I AGREE with you, we only disagree on the blame part I think. MBB is embarrassing. Yet I was near tears when they beat Wisc this year. Trust me I care.
Barchi's response
- Thread starter Dpgru
- Start date
I absolutely would not. I was absolutely against the raise for Flood, and still think it was a waste of money (where was he going to go?). I know it was funded privately, but I would prefer that those funds went elsewhere (ie: MBB or other Olympic sports). That being said, if it was one donor as recently reported that funded the entire thing and that is what HE want, c'est la vie. Assuming that I simply don't like MBB just because I disagree with you is simply an ad hominem response and, quite frankly, beneath you.
Also, to clear up something above, I am not really "blaming" donors (I am a donor, after all), the problem really is that there are not enough of them (us), and there aren't enough "big donors" more specifically. But that doesn't mean the school should just go borrow money. The school should be doing what IMHO it is doing...out looking for more donors. JH seems to have placed much more emphasis on this aspect of her administration so far so I am hopeful we will see results in the coming years. But, also IMHO, it is a slow process that will take years of relationship building. Maybe we get lucky and they land a whale sooner rather than later, but I am not counting on it.
Again, IMHO, part of the problem today is that they did borrow practically the money for the stadium expansion. They absolutely should have made the expansion contingent on the raising of the $30 million in private donations. The AD subsidy today will be significantly smaller today, and there would be more appetite to do similar donation/borrowing combination projects in the future.
But the BoG got burned bad by the stadium expansion, so I can't blame them for asking alums/fans to pay for future upgrades. Donors (WE) need to step up to the plate and give more money to the AD if we want our sports teams to be better. That is the simple, basic fact. Threatening to withhold donations is not going to accomplish anything.
Der, I Know what he means, but my point is I get lamenting that we don't get more donations, but criticizing is not the way to go with donors. If there are potential donors, our staff should be finding them, if there are people who could give more and don't we should be finding out why, not criticizing them. Maybe they want more leadership, maybe they want to see plans first, maybe they want firm commitments, go find out.
There just seems to a segment of this board always criticizing fans and donors. We never give enough, we suck for not going to games, It is not the fans fault in any way that our Men's bb team is in the position they are. If there were clear plans, leadership, and a solid commitment, I believe season ticket holders and fans would get behind a push to build a practice facility. Whether it would be enough without more corporate sponsors and larger donors, I don't know.
With what's gone on here for the last 24 years, its a wonder that there are any fans left at all.
I doubt it. They didnt before. They didnt for Pernetti or Bob M. You can claim that there wasnt leadership - but I mean the football stadium expansion had clear plans and a solid commitment, and no one donated for it. So either we are missing leadership (did we really get it wrong on four consective ADS from four different backgrounds?) - or we really do have cheap fans/alumni who arent willing to put up the start up dough to get things rolling.
Last sentence says it all. RU just doesn't have the people willing to step up like many other schools do. Sure there's one here or there like Brown and the folks who donated to baseball a few years ago but nowhere the number or deep pockets like the schools RU competes against have.
Without them I doubt much, if anything gets done.
Sure for some....but at most other Univ...they have enough donors and/or revenue to keep renovating or building new basketball facilities over the past decade or so.
I just want to make a clarification (welcome to digest it as you wish) but while RU's so called subsidy to athletic is 44% (2013), RU's actual spending on athletic is the lowest in the Big Ten, and one of the lowest in the P5. And it stands today, RU spends less than 4% of its budget on athletics....
Let's not confuse subsidies with an high commitment to invest on athletics....
Let's not confuse subsidies with an high commitment to invest on athletics....
Actually, 2013 (RU's last season in the Big East), Rutgers had the 30th highest athletic budget in the country ($78.9 Million), so that's just in the top half of all P5 programs.
2013 Big East Rutgers had higher athletic budgets (approx $80 Million) then these teams in the Big Ten:
Illinois: $78.7 Million
Purdue: $74.6 Million
Indiana: $72.6 Million
Northwestern (2014): $66.4 Million
Maryland: $63.3 (ACC version)
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
This post was edited on 3/4 5:13 PM by Knight_Light
Also this is a situation Barchi inherited and did not set up himself--but is clearly very unhappy with. You might be able to say his predecessors spent on athletics through the subsidy (sort of) but he is of a very different mindset. He does not see the wisdom of investment in athletics, only the need to balance the books as soon as possible.
The list doesnt include private schools - so we might be just out of the top half, btu I thought that stat sounded wrong. We spend mid level P5 on sports. The issue is mostly that we dont make extra from FB or BB, or from the conference as a whole.
Basically we have FSU level spending and UCF level revenues.
That number ballooned last year because of the one time payouts like exit fees to the conference, buyout of Nelligan etc..I wouldn't expect to be as high this year. Usually we were in the 60-65M range with regards to budget and I'd expect us to fall back near those levels and then from there I think it will climb back up the longer we're in the B10.
Yea when I say last year I'm also basically talking about 2013 because those figures from USA today are always farther behind than the actual calendar years. I don't know what the figure will be for 2014 but I think it will be closer to that mid 60M area since all the one time expenses will be removed.
