‘Unsustainable’: How Rutgers athletics quietly racked up $265M in debt
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
Some perspective from threads past, which all fall under the heading that you have to spend money to make money.
2018- $759 Million
2017- $512 Million
2016--???
2015- $448.8 Million
2014- $338 Million
2013- $318.4 Million
2012-$315 Million
What happened around 2014 to spur such meteoric growth?
----
B1G full-distribution estimate | RU estimated distribution (nj.com story linked below):
Fiscal 2019 budget was $93 million, revenue from all sources was $97 million.
This was in the midst of the Ash error. 2020, when released (if not already) will be worse because of pandemic.
But revenue will be up by more than $17 million in B1G distribution alone. By 2029, the revenue from the B1G distribution will be up at least another $26 million.
This excellent thread with a USA Today link by @Eagleton96 dispels myths and misinformation:
rutgers.forums.rivals.com
sports.usatoday.com
rutgers.forums.rivals.com
www.nj.com
2018- $759 Million
2017- $512 Million
2016--???
2015- $448.8 Million
2014- $338 Million
2013- $318.4 Million
2012-$315 Million
What happened around 2014 to spur such meteoric growth?
----
B1G full-distribution estimate | RU estimated distribution (nj.com story linked below):
- 2018: $50,000,000 | $23,841,721
- 2019: $51,500,000 | $26,242,246
- 2020: $53,045,000 | $28,643,801
- 2021: $54,636,350 | $43,705,600
- 2022: $56,275,441 | $46,029,566
- 2023: $57,963,704 | $48,941,204
- 2024: $59,702,615 | $50,970,215
- 2025: $61,493,693 | $53,055,193
- 2026: $63,338,504 | $56,178,379
- 2027: $65,238,659 | $65,238,659
- 2028: $67,195,819 | $67,195,819
- 2029: $69,211,694 | $69,211,694
Fiscal 2019 budget was $93 million, revenue from all sources was $97 million.
This was in the midst of the Ash error. 2020, when released (if not already) will be worse because of pandemic.
But revenue will be up by more than $17 million in B1G distribution alone. By 2029, the revenue from the B1G distribution will be up at least another $26 million.
This excellent thread with a USA Today link by @Eagleton96 dispels myths and misinformation:
Rutgers Athletics Subsidy
I know there is a long thread on this, but I wanted to elevate some conclusions from that thread. And to any reporters out there, you really need to add some balance and context to your reporting on RU athletics. To the board hive mind, correct me if this analysis is wrong. But it seems that...
rutgers.forums.rivals.com
NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY
Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.
sports.usatoday.com
B1G 2019 Revenue Crushes Other P5 Conferences
SEC close, but no cigar. Glad RU did not go to the ACC. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2020/07/10/power-five-conference-revenue-fiscal-year-2019/5414405002/
rutgers.forums.rivals.com
Rutgers report: Here's how much we'll receive from Big Ten (You won't believe the numbers)
A Rutgers University independent report details how much money it will receive from the Big Ten.
Rutgers athletics well behind Big Ten peers in revenue as well as victories
Rutgers' lack of success on field and court mirrors its tiny budget and revenue compared to its Big Ten rivals.
www.app.com
The total debt number is really less important to the overall financial health. It’s all about the amount of annual debt service within the budget. I think the problem for Rutgers (historically) is that expenses with debt service have been exceeding revenue and a result institutional support was necessary. Once you get full distribution the need for support should be eliminated or greatly diminished.
Wisconsin currently has a fair amount of debt as I believe is the case for nearly all B1G schools. I believe our annual debt service is around 10-15 million. They use the debt to finance many of the facility projects with a typical term of 20-40 years. Generally once one project is nearly paid off they embark on a new facility project.
Wisconsin currently has a fair amount of debt as I believe is the case for nearly all B1G schools. I believe our annual debt service is around 10-15 million. They use the debt to finance many of the facility projects with a typical term of 20-40 years. Generally once one project is nearly paid off they embark on a new facility project.
