenue in subsidies.

Subsidies are split into four streams of allocated revenue: 1) Student fees charged for athletics, 2) direct institutional support (cash allocated to athletic department from the university), 3) direct state or government support, 4) indirect facilities and administrative support (facilities provided by university and not charged to athletic department).

Note, for Rutgers, items 3 and 4 are negligible. When Rutgers talks about eliminating the subsidy, they are only talking about item 2 (direct institutional support) and not item 1 (student fees).
 
Correct, the student fees are not going away.

2) will hopefully go down to 0%

3) is already near zero

4) Do we even have these?
 
Correct, the student fees are not going away.

2) will hopefully go down to 0%

3) is already near zero

4) Do we even have these?
I could think of a couple. The Livingston Gym, the Barn, and Werblin are general students facilities and athletics facilities. How is that cost divided up? The Scarlet lot is both a commuter lot and an athletics lot. Does athletics pay to maintain it, or RU transportation? But in general it seems that RU goes out of their way, often contrary to how other schools operate, to charge athletics for stuff or to let others profit off of athletics.
 
I could think of a couple. The Livingston Gym, the Barn, and Werblin are general students facilities and athletics facilities. How is that cost divided up? The Scarlet lot is both a commuter lot and an athletics lot. Does athletics pay to maintain it, or RU transportation? But in general it seems that RU goes out of their way, often contrary to how other schools operate, to charge athletics for stuff or to let others profit off of athletics.

You might be right about those, I don't know how they charge or if they charge for those.

There has to be a pie chart somewhere...
 
ADVERTISEMENT