1. You are stupid
2. You are an idiot
3. You are dumb
4. You are ignorant
5. You are a troll
Julie / Barci - Listen !!!!
- Thread starter RUNYGDVLSFAN
- Start date
1. You are stupid
2. You are an idiot
3. You are dumb
4. You are ignorant
5. You are a troll
Bergen you are one clueless individual. Your entire diatribe has NOTHING, let me repeat it once and for all, NOTHING to do with JH. In fact if it weren't for Julie, we would be in even worse shape. Her hands are being tied by our illustrious BOG and Barchi. She came into a department where a handful of top donors (and I say that with tongue in cheek) that think they're god's gift to money sourcing, when they would be the tiny fish eaten at the bigger ponds. She has slowly turned around the parochial mind set and we are now in the position to actually act like a big time program.
So knock off the lies and misrepresentations. I've read the same bull shit by you on NJ.com when you blather on about Hermann only adding fuel to the fire with the other trolls there.
Do yourself a favor and actually research before writing this garbage. It'll make you look less like a clown than you already are.
Hermann....Is that you?
Wow, trying to shout me down! Booooooo! Booooooo!
I've never posted on NJ.com
Hermann Munster must go!
...I know it will probably happen after the end of the season, but not doing it sooner makes less of a statement to fan base and more importantly the recruiting process. Sometimes... change is good... sometimes swift change is better. Other Universities are making statements for their own reasons. we already had our scandals earlier this year... but the progress of the program alone is a reason, now couple it with everything else... Do it now... please ???
I didn't read the entire thread but if a change is not made this falls 100% on Herman and I am a supporter of her. If the admin won't give her the money than it's her job to find it somewhere, anywhere. She knew two years ago Flood wasn't her guy but never thought to set some money aside knowing this day was coming?
Really they haven't put a penny into football in a long time. Are you faculty, yellow press or just not real well informed?
100% agree. I like some of the things she's done, troubled by other stuff I hear, but she can't hide behind "we are poor for 6 years until we get B1G funding". Find the money or you lose your job IMO. We aren't buying out Charlie Strong, we are buying out the cheapest HC in Power 5 football.
You are clearly very poorly informed.
Riddle me this;
What percentage of the University overall budget comes from the State?
What percentage of the University budget is Athletics?
What amount goes to pay Coaches salaries?
It's not what you think.
don't look to deep in that .. Meaning this is a state university and some of our taxes go into the school, "collectively"... just saying in not so many words, we all have a voice... thus generically saying, us... taxpayers. "not real well informed" ... seriously...? not the Gestapo.. relax.
...not sure what your problem is....
Godwin's Law..... won't pretend to know what that was until I just googled it. Gestapo, secret police, CIA, FBI..... whatever. my point was, that I am not staff, yellow press, or whatever... Just a fan... like most everyone else is. And if I subscribed to Godwin's law, then that would limit me to your world of debating by your rules and what you subscribe to... SO back-off !! Insults might be your way, but do not preach or label ignorance on other parties posting here if intentions are not why you think they are.
**** While direct state appropriations and fringe benefit payments currently constitute just 21 percent of Rutgers’ $3.78 billion annual budget, state support remains essential to the university’s core educational mission, as many other sources of funding are restricted for use in research, auxiliary, and varied activities outside the classroom. ****** posted from RU website: link: http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu/
... again point is, we contribute....
Correct. Schools like OSU and Michigan understand that football and other sports drive money and total school success. The more invested in football the more the university gains as a whole. Rutgers can't see past the dollar signs and will never compete until they understand the relationship.
The 21% fluctuates. When research is pulled back and the University recieves less contracts and grants you generate less IC which supports both variable and fixed expenses. Post 2008 if it were not for ARRA funded projects the states appropriation ballooned to 32% of the entire budget, that's a profound number!! Over the past 15 years Rutgers has gone to Trenton with their hand out on several occasions. Naturally when this happens faculties knee-jerk reaction is to panic, digs their heels in and begins pointing fingers at he athletic departments budget. This is fact not fiction.
