At Rutgers, It's Books vs. Ballgames
- Thread starter DT Hawxhurst
- Start date
The very definition of a false choice. The assumption is the word "or" versus "and". The author should be writing an article about the pervasiveness of the administrative layers taking over modern universities. All of this dead weight is required to support compliance to regulations and dictates placed upon them by politicians and other "well meaning" individuals.
When I see the ratio of administrators to faculty drop below 1 then I'll start to believe that people like this really care about building an education centered university environment rather than a place to employ their otherwise irrelevant degrees. Otherwise I'll continue to make the argument that sports are no different than any other club or extra curricular activity and organization that modern universities currently fund. Like those other diversions, why isn't sports part of the education experience? In fact I would argue that support for sports cuts across a much wider cross section of the student population than nearly every other student special interest activities.
Having read the comments attached to the article I feel like my IQ has dropped a good 20 points. I should know better than to do that for an Op-Ed in the NY Times. The $25M mentioned in the article is but a fraction of subsidies the gov't pays out to pro sports teams with much less tangible ROI. What about that colossal waste of money that is Xanadu? How are sports any different than the arts so far as public interest if measured by economic impact and attendance?
When I see the ratio of administrators to faculty drop below 1 then I'll start to believe that people like this really care about building an education centered university environment rather than a place to employ their otherwise irrelevant degrees. Otherwise I'll continue to make the argument that sports are no different than any other club or extra curricular activity and organization that modern universities currently fund. Like those other diversions, why isn't sports part of the education experience? In fact I would argue that support for sports cuts across a much wider cross section of the student population than nearly every other student special interest activities.
Having read the comments attached to the article I feel like my IQ has dropped a good 20 points. I should know better than to do that for an Op-Ed in the NY Times. The $25M mentioned in the article is but a fraction of subsidies the gov't pays out to pro sports teams with much less tangible ROI. What about that colossal waste of money that is Xanadu? How are sports any different than the arts so far as public interest if measured by economic impact and attendance?
Last edited:
Agreed.. false choice and even worse, zero research. This writer is just repeating what he has heard.
If Rutgers was not in the Big Ten and did not play "big time football" at all.. how much would its revenues and expenditures be?
What does MIT spend on athletics? This story suggests it is 12.9 million and is looking to cut 1.45 million from that. Assuming ZERO revenues from sports,, it is wasting 12.9 million dollars that could be used for books and professors.
And, if the OP Times story is correct.. for another 8 million they could have Big Ten athletics including football.
Stupid story.
If Rutgers was not in the Big Ten and did not play "big time football" at all.. how much would its revenues and expenditures be?
What does MIT spend on athletics? This story suggests it is 12.9 million and is looking to cut 1.45 million from that. Assuming ZERO revenues from sports,, it is wasting 12.9 million dollars that could be used for books and professors.
And, if the OP Times story is correct.. for another 8 million they could have Big Ten athletics including football.
Stupid story.
Checked his Bio. The second that I saw that he had been born in Providence,I knew that we were in trouble.
We didn't join the SEC, we joined the Big Ten, where most of its members are ACADEMICALLY ranked just as high or much higher than Rutgers. Other than one school, they are all also State funded Universities. They match our profile, so why is it different when they spend money on both but Rutgers is somehow selling out when we do the same thing? It's 100% hypocritical.
Scarlet Scourge - I know Joe Nocero pretty well. He is not picking on Rutgers simply to pick on Rutgers. The article is about Rutgers because the current debate over athletic spending simply happens to be in the news at the moment. Nocero would absolutely agree with you that there is no difference in his view between Rutgers or any other State funded university. Indeed, he would almost certainly state that massive funding of athletics by any university is a poor decision. You and many others may legitimately disagree with him, but he is not anti RU. He is simply using the current situation at RU to present his views regarding university athletic spending generally.
Yeah I should know better than to read the comments, particularly in a NY Times op-ed. A bunch of people dripping with faux intelligence because they participate in the "high-brow" NY Times online world.
And did he really say that Rutgers should strive to be like our nearby schools, and then mention Princeton, UPenn, and Columbia? C'mon now.
And did he really say that Rutgers should strive to be like our nearby schools, and then mention Princeton, UPenn, and Columbia? C'mon now.
Well, if he's pro-RU, why the dig at the one point of sports pride all RU alums share in? He didn't need to cast doubt on RU-Princeton being the first college football game: "Although Rutgers is said to have played the first American college football game ever — against Princeton, in 1869..."
