Do we have too many teams? I gotta ask
- Thread starter suggakane
- Start date
IMG deal worth close to 6 mil./yr , stadium naming rights deal worth 650,000/ yr . Are these revenues figured in?
How is it part of the University's mission to support sports that lose money and bring no additional visibility to the University, but it is not part of the University's mission to invest in a sport that brings it countless hours of national visibility - in the context of an AD hemorrhaging money?
I understand tolerating the English department losing money. I don't understand it for golf. (Note - hard science and engineering departments run about at par or better due to the grant process. Social Science departments lose money. Tuition goes to cover these departments plus the buses, RU police and other student service that are not specifically educational or directly related to the department.)
I understand tolerating the English department losing money. I don't understand it for golf. (Note - hard science and engineering departments run about at par or better due to the grant process. Social Science departments lose money. Tuition goes to cover these departments plus the buses, RU police and other student service that are not specifically educational or directly related to the department.)
Funny you bring up Stanford in this discussion, because Stanford DID exactly this in 2009 -
"In February, Stanford eliminated 21 staff positions in its athletic department and cut funding to the school's nationally ranked men's fencing team. Stanford officials told the fencing team it would have to raise $250,000 to cover operating costs next season and raise additional money to create an endowment for future expenses."
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=4314195
Still think this is a silly post or am I suggesting that we emulate a practice from one of if not the most successful AD's in the country?
Rutgers already cut the Men's Fencing program, the same program that had won a National Championship years before. All hell broke loose when this happen.
My understanding is 2014 numbers reflect both of these. Not sure if 2014 had any one time costs we expect to disappear...
Here's the 2014 projexted revenue break down according to NJ.com Sep 14 article:
35.6m revenue
8.5m aac
9.5m ticket sales
3.6m sponsorship
9m contributions
5m other event revenue
So maybe the sponsorship has a few million pop and I'm off by 1.5 in conference revenue. That puts us still in position to find 10m+.
I am also not sure if that 90m is Rutgers treading water or improving our sports.
As someone else pointed out maybe I make our sports worse than they are but directors cup, conference standings, lack of even conference titles seems to show our athletics are not up to par as they are now.
If the practice facility is built will Basketball and other teams be able to recruit and improve? For non-basketball are we way behind in scholarship athletes?
So what? Being a leader is often times about making the correct but unpopular decision.
Here is the best link on where we stand:
http://media.nj.com/rutgers_football/other/RU.pdf
Look especially at the back few slides...
2014 revenue:
19m (30%) institutional support
9.5m (14%) ticket sales
8.5m (13%) Big East/NCAA
9.5m (14%) Student Fees
9m (14%) contributions/endowment
3.6m (6%) Sponsorship/Licensing
5m (8%) other event revenue
2015 expected revenue (sep 14):
17.5m (25.2%) institutional support
12m (17.3%) ticket sales
10m (14.4%) Big East/NCAA
10.5m (15.2%) Student Fees
12m (17.3) contributions/endowment
6m (8.6%) Sponsorship/Licensing
1.5m (2%) other event revenue
Looking at sports per institution we have more than Maryland/Purdue/Illinois/Northwestern, and about the same as Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska. Meanwhile all those teams out spend us in total budget. This is exactly showing how our AD has to many sports for our spending. Look at the teams with more sports and look at the significant difference in our budget. Simple math says we will not compete on a regular basis across all sports.
http://media.nj.com/rutgers_football/other/RU.pdf
Look especially at the back few slides...