Seems logical and a great way to save money, but the rules won't let us do what is logical. It seems fair to cut the same amount of women's sports as men's, but according to title IV, it's not. If we cut four men's sports, we would have to drop down to division 3.
The old Johns Hopkins model of let's have one really good division 1 sport and screw everything else is no longer allowed. Johns Hopkins was grandfathered in, so they can still operate that way.
I'd cut womens' bball and a men's sport. Cutting womens' bball would save a ton
Don’t ban him yet. I’m having too much fun counter-trolling him.Man, he hooked a bunch of you.
At roughly $200K/year for a full ride scholarship, the best way to cut expenses and to make more competitive football across the board, is to go from 85 to 65 football scholarships, which would save about $4MM in expenses per year. While that article is a hatchet job, we and many other schools have serious financial challenges, especially given COVID, and the uncertain future NIL impacts, as well as the uncertain future of future revenue.
https://www.ncsasports.org/articles-1/full-ride-scholarships
It’s not a few of us. It’s all of us. As Governor Murphy said, if you are worried about taxes, then get the fk out of our state.
That's a horrible take for a governor. But he says things like this a lot.
It isn’t very often that New Jersey’s attitude on taxes and spending suits me, but in the rare instance that it does, like here, I am happy to throw it back in everybody’s face!
Murphy = Let them eat cake
Rich guy from Mass doesn't really care about NJ (or understand it).
65 scholarships would take us down to the FCS level, so that means we would be kicked out of the Big Ten and kiss $40 -$50 million per year good bye. We would wind up in a much worse situation.
The problem lies with how much state support we get compared to other states.
If the new media deal starts in 2025, doesn't that change the distribution estimates for Rutgers? The estimates you've listed are based on the old deal. Some pundits said the new B1G media deal could be in the range from $77 million to the low $80s and that would include streaming services which are missing in the current deal.
I mean, it's never gonna happen, but at this point you're spot-on.
Even with COVID it's like a cent per NJ resident a year
And now it will go down with the B1G money
It's more Killingsworth BS. The guy is 99% irrelevant but will hit 100% once the full B1G rolls in. Maybe he wants his penny for the Harbaugh buy out coming up.
And now it will go down with the B1G money
It's more Killingsworth BS. The guy is 99% irrelevant but will hit 100% once the full B1G rolls in. Maybe he wants his penny for the Harbaugh buy out coming up.
There it is. There's the agenda. The article was step 1, this fool is trying to push the article and make mountains out of molehills. So when do we see the legislation and rhetoric from some SHU or Cuse grad in the state legislature to prohibit State funds from being used in the RU AD? Or could it be a Penn State grad in the legislature who is going to push this?
Thanks for giving away the agenda and goal. Now we know what to look for and organize against.
Rutgers is not leaving the BIG. Neither the article nor this fool clearly consider Rutgers' strategic positioning, the image & brand benefits of playing in the BIG, and the benefits of Rutgers finally being in a conference with its peers 40 years after the decision to go big time was made.
Unfortunately Eastern Football is dead. It's BIG or ACC. No other feasible conferences have universities with the reputation, size, or complexity of Rutgers.
And BIG is hands down better for Rutgers.
Thanks for giving away the agenda and goal. Now we know what to look for and organize against.
Rutgers is not leaving the BIG. Neither the article nor this fool clearly consider Rutgers' strategic positioning, the image & brand benefits of playing in the BIG, and the benefits of Rutgers finally being in a conference with its peers 40 years after the decision to go big time was made.
Unfortunately Eastern Football is dead. It's BIG or ACC. No other feasible conferences have universities with the reputation, size, or complexity of Rutgers.
And BIG is hands down better for Rutgers.
Last edited:
They need to spend on concessions at the stadium, though. Priorities.