Also why not give us credit for going to the B1G and making that deficit disappear by 2021, when we'll finally be getting a full share - the deficit sucks, but most of it is not related to football and will be eliminated by - you guessed it - football in the B1G.
RU#s - it certainly is related to football. Or rather, the fact that we have a deficit and other schools don't is entirely related to the fact that our FB and BB programs are basically break even instead of profit centers. No one really makes money on Olympic sports. They also dont lose money on BB and FB.
But you are right- the school should get credit for investing in FB and getting into the Big Ten, which will allow FB and BB to become profit centers and erase the subsidy.
But they wont, because thats not a newsy story. The good thing is - RU will just look that much better in a few years, when the department is better (we cant be this bad in so many sports forever) AND making money.
But you are right- the school should get credit for investing in FB and getting into the Big Ten, which will allow FB and BB to become profit centers and erase the subsidy.
But they wont, because thats not a newsy story. The good thing is - RU will just look that much better in a few years, when the department is better (we cant be this bad in so many sports forever) AND making money.
RU848 - if you read my post I did not say Nocero is pro RU. I stated that he is not anti RU. That is a major distinction. Nocero is one of many people who believe that the money that is spent on Division 1 sports by universities is misguided. He does not believe RU is the only school guilty of such conduct - he believes that of universities in general. The fact that we may eliminate the sports "deficit" by 2021 is not his point. His point is that massive spending on athletics is misguided. There are many legitimate arguments both ways on this topic. Nocero happens to feel strongly about this topic and has written and spoken about it extensively over the years. I understand that folks may disagree, but he is actually a very thoughtful individual who has put a great deal of time into thinking about and researching this subject. I was disappointed about the article because it comes across as vary superficial and rather pedestrian. If folks had the opportunity to engage him on the subject matter you would probably not agree with him, but you would be impressed by how much research and analysis he has developed in this area. He presents far more sophisticated analysis than the superficial Rutgers 1000 - or what has been presented in this op-ed piece in the Times.
If this is true, and I have to reason to not believe you, Nocero did a very poor job of articulating his point. There was little in his opinion piece that hasn't been spewed elsewhere, and all this "research and analysis" he's done is no where to be found. It's just a bunch of anti-athletics talking points we've heard a million times already from different outlets.
Classof02 - I agree with you. The Op-Ed piece was quite poor. When I read it I kept waiting for the piece to go somewhere, but it really did not.
- it was not really an "article" - it was a piece on "The Opinion Pages" by an "Op-Ed Columnist" - Joe Nocero - and - he was basically just presenting his opinion (seasoned with some cherry-picked 'factoids') which, as noted, is pretty strongly on the same basic camp as the Rutgers 1000, and those who would discontinue all Division 1 level sports, and Mark Killingsworth!
- - - oh, he may be more sophisticated than some & he may able to assemble lots of data that he feels supports his opinion - but collecting data that supports your pre-established opinion is is simply "advocacy of your own agenda" - not the same as honest objective research.
- - - oh, he may be more sophisticated than some & he may able to assemble lots of data that he feels supports his opinion - but collecting data that supports your pre-established opinion is is simply "advocacy of your own agenda" - not the same as honest objective research.
Last edited:
This is a lazy column where Nocera is just repeating the Prof. K. Party line. I'm not sure Nocera is even aware his source is engaging in union evangelization. Sloppy. When he writes about GM's business does he write an opinion piece based solely on UAW sources?
If his research and analysis was so good , why didn't he mention the financial impact membership in the CIC brings to the university. Furthermore mention the fact that the CIC membership only goes to those who are members of the Big Ten. I don't think this point was overlooked, but intentionally ignored.
The pathos of this article comes from the comments.
1) Rutgers has a $3.6 Billion dollar budget
2) The athletic dept. loose 1% of the grand total
3) Total number of Full and part time students =65,000
4) Than means Rutgers spends $55,000/student
>>>>>>>HELLO<<<<<<< fire the over paid professors!!!
1) Rutgers has a $3.6 Billion dollar budget
2) The athletic dept. loose 1% of the grand total
3) Total number of Full and part time students =65,000
4) Than means Rutgers spends $55,000/student
>>>>>>>HELLO<<<<<<< fire the over paid professors!!!
Good point - but there is one "non-Big Ten" member of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation - the University of Chicago - yes, this U.S. News #4 ranked National University (tied with Stanford and Columbia) somehow is delighted to associate with these Big Ten Universities.
