$333/Season Ticket surcharge to pay for Football Facilities

[Piscataway]

You are Nuts

Thanks to the B1G I would stay home and watch at home. And with the extra money from not being a season ticket holder I could afford to buy a 75" curved ultra HD and ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO READ THE DAMNED NAMES ON THE BACK OF THE JERSEYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WhiteBus]

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by TRU2RU:
Sorry Al but Barchi would take that $10 million & force the Athletic Department to pay down the subsidy.

This is simply not true, and it is incredibly damaging to the school to spread misinformation like this, which is essentially encouraging people to NOT donate.

I would take a million Al posts over this kind of BS, that really has no place here, or anywhere coming from an RU supporter.

Ole. Like it or not Tru2RU is right. It is exactly what Barchi is doing. It's one of the ways to get to budget neutral.

 

[DJ Spanky]

I am not going to take al seriously until he sells his organs in order to donate money to Rutgers Football.

 

[RU85inFla]

A plan like this for facilities goes nowhere fast. A plan like this to endow scholarships can get traction. Endow scholarships first and use the scholarship monies for facilities. It sells better.

 

[GeorgeStreet]

Al's plan makes sense. But a simpler way to raise money is to increase the price of football tickets. You want to see National Champions Ohio State University play at Rutgers? Pay da man.

 

[PhilaPhans]

Originally posted by RU85inFla:
A plan like this for facilities goes nowhere fast. A plan like this to endow scholarships can get traction. Endow scholarships first and use the scholarship monies for facilities. It sells better.

That's a very good point.

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of just how many scholarships and coaching positions each team gets, how much each scholarship would cost to endow, and how many of these positions are currently endowed.

Not having to spend much on things like scholarships and coaching would be of great benefit to the university (down the line, if they ever were all fully endowed).

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Originally posted by WhiteBus:

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by TRU2RU:
Sorry Al but Barchi would take that $10 million & force the Athletic Department to pay down the subsidy.

This is simply not true, and it is incredibly damaging to the school to spread misinformation like this, which is essentially encouraging people to NOT donate.

I would take a million Al posts over this kind of BS, that really has no place here, or anywhere coming from an RU supporter.

Ole. Like it or not Tru2RU is right. It is exactly what Barchi is doing. It's one of the ways to get to budget neutral.

Lol. No. It's not true. I would love to hear your source for this statement.

Barchi cannot redirect designated donations. If you earmark funds for a specific purpose, they are required to be applied toward that purpose. Before you say, well money Is fungible, realize that if you give to a fund to build new facilities or to endow a new scholarship, it doesn't matter. There is currently zero money going to those things from the school, so they cannot offset it with budgetary items. If you give to "sport X" then yes, that could theoretically be offset by a corresponding reduction in school funding, but that is not what Al is talking about. He is talking about an earmarked donation to build new facilities.

Secondly, the notion that even if he could "Barchi would force athletics to pay down the subsidy" is also simply not true. They have not, are not and will not reduce the athletics subsidy to match donations. That would encourage people not to give. In fact, giving has been up over the past few years, and the subsidy has only been reduced incrementally.

What they are doing is trying to continue to reduce it incrementally over the next 5-7 years to bring it inline with our peers. People want to pretend that Barchi is anti-athletics because of this, but its really quite simple. It is not good for the University to have the largest athletics subsidy in the nation. It consistently hurts us in the media, and it kills us when we ask Trenton for budget increases. How can we go the legislature and complain that we need more money to run a University, when we are spending more than any other school on athletics? It is severely hurting the school as a whole.

This is exactly why I go nuts when people blast Julie and President Barchi. What would you have them do?? We have the largest athletics subsidy in the nation. We have among the worst donor support among peer schools. Barchi has made very small reductions in the athletics subsidy over the last couple years, despite significant increases in giving. Where is this notion that he is destroying our athletics programs coming from??? If he did what most of you wanted, and borrowed $50mm to build an athletes village, he could likely be considered the most fiscally irresponsible administrator in the nation.