2014 revenue:
19m (30%) institutional support
9.5m (14%) ticket sales
8.5m (13%) Big East/NCAA
9.5m (14%) Student Fees
9m (14%) contributions/endowment
3.6m (6%) Sponsorship/Licensing
5m (8%) other event revenue
2015 expected revenue (sep 14):
17.5m (25.2%) institutional support
12m (17.3%) ticket sales
10m (14.4%) Big East/NCAA
10.5m (15.2%) Student Fees
12m (17.3) contributions/endowment
6m (8.6%) Sponsorship/Licensing
1.5m (2%) other event revenue
Looking at sports per institution we have more than Maryland/Purdue/Illinois/Northwestern, and about the same as Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska. Meanwhile all those teams out spend us in total budget. This is exactly showing how our AD has to many sports for our spending. Look at the teams with more sports and look at the significant difference in our budget. Simple math says we will not compete on a regular basis across all sports.
According to their website, Stanford fields NCAA competition teams in 36 (THIRTY SIX) sports. What they threatened or didn't threaten the fencing team doesn't move me.
Uncle Bob picked the low hanging fruit already--and besides not doing much to our AD's bottom line, was a PR disaster and its ramifications are still felt among alumni.
Stanford wanted to raise $5-8MM to create a self sustaining program endowment. It raised less than $1.8MM and $1.25MM of that came from one alum. Yet, there it sits as a functioning sport, theoretically still a drain on the AD's budget.
So the fact that I just pointed out to you does not count because it does not fit the narrative you have constructed? Got it. Can't argue with logic like that.
Rutgers needs to do things a new way. It will never catch up if it stays with the status quo and it will not catch up trying to emulate schools that have a 6 decade head start on commitment to athletics. I am open to all ideas except these.
Rutgers needs to do things a new way. It will never catch up if it stays with the status quo and it will not catch up trying to emulate schools that have a 6 decade head start on commitment to athletics. I am open to all ideas except these.
Rutgers has 76m budget 278 full scholarships given out of 314 allowed. So on scholarship competitiveness we did not provide 36 ncaa allowed scholarships.
So Stanford got 1.8million raised, diid NOT " if you get to the end of year 3 and for whatever reason fund raising ends up being woefully short of goal, the AD's hand is forced to ACTUALLY shut the program down", and did NOT "signs those program's death warrant".
You didn't point aout anything that would move the needle for us. You pointed out a single sport at one of the 2 schools I happened to toss out (who fields 35 other sports), who fell short of the mandate their AD set forth and is still a functioning sport on the Stanford campus.
So, what is your take away from Stanford? You want Julie to come out tomorrow and say that Men's Golf needs to be self sustaining in 3 years and when it isn't, let them continue to operate anyway? You're right, can't argue with logic like that.
They were allowed to continue as a sport because the economy rebounded and thus Stanford's AD economics changed. But they were willing to cut sports if economics stayed at 2009 levels. We need to give some sports ultimatums like Stanford did and if or when RU AD economics change they can be allowed to continue or be reinstated - just like Stanford. Does that move your needle?
"We need to give some sports ultimatums?"
I'd rather see us go back to playing a Patriot League schedule than put a gun to the head of another competitive varsity athletic program at Rutgers. You don't cut your way to greatness.
Like Pernetti said, "we don't have a spending problem; we have a revenue problem."
Correct! We have a revenue problem ..... Which is why you down grade some sports to club level and invest the savings in the only sport that can dig us out of this mess - football! Football is the only sport that makes money and the only sport that can balance the AD budget. Down grading to the Patriot league would only make our budget problems worse because you would make football a money loser too.
Once again, Uncle Bob cut the low hanging fruit--it proved to have negligible results to the AD's P&L. The subsidy gap grew exponentially on the heels of the cuts. Yes, those years were huge building years for football, but were also pre B10. Football is only going to need a larger financial commitment going forward.
Second, you have Title IX issues you haven't even acknowledged, let alone addressed. What men's sports are you cutting at this point?
Third, are you looking at this within the context of what sports the conference historically excels at (women's volleyball) vs. sports where we actually have some historic success (baseball)?
You think cutting men's golf and its < $400,000 budget accomplishes anything? It's useless grandstanding at best--grandstanding that comes with a huge PR mess.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
We have six mens sports we wont cut - FB and BB for obvious reasons. Soccer, Wrestling, and Lacrosse because we SHOULD be good at them. Baseball because - well I dont know - I guess because if we get two high end MLB players a decade it would mean the potential for alot of cash back into the program, and historically we havent been awful. Either way - we are making investment right now in that sport.