He would also benefit for devoting some consideration to the membership list of - The Association of American Universities (AAU) - Which is an association of 62 leading public and private research universities in the United States and Canada.
Membership in AAU is by invitation and is based on the high quality of programs of academic research and scholarship and undergraduate, graduate, and professional education in a number of fields, as well as general recognition that a university is outstanding by reason of the excellence of its research and education programs.
Hard as it might be for him to imagine, but nonetheless true is the fact that 13 of the 14 members of the Big Ten are members of the AAU - a few have been members for over 100 years!
The University if Chicago was an original founding member of the Big ten Conference, thats why it is part of the CIC
U of Chicago opened it's door and started playing Football with in weeks of each other. Won a national championship in FB and then proceeded to drop FB as they had made a name for itself just like the schools that make up the Ivies. But of course that is left out of the article because that would not serve his purpose
Speaking of the Ivies again.. I wonder if the writer of this story realizes the Ivies still recruit.. and pay to host athletes on official visits. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some Ivy League schools spend more on athletics than Rutgers (once you cancel out the revenue vs expenses).
[edit: just noticed in the link below even Rutgers looks like revenues match expenses. This can only mean the "general funds" used to balance the books are included for everyone. Te focus on that website is to examine spending and revenues by GENDER of the team/sport]
I knew I could look up Cornell here according to that link, Cornell spends over 23 million on Athletics. And you just know that they are middling in the Ivy sports spending. That site says they are revenue neutral.. which probably means donations aimed at athletics or they are using some form of fancy bookwork to make revenue match expenses.
This money-saving scheme to drop from the Big Ten is not what the people who support such notions think it is. If we spend like an Ivy school we will still be deficit spending. Couple that with revenues we will be seeing from the Big Ten in the near future and such calls to drop from the Big Ten are sheer lunacy. This is all just an attack on college athletics in-general. I, for on, believe that athletics have just as much ACADEMIC value as music and the performing arts and fine arts and studying French Romance Literature.
[edit: just noticed in the link below even Rutgers looks like revenues match expenses. This can only mean the "general funds" used to balance the books are included for everyone. Te focus on that website is to examine spending and revenues by GENDER of the team/sport]
I knew I could look up Cornell here according to that link, Cornell spends over 23 million on Athletics. And you just know that they are middling in the Ivy sports spending. That site says they are revenue neutral.. which probably means donations aimed at athletics or they are using some form of fancy bookwork to make revenue match expenses.
This money-saving scheme to drop from the Big Ten is not what the people who support such notions think it is. If we spend like an Ivy school we will still be deficit spending. Couple that with revenues we will be seeing from the Big Ten in the near future and such calls to drop from the Big Ten are sheer lunacy. This is all just an attack on college athletics in-general. I, for on, believe that athletics have just as much ACADEMIC value as music and the performing arts and fine arts and studying French Romance Literature.
Last edited:
dodger - you're really splitting hairs on my first point. He's being anti-RU with his dig, questioning the authenticity of RU-Princeton being the first college football game. It's not even up for debate. I didn't say much about the rest of his opinion piece, other than to say it's not particularly balanced and provided an example.
That aside, I completely agree with the general thrust of his opinion, i.e., that universities have completely capitulated to the almighty dollar with respect to big time sports and the missions of these universities have been conveniently "ignored" in the facilities/coaches arms race. I wish the University Presidents would show some balls and put some limitations in place on spending and move towards a more egalitarian (and broadly successful) revenue sharing model.
It's funny how the perceived "robber barons" of the NFL are acting far more egalitarian (albeit for an overall objective of maximizing total income for the League) than the perceived "ultra liberal elitists" that run our universities, who are clearly champions of the "screw everyone else, gimme mine" approach, i..e, "greed is good." I think he did a horrible job trying to make any larger points, by, well, not really making any larger points, but sticking to sticking it to RU. You should try defending him less and providing him with constructive feedback more. Just my opinion.
Agree with RU#s.. perhaps once the big power conferences withdraw from the NCAA to form their own athletics ruling organization they can employ spending caps and luxury taxes for the benefit of all. The "name" programs need to have worthy foes.. worthy conference mates.. or they have achieved nothing.
Instead of being able to pay Jim Harbaugh millions and millions, or hundreds of thousands in expenses to conference committee members evaluating teams for bowl games.. perhaps they can establish a stipend to be doled out to all D1 athletes independent of what participating member they choose to play for.
And, of course, divide other revenues equally. The name programs will still make more in donations, ticket sales and the like... but the little guys will be able to compete more fairly and give the average football fan a better product and thus secure the source of the BULK of the revenues... TV ad sales.