I have to agree with this. If it is her job to manage the budget and the department, then she needs to manage it.
I learned this lesson much earlier in my career when I was managing a growing product line and needed an investment which amounted to about 10% of my budget. My boss clearly let me know that it was my job to find the money, convince management to pony up, or come up with a plan to do without.
do you have nothing to say about Kyle Floods performance as head coach because you seem to only post about Julie or have you been silenced too
It is officially bigger than Kyle Flood. He sucks. Everyone knows it. Only a few can actually make the decision to do something about it.
Forget Kyle Flood.
Totally agree. Was at USC this weekend, and their commitment to excellence if I can borrow the phrase, is everywhere. From their architecture of their buildings to the investment and results in their athletic department, it is a conscious choice- they are here to win as big as the possibly can. I like that attitude. I am sure other schools think similarly.
Research revenue pays for research costs. Sports revenue pays for sports costs. Money siphoned from budget for everything else to subsidize and offset sports deficits indeed includes taxpayer money.
Anyone who says otherwise is foolish.
Barchi and the board decide how public funds should be spent. There's no right answer or magic ratio. I am sure he cares but there are other needs besides football.
Anyone who says otherwise is foolish.
Barchi and the board decide how public funds should be spent. There's no right answer or magic ratio. I am sure he cares but there are other needs besides football.
The university has a negotiated indirect cost rate built into each research/service Grant and Contract. In this rate you have a distribution and within that distribution you fund research and other indirect cost associated with university business. One very critical deduction goes directly into a departmental unrestricted account, this along with tuition and State Appropraitions supports a department. If grants and contracts are not plentiful and Foundation money is scares a department will start to deplete their unrestricted account. Since you can't layoff tenured professors and a certain degree of teaching and research is necessary in order to maintain accreditation most if not all universities will ask their budget office to reallocate funds from one department to another. This happens all the time. The Florida, Alabama and Notre Dame athletic budgets are always being raided to support academia. I know for a fact that several schools/departments at Rutgers are bleeders and need constant replenishing of funds. This is where he proverbial tug-of-war begins and to date the professors have won. Are you a professor?
I HOPE SO....I'M STARTING TO GET EMBARESSED BY OUR LACK OF ''EVEN APPARENT INTEREST''...
PLEASE...SINCE BARCHI'S BEEN HERE ...ITS BEEN HUMILIATING...CAN WE CONNECT THE DOTS..
31 yes indirect costs are distributed according to a set formula and some does trickle to discretionary indeces that are spent on executive preferences.
And while richer sports programs may help support academic needs, the reverse happens at Rutgers.
My point is to refute those who don't think taxes help support RU sports. Every subsidy cent could otherwise be spent on academics (salaries, facilities, etc.). Sports fans want more spent on sports, academics want more spent in their house, etc. No easy decisions for Barchi.
And while richer sports programs may help support academic needs, the reverse happens at Rutgers.
My point is to refute those who don't think taxes help support RU sports. Every subsidy cent could otherwise be spent on academics (salaries, facilities, etc.). Sports fans want more spent on sports, academics want more spent in their house, etc. No easy decisions for Barchi.
Yeah. State appropriations represent about 11% of Rutgers NB revenue, so it is fair to assume that about 11% of university support for athletics.
(State funding represents about 21% of Rutgers' revenue, but a good portion of that is directed for fringe benefits or specific programs and can't be used for athletics.)
So figure about $2.9 million of the $26 million institutional support is from tax dollars. But since athletics gives back $10 million in scholarships to the general university fund, some of that is tax dollars too. So, net, about $1.8 million of athletic funding comes from tax dollars.
Sounds like he did a lot of talking.
1. Did he change his stance that Rutgers will not spend one dollar on infrastructure projects, must be totally funded by donors?
2. Did he stand up and say unequivocally that He and Rutgers University is committed to competing in Football in the Big 10 conference?