That means the most we could cut would be golf and the three track seasons. Thats a total of 14.5 actual scholarships that RU is currently funding. But womens sports almost always have more available scholarships for the same sport (to make up for FBs HUGE number). In light of that you could probably cut womens golf plus one of volleyball, rowing, softball, or field hockey OR just swimming, or tennis, goif, and cross country.
Both golfs come out to a total of $600,000. All three seasons of track is $800,000 for men. Field hockey is $760,000. Rowing is $800,000. Softball is $1 million, as is swimming, all three seasons of womens track, gymnastics, and volleyball. Tennis is $500,000. Remember - you basically get to choose ONE of those in addition to golf.
So you are talking $1.4 million savings from mens and women's golf and mens track, plus somewhere between $750,000-$1 million for the other womens sports you cut, for a total savings of less than $2.5 million. Thats the max you could cut without cutting into those six core mens sports, or running afoul of title IX.
Considering that alums of non-FB/BB sports give back at higher rates than FB/BB (for a host of reasons - among others - they are probably more likely to have success beyond college) - that seems like a poor plan, considering we are about to quadruple our conference revenues, and double our overall revenues.
http://www.onthebanks.com/2015/6/28/8761051/rutgers-athletics-title-ix
http://records.rutgers.edu/sites/records/files/2014 NCAA FINANCIAL REPORT.pdf
We have six mens sports we wont cut - FB and BB for obvious reasons. Soccer, Wrestling, and Lacrosse because we SHOULD be good at them. Baseball because - well I dont know - I guess because if we get two high end MLB players a decade it would mean the potential for alot of cash back into the program, and historically we havent been awful. Either way - we are making investment right now in that sport.
That means the most we could cut would be golf and the three track seasons. Thats a total of 14.5 actual scholarships that RU is currently funding. But womens sports almost always have more available scholarships for the same sport (to make up for FBs HUGE number). In light of that you could probably cut womens golf plus one of volleyball, rowing, softball, or field hockey OR just swimming, or tennis, goif, and cross country.
Both golfs come out to a total of $600,000. All three seasons of track is $800,000 for men. Field hockey is $760,000. Rowing is $800,000. Softball is $1 million, as is swimming, all three seasons of womens track, gymnastics, and volleyball. Tennis is $500,000. Remember - you basically get to choose ONE of those in addition to golf.
So you are talking $1.4 million savings from mens and women's golf and mens track, plus somewhere between $750,000-$1 million for the other womens sports you cut, for a total savings of less than $2.5 million. Thats the max you could cut without cutting into those six core mens sports, or running afoul of title IX.
Considering that alums of non-FB/BB sports give back at higher rates than FB/BB (for a host of reasons - among others - they are probably more likely to have success beyond college) - that seems like a poor plan, considering we are about to quadruple our conference revenues, and double our overall revenues.
http://www.onthebanks.com/2015/6/28/8761051/rutgers-athletics-title-ix
http://records.rutgers.edu/sites/records/files/2014 NCAA FINANCIAL REPORT.pdf
Great! If the alumni of these sports give back at high rates (and I have told they are high achievers with a special relationship to the school) then it should not be a problem to contact these donors personally and directly and explain to them the current situation with our AD budget and get them to endow the scholarships for these teams. Problem solved.
I think you are short changing the cost of these sports by only including scholarship. What about the cost of travel, coaches, facilities and academic support? If football breaks even then the remaining sports are running a $35M deficit. You can't say these these sports cost no money and still end up with this deficit. These sports are the deficit.
If we save $2.5M on scholarships plus another $2M on operating budget for these sports all the sudden we have the money to invest in a top flight coaching staff for football and the money to fire them and hire their replacements if this do not go as planned.