This post was edited on 3/24 2:32 PM by Ole Cabbagehead

 

[WhiteBus]

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by WhiteBus:

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by TRU2RU:
Sorry Al but Barchi would take that $10 million & force the Athletic Department to pay down the subsidy.

This is simply not true, and it is incredibly damaging to the school to spread misinformation like this, which is essentially encouraging people to NOT donate.

I would take a million Al posts over this kind of BS, that really has no place here, or anywhere coming from an RU supporter.

Ole. Like it or not Tru2RU is right. It is exactly what Barchi is doing. It's one of the ways to get to budget neutral.

Lol. No. It's not true. I would love to hear your source for this statement.

Barchi cannot redirect designated donations. If you earmark funds for a specific purpose, they are required to be applied toward that purpose. Before you say, well money Is fungible, realize that if you give to a fund to build new facilities or to endow a new scholarship, it doesn't matter. There is currently zero money going to those things from the school, so they cannot offset it with budgetary items. If you give to "sport X" then yes, that could theoretically be offset by a corresponding reduction in school funding, but that is not what Al is talking about. He is talking about an earmarked donation to build new facilities.

Secondly, the notion that even if he could "Barchi would force athletics to pay down the subsidy" is also simply not true. They have not, are not and will not reduce the athletics subsidy to match donations. That would encourage people not to give. In fact, giving has been up over the past few years, and the subsidy has only been reduced incrementally.

What they are doing is trying to continue to reduce it incrementally over the next 5-7 years to bring it inline with our peers. People want to pretend that Barchi is anti-athletics because of this, but its really quite simple. It is not good for the University to have the largest athletics subsidy in the nation. It consistently hurts us in the media, and it kills us when we ask Trenton for budget increases. How can we go the legislature and complain that we need more money to run a University, when we are spending more than any other school on athletics? It is severely hurting the school as a whole.

This is exactly why I go nuts when people blast Julie and President Barchi. What would you have them do?? We have the largest athletics subsidy in the nation. We have among the worst donor support among peer schools. Barchi has made very small reductions in the athletics subsidy over the last couple years, despite significant increases in giving. Where is this notion that he is destroying our athletics programs coming from??? If he did what most of you wanted, and borrowed $50mm to build an athletes village, he could likely be considered the most fiscally irresponsible administrator in the nation.



This post was edited on 3/24 2:32 PM by Ole Cabbagehead

He is NOT redirecting where someone earmarks their funds but it does reduce the subsidies the school (not including student fee funds) is giving an

It's very simple. The school wants to be at zero subsidies in less than 6 years. That is a fact and can be found in many Barchi articles from the very beginning.

He isn't destroying athletics but doesn't really care about putting money into them either. Again plenty of quotes that he feels that sports is a great "activity" and winning isn't important as long as they are great student athletes.

You can put your head in the sand and think that Barchi isn't reducing subsidies but it's happening.

 

[rutgersal]

Originally posted by WhiteBus:

He is NOT redirecting where someone earmarks their funds but it does reduce the subsidies the school (not including student fee funds) is giving an

You can put your head in the sand and think that Barchi isn't reducing subsidies but it's happening.

It's happening because football fan attendance is up, not because donations are being applied against athletic operational expenses.

something like this should be easy for you. For each complaint you post about a Flood on the messageboard, you put a dollar in the cookie jar. You'll be up to $333 in no time.

For something like this a specific fund would be setup to be used only for the new football facility. Donors would have bricks inscribed with their names on the facility. Or there would be a recognition wall towards the front of the facility. Many years ago, this was how VT funded their facility.

 

[WhiteBus]

Originally posted by rutgersal:

Originally posted by WhiteBus:

He is NOT redirecting where someone earmarks their funds but it does reduce the subsidies the school (not including student fee funds) is giving an

You can put your head in the sand and think that Barchi isn't reducing subsidies but it's happening.