Actually December 2013 this board was going ballistic about lack of funding for football.
Again it was a donation issue.
And it's not really the current donors so much as a culture of not giving at all to RU, and not just for athletics, either.
Again it was a donation issue.
And it's not really the current donors so much as a culture of not giving at all to RU, and not just for athletics, either.
maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me it wouldn't take huge bucks to move RU from the bottom of the conference to something in the middle. That's not what we want, of course, but at least the program would be competitive. Isn't the biggest need for a coach who can hang around for a few years without getting into trouble?
But that's false.
Heck, even compared to Big Ten teams in 2013 (Northwestern 2014), Rutgers Athletics had higher budgets:
2013 Big East Rutgers had higher athletic budgets (approx $80 Million) then these teams in the Big Ten:
Illinois: $78.7 Million
Purdue: $74.6 Million
Indiana: $72.6 Million
Northwestern (2014): $66.4 Million
Maryland: $63.3 (ACC version)
Barchi (and the BOG) has to deal with, and keep happy, multiple stake holders. RU sports does not operate in a vacuum (you can read another point of view by guest columnist in today's Ledger).And he still has to stay within a budget. So, how do we get more $ for basketball? Either find some magical source of new, big $, or take it from somewhere else.
So, we can raise tuition (students will love that)
Cut the English department (of course, academic excellence from RU was a + with the B1G invite)
Serve smaller hot dogs at the RAC (dollar dogs and Rutgers, perfect together)
Convince the state to appropriate more money - I'm sure CC would love to give us $ instead of fixing the roads and the pension system).
If we raise the subsidy, rather than reduce it, I bet the will be a 12 part series in the Ledger (plus several Politi columns) slamming RU, not to mention Trenton pols slamming the University.
I would love to see more $ pumped into RU sports (would also like to see Men's Crew, lightweight football and fencing come back. Isn't happening.
So, we can raise tuition (students will love that)
Cut the English department (of course, academic excellence from RU was a + with the B1G invite)
Serve smaller hot dogs at the RAC (dollar dogs and Rutgers, perfect together)
Convince the state to appropriate more money - I'm sure CC would love to give us $ instead of fixing the roads and the pension system).
If we raise the subsidy, rather than reduce it, I bet the will be a 12 part series in the Ledger (plus several Politi columns) slamming RU, not to mention Trenton pols slamming the University.
I would love to see more $ pumped into RU sports (would also like to see Men's Crew, lightweight football and fencing come back. Isn't happening.
So we spend in the bottom half of the BIG and have a large subsidy. This proves we are committed to being competitive in BIG athletics? In the chicken or egg scenario, RU shows commitment first with a plan, and then maybe the Donors will start stepping up, not the other way around.
I am tired of posters attacking donors and fans.
When Schiano first got here, what was the plan? We were so behind in everything.
He got Greg Brown involved- not the President, not the AD.
He also had always dreamed of reviving the program, while RU has mostly hired a slew of midmajor guys who didn't belong here.
It all comes down to coaching.
Also, if alumni and donors don't want to be blamed, maybe they should make it so we aren't 14th in the conference in donations? How about that?
The Sabres owner financed the entire TTFP hockey program, but our donors shouldn't be asked to contribute to a basketball facility because of TP buthurt or no plans when JH has released the athletics village proposal?
He got Greg Brown involved- not the President, not the AD.
He also had always dreamed of reviving the program, while RU has mostly hired a slew of midmajor guys who didn't belong here.
It all comes down to coaching.
Also, if alumni and donors don't want to be blamed, maybe they should make it so we aren't 14th in the conference in donations? How about that?
The Sabres owner financed the entire TTFP hockey program, but our donors shouldn't be asked to contribute to a basketball facility because of TP buthurt or no plans when JH has released the athletics village proposal?
I (nor most) are not doing that. All I did was post information to show how your and the previous post were incorrect...as RU is about middle of the pack in P5 Athletic Budges and were not "dead last" in the Big Ten.
That's all.
I didn't say you were attacking donors, others have though. And thanks for correcting the poster who said we were dead last in spending, sounds like we are in the lower half though.
My post only said that I think its wrong that people use the fact that we have a large subsidy to prove RU really is committed to being competitive in BIG athletics. I haven't seen much evidence to show they are committed, except talk. Actions speak louder than words. We shall see.
This kind of investment will require support from a governor to ram it through all the opposition noise within the state. This Governor is not only unwilling to do that, he's part of the opposition.
No sense in Barchi spitting into the wind. As long as Christie is there, we're getting nothing.
Hopefully that changes down the road.
No sense in Barchi spitting into the wind. As long as Christie is there, we're getting nothing.
Hopefully that changes down the road.
Honestly, I think you're better off tweeting or writing thoughtful emails to whales like Woody Johnson, Bernie Marcus, the former Conagra CEO, local big wigs, etc..than your are politicians. That too obviously is a huge uphill climb and a shot in the dark but with politicians they're all about bluster but little in terms of action. The borrowing aspect of it considering the finances of the AD probably make it a non starter for most no matter how much you lobby them.