I went to grad school at RU, so no. It sounds like you are though. So I would challenge you to round up your team alumni and raise the funds to endow the scholarships of your team and help save the team, AD and school that has given you so much and which you have an emotional attachment to!
Otherwise, tell me how you are going to solve the budget and competitiveness issues that this department faces. Waiting for the B1G money to roll in, in 7 years and the status quo is not going to get it done. We need bold ideas, committed alumni and strong leaders willing to make the correct decision even if it is unpopular.
Last edited:
SMH. I certainly hope your PhD wasn't in business management.
If you have a revenue problem, you figure out ways to raise revenue. Cutting costs is what you look at when you have a cost problem.
First of all, you obviously did not read my post, which says we should cut sports and take the SAVINGS and INVEST them in Football so that we can RAISE REVENUE! So maybe I do know what I am talking about and understand business!
So now I will play this one liner game of yours - I hope your degree was not in reading comprehension. SMH ....
Second, Can't you see that I am going overboard to make the point that the alumni of these sports need to fund them. I am also making the point that if the alumni of these sports care so little about these sports that they cannot come up with the money to support them or support a significant amount of the budget for these teams why should I or the rest of the university community care?
Also, there are 3 or 4 posters who keep trying to shoot this concept down or revert to trying to insult my intelligence, but none of you have anything to offer in terms of solutions other than the status quo. Pretty sure you need to throw those one liners at the person in the mirror unless you have something constructive to offer.
As far as I can tell hardly anyone on this board is willing to do something about the problems in the AD other than bitch on a message board.
Last edited:
Thats because in reality the status quo, given the political constraints that RU operates within is likely the best solution for the university long term.
You know which sports alumni care the least - FB and BB. They give back at the lowest rates. Seriously - if FB is so important than why dont those 20+ FB alums we churn out a year (some of whom are making millions in the NFL) step up and support it in a major way? BB at least has the excuse of not having a big roster.
Ive already told you why care - because athletes have a stronger than normal connection with a university. The more of them you have, the higher likelihood that one of them will end up being a rich guy who will give back to your university. Every additional athlete is an additional high connection person. Cut golf and you not only cut out future golfers who might happen to strike it rich, but also former golfers who might be on the way to striking it right or might already be donating. You assume that because they dont support the team they dont support the school.
I think part of me just died with your post. If someone who cares about this school and AD as much as you obviously do thinks that the status quo is the best we can do then there is not much hope at all.
To respond to the rest - I don't care how much the FB team gives back after graduation because of how much value we extract monetarily and PR wise while they are on campus. As far as the idea that non FB athlete alumni are super boosters of the university and AD so that warrants pouring money down the drain while they are on campus I say prove it with numbers. If they are that would be welcome news, but I somehow doubt it.
About 10 years ago RU eliminated fencing, mens rowing and mens swimming & diving and possibly a few other sports. There was quite an uproar as these sports were around a very long time at RU. None of them cost very much to operate and every now and then we have guys wanting to add hockey. What a joke that is. It would cost a fortune and in the grand scheme of things how many real hockey fans are there? I believe we should continue with the 22 sports that we have. In about 6 years we should have less financial problems when we get a full payment from the BIG.
One more vote for the status quo? Is this really the best we can do?
I also have to keep coming back to the fact that everyone says these sports do not cost much money. If FB makes money that means the other sports cost about $35M (or the subsidy) a year to run. That is not a little number, that is a very big number.
The onus on you is to lay out a plan beyond, "we can invest the savings and grow revenues in FB and MBB." Tell us which sports you would subject to your "plan" and how you would deal with the PR fallout, further fracturing of the athletic alumni base and the Title IX concerns.
I could offer up a plan that "demands" women's basketball alums fund C. Viv's outrageous salary or we'll fire her. Or I can shit in one hand and wish for it to happen in the other. It's dumb. As is this...I don't make it a habit of drawing up counterproposals to plans that have zero chance of happening--politically or financially.