It's happening because football fan attendance is up, not because donations are being applied against athletic operational expenses.

something like this should be easy for you. For each complaint you post about a Flood on the messageboard, you put a dollar in the cookie jar. You'll be up to $333 in no time.

For something like this a specific fund would be setup to be used only for the new football facility. Donors would have bricks inscribed with their names on the facility. Or there would be a recognition wall towards the front of the facility. Many years ago, this was how VT funded their facility.

Al my cookie jar would contain $0. You won't find any complaints about Flood or Julie on here from me. Now Barchi is a whole different matter!!

Also with all that is needed in every other sport why do you see the need for new football facilities for football?? Rutgers football facilities are just fine and Rutgers isn't losing any recruits because they have sub standard facilities. You and others should put a $1 in a jar for everytime you complain about their facilities. Rutgers has it better than most.

 

[wheezer]

A few of my group of nine were not happy with the increase in cost of the parking, I fear an additional $333 would be a problem...the answer is not to continually squeeze the ticket holders, but get some support from those who have not been season ticket holders

 

[mal359]

Can we fix Scott Hall first?

 

[rutgersal]

Originally posted by wheezer:
A few of my group of nine were not happy with the increase in cost of the parking, I fear an additional $333 would be a problem...the answer is not to continually squeeze the ticket holders, but get some support from those who have not been season ticket holders

I'm sure that everyone in your group of nine wanted Rutgers in the Big Ten. Would they have donated if it meant the difference between the B1G and the American conference?

You need to tell your group of nine that our conference peers fans give much more to their teams than we do, which is why we have to increase our level of giving to keep up.

What we are asking for, is less than what Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State fans donate for Season Tickets. its tough for Rutgers to be competitive when Ohio State fans donate $30 million dollars/year and Rutgers fans donate $8 million dollars a year. $333/year is a pittance. Thats less than $1 dollar a day for the year. Thats not even the cost of a Dunkin Donuts Coffee!

Increased costs are necessary because we want to put a better product on the field. We want New Jerseys best to stay home, and better facilities are a great way to accomplish that goal.

We're not playing UConn, West Virginia, and Syracuse anymore. We're playing the Big Monied programs of Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State, who have top notch facilities. Even Maryland is sinking $150 million into their facilities so that they can sustain a competitive Big Ten Football program. Penn State is investing millions to upgrade their Lasch building. Michigan and Ohio State already have the best facilities money can buy. Thats why we need a shiny new toy of our own to show recruits. We don't want to be the only kid on the block that has nothing new to show people.

We need to continue to improve the product via recruiting, and that is only possible by keeping up in the facilities arms race. Your group of nine needs to step up to the plate. Otherwise we will sink to the bottom like Indiana.

Five Star recruits want Five Star facilities, and our football facilities are growing long in tooth. They were last updated in 2004. Thats 11 years, nearly an eternity in college football facilities aging.

Donations like these are not costs. They are investments into the success of the program. We can't collectively control what Rutgers does on the fields, but whether Rutgers has top notch facilities or not, is within our grasp.

When Michigan wanted a $250 million dollar stadium renovation, their alumni stepped up to the plate and got it done. We have to do similarly for a $50 million dollar football facility, a fraction of what Michigan alumni were able to raise.

 

[PhilaPhans]

Originally posted by mal359:
Can we fix Scott Hall first?

 

[PittFan97]

I come in peace but I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate Al (I guess it's appropriate that I'm a Pitt Fan)

You stated in several posts that the $333 fee would be voluntary, but in your original post you called it a surcharge, a surcharge isn't voluntary. Otherwise, I would "voluntary" never pay the surcharges that Ticketmaster puts on my purchases.

A $333 fee per ticket is rather unreasonable and as some posters said would cause the season ticket fan base to get quickly reduced overnight. Think about it, a family of 4 who has season tickets would be putting out over $1,200 in fees under this plan, in addition to all of the other costs that come with going to a football game.