Instead of being able to pay Jim Harbaugh millions and millions, or hundreds of thousands in expenses to conference committee members evaluating teams for bowl games.. perhaps they can establish a stipend to be doled out to all D1 athletes independent of what participating member they choose to play for.
And, of course, divide other revenues equally. The name programs will still make more in donations, ticket sales and the like... but the little guys will be able to compete more fairly and give the average football fan a better product and thus secure the source of the BULK of the revenues... TV ad sales.
Athletics is the second largest scholarship program in the US behind the GI Bill. Now the esteemed professors look down their nose at athletes, but thousands of young adults earned college degrees who might not have otherwise done so. Plus is a college scholarship for a talented athlete any different than a scholarship for a talented violinist, other than the cultural elitism involved?
The New York Times loves to opine about the gap between the rich and the poor, yet it survives on advertising and cultural coverage oriented exclusively to the rich. Similarly, they love to opine about the evils of college sports, yet continue to feature Sports coverage prominently. Many of their readers and this columnist and his source suggest that RU should drop sports; perhaps the Times should drop its coverage of sports and see how that turns out for their circulation and advertising sales.
The New York Times loves to opine about the gap between the rich and the poor, yet it survives on advertising and cultural coverage oriented exclusively to the rich. Similarly, they love to opine about the evils of college sports, yet continue to feature Sports coverage prominently. Many of their readers and this columnist and his source suggest that RU should drop sports; perhaps the Times should drop its coverage of sports and see how that turns out for their circulation and advertising sales.
Rather that take a personal day Joe Nocera re-wrote a column that's been written many times already. Lazy.
I think we're right where we should be right now. For the next 5 years, we have to do the best we can to compete in the Big Ten with a Big East budget. I'd say for the first year we did pretty darn good. In a few years we'll be raking in the money and no one will be able to say anything. Hopefully by then we'll be having the level of athletic success as our B1G peers as well. For now, just have to tread water and battle the 2 sides - those who say we spend too much and those who say we don't spend enough, both who have good arguments right now.
Any article on this topic citing Killingsworth is intellectually dishonest. The guy is a Michigan football season ticketholder.
Basically, he supports state schools spending on athletics- just not RU. Not one journalist has ever called him out on it.
Nocera is no better than Luicci and co. Ask the man who paid for the fiasco called Michigan football the past seven years while the state is mired in economic problems. Does every professor at Michigan-Flint have enough chalk? How about that QB a few years ago that washed out under Rich Rod, was he bullied? Or that QB with a concussion? Is Michigan affordable to residents of Detroit? He should be made to answer the same nonsensical questions that our admin does.
Basically, he supports state schools spending on athletics- just not RU. Not one journalist has ever called him out on it.
Nocera is no better than Luicci and co. Ask the man who paid for the fiasco called Michigan football the past seven years while the state is mired in economic problems. Does every professor at Michigan-Flint have enough chalk? How about that QB a few years ago that washed out under Rich Rod, was he bullied? Or that QB with a concussion? Is Michigan affordable to residents of Detroit? He should be made to answer the same nonsensical questions that our admin does.
The question that this opinion piece raises — and makes absolutely no effort to answer — is whether or not Rutgers undergraduates are getting a quality education at Rutgers over the course of this athletics development arc. In the same sentence, Nocera points out that tuition and fees are on the rise and that state support for higher education is in free fall, so — other than the fact that sports are a convenient and easy target — why is the athletic department in his cross hairs and not the New Jersey legislature?
This isn’t a zero sum game. You don’t create a better academic climate by simply making your athletic department worse. Like it or not, Americans pay more attention to the performance of college football teams than they do to undergraduate studies in the arts and sciences. The strategy within Rutgers’s "Game of Thrones" always seems to be to rob money from some other department, as opposed to growing revenues externally via directed philanthropy, public/private partnership with regional industry or increased support from the state government who runs Rutgers for the benefit of the citizens of New Jersey. Out of state applications to Rutgers are up 15% this year — a staggering 20% increase over the expected year-over-year growth. International applications to Rutgers are up 40%. Demand for a Rutgers education is at a level unseen since the end of World War II and the introduction of the G.I. Bill. The ledger on the finances of Rutgers Athletics is not a well-kept secret, so if intercollegiate sports are such a drain on the value of a Rutgers education, why is Rutgers in a position to be more selective about undergraduate admissions and enhance its revenue stream through an increase in out-of-state tuition payments?