So let's cut every sport except football.
Address the Title IX concerns of adopting your plan.
State the sports you would drop this ultimatum on and your plan for say 50% of them not being able to raise the money.
We have the 37th largest athletic budget, that puts us middle of the power 5 schools.
We have a competiveness problem.
The revenue problem affects our subsidy more than our spending.
So someone explain how to solve our revenue problem. If you can't increase revenue in the business world you need to decrease costs - which usually comes with terms like "refocusing" or "size correction"
We have a competiveness problem.
The revenue problem affects our subsidy more than our spending.
So someone explain how to solve our revenue problem. If you can't increase revenue in the business world you need to decrease costs - which usually comes with terms like "refocusing" or "size correction"
I'll pose the same challenge to you as your brother-in-arms.
State the sport(s) you want to issue the ultimatum to. Back that up with:
1. The net savings to the AD's bottom line (an estimate is fine).
2. Address the Title IX ramifications of cutting the sports that can't raise the money privately.
Otherwise, it's time the both of you stop...
Any program that has not had significant investment recently (baseball / softball) or has revenue potentional should be included in the possible cut. Again the AD would NOT say an exact # or require revenue neutral, just state that their will need to be increased donations to these sports or there is likely to be 1-2 with poor funding to be eliminated.
Sports to consider cutting - put on push drive to raise
Men:
Golf (3.28 scholarships)
Lacrosse (10.3 scholarships)
XC/Track & Field (11.22 scholarships)
Soccer (8.2 scholarhsips)
Total of 3e scholarships
Women:
Field Hockey (11.47 scholarships of 12)
Golf (3.86 scholarhsips of 6)
Gymnastics (9.44 scholarships of 12)
Lacrosse (11.48 scholarhsips of 12)
Rowing (10.86 scholarships of 20)
Soccer (13.86 scholarships of 14)
Swimming & Diving (13.23 scholarships 14)
Tennis (6.86 scholarhsips of 8)
XC/Track & Field (17.21 scholarships of 18)
Volleyball (11.08 scholarships of 12)
Sports that would not be included in possible cuts:
Men:
- Baseball (just raised a 3million building for this program)
- Basketball
- Football
- Wrestling
Women:
Basketball (10 scholarships of 15)
Softball (11.65 of 12)
On the men's side you could at most cut 35 scholarships and then be able to cut 15 less on the womens side. Again the goal is to not cut 6-8 sports but to encourage donations and cut only 1-3 men sports worst case.
Per sport you can rough guess is $400k - $1m based on the below quotes. Again the goal is to not drop sports but try to get an improvement (maybe 30-50% increase in annual donations or 1 endowed scholarship per sport).
As for the title 9 argument - If you wanted to get to 50% scholarships we need to cut 15 men scholarhsips before women, but doing some reading as long as we cut more men then women it would probably be acceptable. We could also increase scholarship to some women sports that are underfunded today (still need to look at total athlete numbers possibly).
As rutger's does not have numbers on all sports anywhere I can find here is a blurb on the cost of Women's Lacross and compared to Maryland's program:
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/stor...-rutgers-womens-lacrosse-prospectus/11091645/
The 12 scholarships are $314k in value (I assume this is in the operating budget). You can see the major difference here - 400k for Maryland in support, $16k (or even $55k) for Rutgers. Then there is the difference in budget - they outspend us by $175k - thats 22% more budget. This is not to pick on the Women's Lacrosse team (I would keep Lacrosse above all the other teams on my cut list), but they have good numbers I can find.
Here's a blurb from our prior cut:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2519938
Just to harp on the Women's Lacrosse team example some more. If we cut men's golf and put that $400k figure quoted here (not sure of source) put $200,000 to Women's Lacrosse (in line Maryland spending) could we become more competitive? The budget for recruiting, assistants (I know nothing about this sport or existing head coach) could be improved. Now we probably are far behind from facilities stand point.