You reference several big time schools that have fans pay way more than what Rutgers charges. This is true, but Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee, even PSU have spent DECADES building their fan bases and are historically successful programs over time. Rutgers has had about 20 years of success (give or take a few years) and while the fan base is much stronger than it was before, it just simply isn't that of the schools I mentioned. These schools also have huge alumni bases that routinely donate money.

It takes time to build everything and it isn't going to happen overnight. The students who were here when Rutgers started having success back then are the ones that will be donating in the future, but bigger donations from them likely won't happen until they start to have successful careers and are sound financially. Unfortunately, this may not happen for another 5-10-15 years.

 

[RU#1fan]

Originally posted by GeorgeStreet:
Al's plan makes sense. But a simpler way to raise money is to increase the price of football tickets. You want to see National Champions Ohio State University play at Rutgers? Pay da man.

We have that already . It's called Dynamic Pricing.
Wait to see the single game ticket prices vs. OSU.

 

[wheezer]

Originally posted by rutgersal:

Originally posted by wheezer:
A few of my group of nine were not happy with the increase in cost of the parking, I fear an additional $333 would be a problem...the answer is not to continually squeeze the ticket holders, but get some support from those who have not been season ticket holders

I'm sure that everyone in your group of nine wanted Rutgers in the Big Ten. Would they have donated if it meant the difference between the B1G and the American conference?

You need to tell your group of nine that our conference peers fans give much more to their teams than we do, which is why we have to increase our level of giving to keep up.

What we are asking for, is less than what Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State fans donate for Season Tickets. its tough for Rutgers to be competitive when Ohio State fans donate $30 million dollars/year and Rutgers fans donate $8 million dollars a year. $333/year is a pittance. Thats less than $1 dollar a day for the year. Thats not even the cost of a Dunkin Donuts Coffee!

Increased costs are necessary because we want to put a better product on the field. We want New Jerseys best to stay home, and better facilities are a great way to accomplish that goal.

We're not playing UConn, West Virginia, and Syracuse anymore. We're playing the Big Monied programs of Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State, who have top notch facilities. Even Maryland is sinking $150 million into their facilities so that they can sustain a competitive Big Ten Football program. Penn State is investing millions to upgrade their Lasch building. Michigan and Ohio State already have the best facilities money can buy. Thats why we need a shiny new toy of our own to show recruits. We don't want to be the only kid on the block that has nothing new to show people.

We need to continue to improve the product via recruiting, and that is only possible by keeping up in the facilities arms race. Your group of nine needs to step up to the plate. Otherwise we will sink to the bottom like Indiana.

Five Star recruits want Five Star facilities, and our football facilities are growing long in tooth. They were last updated in 2004. Thats 11 years, nearly an eternity in college football facilities aging.

Donations like these are not costs. They are investments into the success of the program. We can't collectively control what Rutgers does on the fields, but whether Rutgers has top notch facilities or not, is within our grasp.

When Michigan wanted a $250 million dollar stadium renovation, their alumni stepped up to the plate and got it done. We have to do similarly for a $50 million dollar football facility, a fraction of what Michigan alumni were able to raise.

everybody who needs like three parking passes and sits anywhere near the 50 has already paid a big price to be in the big 10

they accepted the increase but not without a bit of grumbling by one set of fans
in my group
.
....I can tell you flat out that another $333 MIGHT be a deal breaker for some , and in other groups as well

it is just a fact that you will have to accept.....we really do need to sell out the stadium for the big games, and your suggested increase will almost certainly push us towards many empty seats

 

[Local Shill]

Al is a single guy making nice coin. He haa nary a clue how the other half lives.
The tickets are not exactly cheap anymore and when you factor in the cost of living here,.. well... As much as I love going to the games is be pleasantly surprised if I can still swing season tickets in 10 or 15 more years.
Posted from Rivals Mobile