Is the headline to Nocera’s piece even remotely accurate? "Books v. Ballgames?" Is this really a fight over whether to spend money on athletics OR academics? Or is this a internal power struggle between department heads who can’t understand why the lowest paid football coach in major college football still earns a million dollars a year and generates 30 headlines a week in the state’s largest circulation newspaper?
I’m neither indifferent nor ignorant about the fiscal challenges faced by a higher education infrastructure dependent upon a the whims of a bowl-swirling state government budget, but Nocera’s screed is yet another misdirected complaint about the realities of flagship state research universities and intercollegiate athletics. If the State University of New Jersey needs increased financial support, then let’s go out and get it, and stop vilifying the less than 1% of of the school’s operating budget that underwrites its athletics program and generates the vast majority of its press coverage. The time we’re wasting on a self-destructive, internal knife-fight over the viability of our athletics program could be far better spent by soliciting gifts and sponsorships from New Jersey’s vast individual and corporate wealth to make "Rutgers" a higher education brand synonymous with the finest flagship public research institutions in America.
This isn’t a zero sum game. You don’t create a better academic climate by simply making your athletic department worse. Like it or not, Americans pay more attention to the performance of college football teams than they do to undergraduate studies in the arts and sciences. The strategy within Rutgers’s "Game of Thrones" always seems to be to rob money from some other department, as opposed to growing revenues externally via directed philanthropy, public/private partnership with regional industry or increased support from the state government who runs Rutgers for the benefit of the citizens of New Jersey. Out of state applications to Rutgers are up 15% this year — a staggering 20% increase over the expected year-over-year growth. International applications to Rutgers are up 40%. Demand for a Rutgers education is at a level unseen since the end of World War II and the introduction of the G.I. Bill. The ledger on the finances of Rutgers Athletics is not a well-kept secret, so if intercollegiate sports are such a drain on the value of a Rutgers education, why is Rutgers in a position to be more selective about undergraduate admissions and enhance its revenue stream through an increase in out-of-state tuition payments?
Is the headline to Nocera’s piece even remotely accurate? "Books v. Ballgames?" Is this really a fight over whether to spend money on athletics OR academics? Or is this a internal power struggle between department heads who can’t understand why the lowest paid football coach in major college football still earns a million dollars a year and generates 30 headlines a week in the state’s largest circulation newspaper?
I’m neither indifferent nor ignorant about the fiscal challenges faced by a higher education infrastructure dependent upon a the whims of a bowl-swirling state government budget, but Nocera’s screed is yet another misdirected complaint about the realities of flagship state research universities and intercollegiate athletics. If the State University of New Jersey needs increased financial support, then let’s go out and get it, and stop vilifying the less than 1% of of the school’s operating budget that underwrites its athletics program and generates the vast majority of its press coverage. The time we’re wasting on a self-destructive, internal knife-fight over the viability of our athletics program could be far better spent by soliciting gifts and sponsorships from New Jersey’s vast individual and corporate wealth to make "Rutgers" a higher education brand synonymous with the finest flagship public research institutions in America.
One comment says, "Ask most people who the highest paid state government employee is and virtually no one will say "Kyle Flood". Early in his first term, Governor Christie took aim at the salaries of school district superintendents, calling them greedy and partly blaming them for New Jersey's sky-high property taxes, yet nearly all made far less than a sixth of what Kyle Flood makes.
If the Rutgers administration and alums thinks competing in the Big Ten is going to enhance the school's academic reputation and thereby the caliber of the student body, they really do have misplaced priorities."
Except Kyle Flood makes less than half of what a single professor makes at Rutgers. I mean, by go, this is just stupid.
"Another rationale is that now that Rutgers is in the Big Ten, it will have to step up its game to compete — which, of course, would require lavish facilities, just like those at Ohio State and Michigan."
Uhhh....no. No one is saying we need to have that level facilities to compete. There's 13 other schools that don't spend that much.
If the Rutgers administration and alums thinks competing in the Big Ten is going to enhance the school's academic reputation and thereby the caliber of the student body, they really do have misplaced priorities."
Except Kyle Flood makes less than half of what a single professor makes at Rutgers. I mean, by go, this is just stupid.
"Another rationale is that now that Rutgers is in the Big Ten, it will have to step up its game to compete — which, of course, would require lavish facilities, just like those at Ohio State and Michigan."
Uhhh....no. No one is saying we need to have that level facilities to compete. There's 13 other schools that don't spend that much.