Which entity has to make debt service payments? Who are the payments made to? What do the Loan agreements say, specifically? Or is it possible that these are intra-university transfer payments with no debt service required? The article doesn’t say. I suspect they would say if they found the info, or thought it unethical. The omission suggests there are no third party payments required. Are intra-university payments eligible to be accounted for as other revenue in accepted accounting principles?
This article isn’t very well presented or organized. Take, for example, grand claim that Athletics has incurred $64 million of debt over the last 8 years. Big numbers spread over time, but how do those figures comp over time? Is it linear at $14 million per annum, or perhaps decreasing from a larger starting point (with perhaps an increase due to COVID) which could normalize and continue a decline? Again, the article doesn’t address it. A statement about total operating losses over 8 years might sound interesting, but it reveals little substantial financial information.
I could go on, but this supposed investigative report is long on hyperbole and misleading figures and short on actual clear discussion and analysis, It packages information in a vague manner to seemingly make a point which may or may not be fact based.
All good points. But the article is hit piece. And the guy you responded to is just trolling with no interest in facts. Who comes onto a sports forum to complain to fans of an athletic department about overspending on athletics?
Who does so? Perhaps the attached profile could shed some light.
Online Trolls Actually Just Assholes All the Time, Study Finds
New research indicates the internet doesn't make people act like jerks, but it sure gives the jerks a big megaphone.
gizmodo.com
As Sebastian Maniscalco says in his act…these folks were always around it’s just now they have social media to show the rest of us who they really are. We are now in their mom’s basement too. LOLWho does so? Perhaps the attached profile could shed some light.
Online Trolls Actually Just Assholes All the Time, Study Finds
New research indicates the internet doesn't make people act like jerks, but it sure gives the jerks a big megaphone.
So just curious how some of the posters on this board reconcile people like Richard Ebright tweeting and continuing his anti-Rutgers athletics rant while at the same time supporting hacks like Rand Paul on gain of function research in Wuhan. Would love to see all your heads explode.
Here's how to reconcile. One has nothing to do with the other. Opinionated much? Hack? Supporting? Who says he is supporting anyone? Maybe he happens to be incorrect or correct on his own accord. Oh mercy, is the world going to implode because a RU professor may share the same opinion on something as a politician that many people on the so-called opposite side despise? How about this- maybe it is time people look to find common ground and work together on issues they agree instead of seeing the world as strictly binary.
Athletics are a part of the university pal. Id much rather fund that than most of the watered down classes run by over paid professors.
Last edited:
I base my opinion on what someone says about a sports related issue on the issue , not on the politicians the man/woman supports.
Hell, I have people that agree with some of my sports related opinions that wouldn't be caught dead supporting my political ones.
We must separate political leanings and agendas out of issues politics has no business being a part of..
We need to treat non political issues on their own merit, not what politician a person supports .
We can agree or disagree with what someone says, without making it a political issue when it's not.
Simple solution hold a class in each Rutgers Athletic Facility then you can put all debt under the Academic ledger. It’s the SEC and a lot of schools way of accounting.
Also a lot of inaccuracies and conclusions with little data to draw from in the article. They even say so, so they reach a lot to prove their agenda. So NCAA sanction poster, stop smoking crack, dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Also a lot of inaccuracies and conclusions with little data to draw from in the article. They even say so, so they reach a lot to prove their agenda. So NCAA sanction poster, stop smoking crack, dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Last edited:
The Gov. weighs in:
'Takes your breath away': Murphy calls Rutgers athletics' financial woes 'concerning'
The debt includes loans from the university and Big Ten to cover years of annual athletics department operating shortfalls of up to $73 million.
www.app.com
Don't we go through this every year? The same rags reach for the same sources (Killingsworth, Zoffinger, anyone still on the Rutgers1000 BBS) and then release some hit piece over a three day holiday weekend. It's like clockwork. Just making sure Rutgers knows to keep Schiano in his lane...can't have him turning the corner and becoming trouble for Penn State and Michigan.
