Because some of the people on this site are actually fans of other teams.
APP/NorthJersey.COM: Rutgers athletics rang up a $73M deficit last year. Students, taxpayers were on the hook
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
73mm for all that advertising sounds like a great deal. Class it that way and be done with it.
I love RU sports and think they are a necessary and beneficial part of the university.
All we can ask for articles like this is if the information/data is correct. If the author's slant is wrong or the data is incorrect then RU has a PR staff to issue a correction or clarification
Newspapers write articles like this all the time and when it has to do with issues that many here do not support they eat it up. Can't get upset when those who do not support RU athletics do the same
All we can ask for articles like this is if the information/data is correct. If the author's slant is wrong or the data is incorrect then RU has a PR staff to issue a correction or clarification
Newspapers write articles like this all the time and when it has to do with issues that many here do not support they eat it up. Can't get upset when those who do not support RU athletics do the same
And yet we are magnanimous enough on the Rutgers Rivals board to allow them an open forum. Why is that again? Other than being a free this wouldn’t be tolerated on let’s say PSU ‘s free areas.
These articles are so disingenuous and never address the real issue here. Its called Title IX. There is a very simple solution to ending the deficit. Simply get rid of all non-revenue generating programs that don't cover themselves. And suddenly our athletics program will be showing a nice profit. Of course, that would leave us with football, MBB, and maybe wrestling and WBB (not sure anymore since that program has fallen off the face of the earth under CVS). But the people writing the articles and those complaining about the deficit wouldn't like that outcome, because it would impact a lot of female athletes who play on programs that largely exist due to Title IX requirements. I am not suggesting that would be a good answer for Rutgers overall, but it would solve the deficit problem. I just wish people would be more transparent and address the real issues when discussing WHY we have a deficit. Instead it usually turns into a rant on how much we spend on football - the one program that actually brings in money to support the rest of them.
I was shocked to hear (not verified, but good source) that a head track and field coach at P5 school can make in a range of $300-400K/year. Don't know what our non-revenue sport head coaches make, but if that figure is correct ($300-400K/year to coach a non-revenue sport that is not supported by donations, that is excessive.
This is unfair. Do you know what an Escalade costs these days, what with supply chains and Brandon and stuff?? It ain't easy squeakin' by on 400k these days.
Many/most non-revenue sport coaches make a good portion of their yearly earning from their summer camps.
Oh it wouldn't surprise me in the least (cough-cough) if there's at least 1 major troll in this thread 👍
It may be time for the AD to have the very difficult discussion of cutting sports if it makes sense.
They would need to have solid framing of it though - using articles such as these for evidence of "why are we doing this? Because of information like this".
Even just making it clear "85 football scholarships requires us to keep an additional 85 female scholarships so football has further benefits"
Perhaps after the AD is on more stable financial ground, add back in certain sports.
Does the BIG Ten have a minimum number of sports?
I have problems with that from the beginning, but have major problems if the former player of those sports, and RU sports fans in general, don't have a chance through annual giving or an endowment to fund them beyond what the university does.
SIAP, but isn't there an obvious problem here: that the numbers are for a year in which only a few people were allowed to attend games, and so revenues were exceptionally low?The story includes a 15 minute interview with the writers, if anyone cares to watch.
Rutgers athletics rang up a $73M deficit last year. Students, taxpayers were on the hook
Rutgers athletics spending reached an all-time high of $118 million in 2020-21. Direct university subsidies more than doubled, to nearly $28 million.www.app.com
Agreed. For me, it's a cost of doing business and wouldn't cut any sports. But I'm not the one "complaining" about the subsidy.
Just mentioning it as an option for the AD to start the conversation and put the heat back on Holloway, the "media", the "taxpayers" and the "Rutgers 1000 faculty".
Have AD Hobbs say something like:
"Ok, you want us to cut costs. Here are the books and how much money each individual sport costs and brings in.
If you want to us to eliminate poor performing (financially) sports, you tell us - and those kids - what sports we should cut."
Go on the offensive and call their bluff.
CVS should have been replaced long ago.
Just blame it on COVID and be done with it
I wouldn't have it any other way. By having trolling/negatoid/attention-seeking threads like that, we get to have fun responding in new and creative ways.
Gotta look at that stuff w/a strong sense of humor is all.
It is amusing that someone can be so negative and hang around on a board devoted to something they feel so negative about. Life it too short to live that way. If something makes you miserable, reduce it or cut it out of your life. Alternatively, find something about it that makes you happy. But some people revel in misery. Metallica wrote a great song about such people.