Upstream, we will have to disagree, you believe Barchi cares about Rutgers football, and is committed to making us competitive, I don't.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Of course he cares. But he also cares about the other, more critical (academic) aspects of the university enterprise and won't let sports be a parasite that sacrifices education. He has his own sense of the right balance and just because he won't pony up P5 powerhouse dough for a football coach or hoops arena doesn't mean he's cheap or doesn't care.
When one time OSU Prez Gordon Gee joked that he served at leisure of the football coach, in truth it wasn't a joke. Barchi isn't a puppet, nor should he be, regardless of what football fans think. Barchi does what he thinks is right for the university.
If they hire a B list guy for what Flood makes, I'm fine with that.
When one time OSU Prez Gordon Gee joked that he served at leisure of the football coach, in truth it wasn't a joke. Barchi isn't a puppet, nor should he be, regardless of what football fans think. Barchi does what he thinks is right for the university.
If they hire a B list guy for what Flood makes, I'm fine with that.
Barchi has raved about Rutgers inclusion in the Big Ten at every public event at which I've heard him speak in person.
So, in the interest of clarifying your comments, are you contending that you heard him make those statements in person?
Yes. About 15 times between September of 2014 and May of 2015. On Douglas, CAC, Livingston and Newark.
Maybe he tailors his message to his audience.
You're claiming that on at least 15 separate occasions, Barchi has said -- publicly -- that if it had been up to him, he would not have accepted a Rutgers invitation to join the Big Ten?
Can anyone else corroborate this?
He's said, "the choice to compete in athletics at this level was made before I arrived here. Certainly, if left up to me, it is not a choice I would make."
Additionally, he answered a question from mycentraljersey.com about facilities upgrades thusly:
My Central Jersey: It was reported by another outlet while Jim Delany initially broached the idea of a new stadium, the point was made about how much $ had been invested in the football stadium and if he insisted it would be a "non-starter.'' Was that accurate?
"I don't recall Jim Delany ever talking to me about building a new stadium. We made it clear that we were not in position to expand our stadium at the current time and that if entry into the Big Ten was predicated on a major investment on facilities now, then we would have to pass.''
Clearly a new football stadium is a dumb premise. However, he is clear that he would have TURNED DOWN the B10 if entrance was contingent upon a binding commitment to facilities upgrades of any kind.
I was a PhD student who sat in on talks given to faculty and staff. As I said, maybe he tailors his message to his audience. Presumably, you've sat in on talks given to alums or other Rah Rah events.
Nobody on this board is a bigger Barchi supporter than I am, by the way. I think he has been a boon for the university as a whole, even as the football program circles the drain.
So, I'm not sure why you're calling me out in a sea of people saying the same thing
He may tailor his comments to the audience. When talking to faculty, knowing that there is a large anti-athletics group in the faculty, I would expect him not to be as rah-rah about athletics and comment that moving to big-time athletics was not his choice to make and isn't his option to undo. It's a way for him to kill the questions that he is likely to get asking for Rutgers to drop down in athletics.
But tailoring his comments is more difficult to do at something like the State of the University event which is a mix of faculty, administration, politicians, and donors. While parts of his speech were certainly directed to specific constituent groups (e.g., trying to sell naming rights to the pedestrian walkway over the Raritan was obviously directed to donors), all his comments were heard by all constituent groups. And during his long speech, he reiterated several times about the benefits of being in the Big Ten, and the need not just to be competitive, but to compete to win.
Because a lot of other people saying the same thing are taking a kneejerk approach based on the fact that Barchi fired Pernetti or hired a lesbian. You're taking a reasoned approach based on what you've heard Barchi say. I've heard Barchi say different things in different settings, so I've drawn different conclusions. One of us has drawn the wrong conclusion, but at least we can have a reasoned discussion about it.
Meanwhile the state has cut the money sent to the university by 33%. Any shortfalls are on Trenton. They owe us.
Similar threads