OK this article is just rehashing of the same talking points. She's just reframing direct institutional support and student fees as loans. The actual $10.6 mil. loan was always reported. She lumps all facility loans into this, then counts the advances in pay from the B1G as loans. By framing everything under the "loan" moniker it's how she comes up with her big number. Rutgers Academics takes loans to build buildings as well it's where most of the "loan" money comes from in this article. It's the same stuff just framed differently.
That’s what they do.
And guessing some internal polling suggests this might be on the mind of probable Murphy voters too.
People looking to find common ground?? Work together on issues where they are agreeable?!??
What?
Why do that when people can yell past each other on topics that they all know they will never reach agreement?!?
Seriously, great answer to that question, Shift.
Holding out hope for a group hug someday soon, where we all can rationally debate and appreciate different perspectives and viewpoints without labels, finger-pointing or gaslighting. Most people find themselves lost somewhere in the middle, and too many unfortunately get triggered by and react to the baiting of news channels of both sides and "antisocial" media. Almost everyone has had one of those moments. The tides are shifting where both sides are realizing the errors of their ways.
It's misleading. I know I'm late to the party on this and I can't believe some of the comments in this thread. They fell for her reframing of the same information.
The only number that still matters is Direct Institutional Support which she cleverly doesn't list as a separate item. Student fees aren't going anywhere, they pay $400 a year for equal free access to all sporting events and facilities. Could it be less sure, however, you may not want to use it, but it's there if you want it. Or go to the Nebraska model where it's a la carte. But that's not going to work well at a Liberal University.
As for the rest of the loans. Yes $10.6 mil. loan is a shortfall. B1G loan $48mil.? Semantics. Loans for facilities? Yes they took loans but so does every University Academic or Athletic department in the USA. She's trying to say Rutgers Athletics is unique in some weird world of hers. Once you dissect her new framing of the same information it's nothing but the same sh*t agenda driven hit piece.
Last edited:
Here is a profile of the main investigative reporter who wrote the story. Checked out her LinkedIn profile, and no college degree is listed?
Here is a review of one of her other investigative masterpieces on charter schools from an education policy journal based at the Harvard Kennedy School. Investigative journalists are out for clicks and have to sensationalize mundane facts to weave their narrative. As @e5fdny said- "It's what they do." They did the same thing in their hatchet job on RU Athletics :
Part of the investigative journalism racket, at least in this example, is framing news with negative innuendo, in a way that looks damning, even when nothing illegal has taken place ......”
......
Another trick of the journalist trade is to put the journalist’s own opinion in the mouths of “experts.”
.......
You might wonder what these three professors have in common. It turns out that all of them have directly or indirectly accepted funding from labor unions, which have been hostile to charter schools. That funding isn’t disclosed by the investigative journalists to readers.
One can easily understand why readers might have come away with the impression that the reporters do oppose charter schools. Maybe it was the “flawed experiment” headline. Maybe it was the mafia murder reference.
www.educationnext.org
Here is a review of one of her other investigative masterpieces on charter schools from an education policy journal based at the Harvard Kennedy School. Investigative journalists are out for clicks and have to sensationalize mundane facts to weave their narrative. As @e5fdny said- "It's what they do." They did the same thing in their hatchet job on RU Athletics :
Part of the investigative journalism racket, at least in this example, is framing news with negative innuendo, in a way that looks damning, even when nothing illegal has taken place ......”
......
Another trick of the journalist trade is to put the journalist’s own opinion in the mouths of “experts.”
.......
You might wonder what these three professors have in common. It turns out that all of them have directly or indirectly accepted funding from labor unions, which have been hostile to charter schools. That funding isn’t disclosed by the investigative journalists to readers.
One can easily understand why readers might have come away with the impression that the reporters do oppose charter schools. Maybe it was the “flawed experiment” headline. Maybe it was the mafia murder reference.
Newspaper Hit Piece on Charter Schools Misses The Mark
Reader hours, reporter time disappear into flawed journalistic experiment
www.educationnext.org
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Football Rutgers Football PFF Grades / Snap Counts versus Washington
- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-