Also, I do not want to cut a sport - it would help the university if we could get the giving higher for Women's Lacrosse and others.
Also, I do not want to cut a sport - it would help the university if we could get the giving higher for Women's Lacrosse and others.
If you are interested in the per team budget's and how they compare the following is an excellent read:
http://www.app.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2014/06/30/big-ten-impact-rutgers/11808475/
Here is football's financial summary:
If you read - Gymnastics had $205k in contributions. So, they would probably move to my "not at risk group" as they are already getting good funding.
http://www.app.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2014/06/30/big-ten-impact-rutgers/11808475/
Here is football's financial summary:
If you read - Gymnastics had $205k in contributions. So, they would probably move to my "not at risk group" as they are already getting good funding.
Of course you would not use an ultimatum, that's too strong of a word. I would also not do this publicly.
What I would do is start by putting together a list of all living alumni for all sports and their giving levels. Then I would have a mid-level member of the AD contact each one by phone or in person to discuss the current state of the AD budget and pitch a campaign to endow all scholarships for that sport over a 10 year period. I would make it clear to the sports outside of FB, WBB and MBB that there are no plans on the table now to cut their support, but all options are on the table if this goal cannot be met because of the dire financial situation - I would smooze them, not threaten them at this point. From that 1st sweep I would identify alumni leaders that would partner with the AD to sell this program to their athletic peers. I would then set-up conference calls with the team alumni moderated by JH and each team's alumni leader(s) and the HC to reiterate the plan - more smoozing.
I would also make it clear and potentially part of each coaches contract that their job is based on W's and L's, graduation rate AND fund raising (stick). I would even incorporate bonuses for coaches of the non-revenue sports based on fun raising (carrot).
I would give this phase 12 months and evaluate results.
Based on those results I would repeat the process above over another 12 months and start turning screws on the alumni of non-revenue sports with no alumni financial support - still smoozing. After 2 years of fundraising I would make it clear (privately) to any non-revenue team that had not endowed at least 15% of scholarships that their program is under review for being cut or scholarship reductions because of the financial realities of the AD if they did not get to 20% by the end of year 3 (stick).
Any non-revenue team not hitting 20% by year 3 would be on the block for being cut publicly.
FYI - obviously the above was written in about 3 minutes. A true plan with exact numbers would take a month to develop, so don't get tied up in the details, but you should be able to get the crux of the idea of the plan.
What I would do is start by putting together a list of all living alumni for all sports and their giving levels. Then I would have a mid-level member of the AD contact each one by phone or in person to discuss the current state of the AD budget and pitch a campaign to endow all scholarships for that sport over a 10 year period. I would make it clear to the sports outside of FB, WBB and MBB that there are no plans on the table now to cut their support, but all options are on the table if this goal cannot be met because of the dire financial situation - I would smooze them, not threaten them at this point. From that 1st sweep I would identify alumni leaders that would partner with the AD to sell this program to their athletic peers. I would then set-up conference calls with the team alumni moderated by JH and each team's alumni leader(s) and the HC to reiterate the plan - more smoozing.
I would also make it clear and potentially part of each coaches contract that their job is based on W's and L's, graduation rate AND fund raising (stick). I would even incorporate bonuses for coaches of the non-revenue sports based on fun raising (carrot).
I would give this phase 12 months and evaluate results.
Based on those results I would repeat the process above over another 12 months and start turning screws on the alumni of non-revenue sports with no alumni financial support - still smoozing. After 2 years of fundraising I would make it clear (privately) to any non-revenue team that had not endowed at least 15% of scholarships that their program is under review for being cut or scholarship reductions because of the financial realities of the AD if they did not get to 20% by the end of year 3 (stick).
Any non-revenue team not hitting 20% by year 3 would be on the block for being cut publicly.
FYI - obviously the above was written in about 3 minutes. A true plan with exact numbers would take a month to develop, so don't get tied up in the details, but you should be able to get the crux of the idea of the plan.