Misery
There's much more to life than what you see
My friend of misery
You still stood there screaming
No one caring about these words you tell
My friend, before your voice is gone
One man's fun is another's hell
Because it's entertaining. If we had nothing but similar-themed posts, this place would suck.
Diversity is what makes this forum (or any forum, IMO) tick. We have it all, the negatoids, positoids, the locals and out-of-staters, the worshipers and skeptics, the timid, moderate and aggressive, the RU fans, fans of other programs who become regulars here, the young, the old, and the ancient (not mentioning any names), the humorous and the humorless, the bipolar and the level-headed, the overly serious and the lacking in high seriousness, pranksters, trolls, information sources, and on and on.
It's a great big totally dysfunctional online community. Ain't it great? 😀
I see these articles and think to myself, is that it? We need to spend a lot more on athletics.
Maybe if we could just fire a few grossly overpaid researchers and promote their grad students who are doing all the real work anyway. 😁
Maybe if we could just fire a few grossly overpaid researchers and promote their grad students who are doing all the real work anyway. 😁
I recently came across my copy while I was going through some boxes in my basement.
Easier said than done. Title IX requires an equal number of women's opportunities as men's. You need some of these sports to exists solely to offset the 85 from football. Hence, the financial anchor around the neck of these schools athletics programs required by the NCAA that no one really wants to talk about. Another B1G problem is there is an expectation that we field a certain number of athletics programs as a member of the B1G. Yes, these programs might lose money, but it is cost of doing business to be in the B1G, which returns benefits multitudes of times over to us. But again, these morons that complain and write the articles about the "deficit" don't want to talk about that either. It really makes me sick
Taxpayers hardly contribute anything to Rutgers and even less to athletics. We're talking about less than $1 a year that an average taxpayer contributes to Rutgers athletics.
For what it’s worth based on a study I did back in the 1990’s (who knows if it is still valid) only one school in the University took in more in tuition than it paid in direct expenses - Social Work. Law came close due to the tuition surcha collected by the law schools
...how about a group of reporters try to figure what happened to I think the $4 BILLION from the ill-fated SCC that went totally unaccounted for about 20 years ago?
Joe P.
All of the people in the media and politics that think RU football is a "waste of taxpayer money" will be the first in line with their hands out for free tickets if Schiano somehow turns this thing all the way around and gets RU to the Rose Bowl.
Well about 1 million went to purchase a lot in Passiac for a school that after purchase was determined to be a "brownfield". Shhhhhh......
I remember reading an article years back that reported something like only $2.1 of the $6.2 billion that had been allocated to the fund was able to be 'traced'/invoiced with any type of accuracy, and the majority of that $2.1 billion was spent in projects that went 2-3x over budget/market rates at the time...and that the funds were often being used to basically buy toxic waste dumps without following proper DEP procedures/protocols, etc.
Joe P.
I had an extended family member who complained incessantly about him launch for Rutgers Athletics through his taxes.
at Christmas I handed him a $5 bill
And told him I didn’t want hear it again out of his pie hole for the next five years.
Last edited:
And we taxpayers are still paying interest on those bonds. Shhhhhhh....
I had dinner with Pat last week and asked him about this. This isn’t happening. It’s almost impossible to do at this point. Last year was an anomaly, given Covid and all. Finances will get better and better.
The story includes a 15 minute interview with the writers, if anyone cares to watch.
Rutgers athletics rang up a $73M deficit last year. Students, taxpayers were on the hook
Rutgers athletics spending reached an all-time high of $118 million in 2020-21. Direct university subsidies more than doubled, to nearly $28 million.www.app.com
Ha!! The tax payers…yeah, that small percentage of a cent per dollar of my state taxes that go towards RU sports. Give me a break.
It’s not a great number for sure but as soon as I see this causes suffering to “taxpayers” I immediately lose interest. This is just smoke screen for all the other corrupt shit that is really screwing tax payers and I’m not even a right wing conspiracy theorist.
I knew it as the Schools Construction Fund, 6-8 billion bond issue that was to fund roughly 150 different projects either building or doing major upgrades to K-12 facilities. Roughly 18-20 years ago. Only about 1/3 of the projects were completed, with major cost overruns or other screw ups.
Yeahp, it was the NJ School Construction Corporation that was later overhauled into the NJ Schools Development Authority (NJSDA). The original goal of the SCC was to rebuild/redevelop school buildings in need with a focus on the Abbott districts; the financial books ended up resembling UMDNJ's.
Joe P.
Latest posts
-
-
-
***Ask The Experts Presented by American Financial Network’s Greg Ginn***- Latest: High Quality H2O
-