This post was edited on 3/5 8:22 AM by rutgersguy1
This post was edited on 3/5 8:22 AM by rutgersguy1
I think you are confusing "administrative commitment" with "alumni/fan commitment."
The School Administration (President and BoG) have been "investing" more in athletics than any other school in the country/world FOR THE LAST DECADE.
The problem is that we don't have enough donors (or our donors aren't giving enough). Essentially our alums/fans/donors want to provide their money as if RU is a mid-major, but expect the school to spend money as if it is a top 25 program. This is the equivalent of citizens voting against taxes but then demanding the government provide services. It can't work like that indefinitely. At some point the donors/citizens have to start paying for stuff. The BoG has been making up the shortfall for donors for a decade (and more, really), now it is simply time for donors to put up or shut up. Rutgers fans don't have a god given right to a top tier athletics programs. If they want it, the fans themselves will have to pay for it.
they invested in football not anything else just to correct and it was only so they could collect a big payday. Yet all the other sports are embarrassment infrastructure wise that are MAAC level. Its why we get beat up in field hockey, lacrosse, baseball, volleyball and all sports not named football, womens hoops and wrestling.
Like every other program! Bama didn't pay off Saban's house, donors did. Oregon's insane over the top locker room? Yep, they didn't spend a penny on that, all donor money. Most upgrades that you see on-line for schools that leave Rutgers MBB fans and football fans drooling and other saying that college sports are doom? That was nearly all paid for by donors. The schools didn't pay for most of that stuff. Even NJIT new all sports arena, it won't get made without donors picking up half the bill. Which would be more than Rutgers would have raise for a sports project in the past.
Stadium Expansion = barely raise anything, the school had to eat nearly the full cost.
RAC upgrades = raise just enough for a new scoreboard and sound system.
There is not a B1G culture of people giving to Rutgers like that for anything. Until, that changes, we will have to make do with what we have with small upgrades here and there.
Like every other program! Bama didn't pay off Saban's house, donors did. Oregon's insane over the top locker room? Yep, they didn't spend a penny on that, all donor money. Most upgrades that you see on-line for schools that leave Rutgers MBB fans and football fans drooling and other saying that college sports are doom? That was nearly all paid for by donors. The schools didn't pay for most of that stuff. Even NJIT new all sports arena, it won't get made without donors picking up half the bill. Which would be more than Rutgers would have raise for a sports project in the past.
Stadium Expansion = barely raise anything, the school had to eat nearly the full cost.
RAC upgrades = raise just enough for a new scoreboard and sound system.
There is not a B1G culture of people giving to Rutgers like that for anything. Until, that changes, we will have to make do with what we have with small upgrades here and there.
Ok, so?
If they were going to spend, spending it on football was clearly the right choice, in hindsight. But it cannot go on forever, and the people running the state and the university have decided now is the time to start weening away the subsidy. But lets be clear, in 2015 Rutgers will still have the largest athletics subsidy in the country (and Football will likely show a profit, which means that subsidy is now for everyone else). Football is also the only sport that will eventually be able to make the overall AD self sufficient.
Even if you hate football (which I know you do not) you have to see that, if they were going to "invest" in anything, football was the only rational choice. No other sport had any chance of ever getting the same level of revenues as football. Even if the MBB team won 5 national championships in a row, it still wouldn't earn as much money as our mediocre football team.
Ok, Tony, lets get more specific here, because all this really started about the need for a basketball practice facility. I think most of us realize a new arena or major RAC renovations, although sorely needed, will take a while.
And I think we all understand Football drives the bus and the more successful it is the more profit we will have to help fund other sports.
And I haven't heard anybody say donors and corporate sponsors will not be a major part of the solution. But, we did accept a invitation to join a conference who has a charter for excellence in both academics and athletics. So, although fans have no "god given" right as you say for top athletic programs, Rutgers does have an obligation to try and field competitive teams, and if not, should not have joined the conference. We accepted that invitation, so therefore we need a plan.
It is not enough for Barchi to tell us Sorry, we have financial problems, can't spend any money. He is the president of a BIG university, and athletics is a big part of that. He needs to lead the charge. Even if Rutgers won't spend money now, at the very least we should have had a strong plan in place, and a commitment to Men's basketball.
With strong leadership, a clear plan, and a commitment to Men's basketball, we would at least have something to take to Donors to try and get some funding. Right now, we have nothing except a memo which says we have no money and we are studying it. We accepted the invitation 2 years ago, we shouldn't still have to hear we are still studying it.
My issue is more with commitment and leadership than it is with Rutgers Financial position. I understand the reluctance to spend money under current circumstances, although I respectfully disagree with you and others who say we can't borrow money now. I think we can, but I get both sides of the debate.
Donors may be the biggest part of the solution, but it will still never happen if Rutgers and its President don't step up and lead.
So we should not speak of the cause of the problem?
If I or most of this board was the CEO of Home Depot, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Similar threads
