If things go where it appears we are headed I think a lot of people will be turned off and leave.
If every year we see players leave and a bunch of new faces AND (most important one) we aren't winning I could see a mass exodus of fans.
NIL numbers
- Thread starter RU72
- Start date
If every year we see players leave and a bunch of new faces AND (most important one) we aren't winning I could see a mass exodus of fans.
Gymnastics travel totaled $212,831 in fiscal 2023. This includes travel and lodging, plus meals provided during team travel.
The rent question in unclear. The university owns the training building and the land under it. I doubt the owners, Rutgers University, are charging rent to the gymnastics program.
What is interesting is Rutgers gymnastics generated $184,902 in "other operating revenue" in fiscal 2023. Somehow the gymnastics program ranked #2 after football among RU sports programs on this revenue metric.
It wouldn't be rent. It could be an indirect rate, or facilities and overhead, and is a calculated rate that includes financing payments, ongoing maintenance or a depreciation rate, a share of the custodial staff, etc.
Just looking at women's gymnastics, I count at least 6 full time (FTEs) people for that team, and parts of other support staff. That right there is going to be at least 1 million in salary and fringe.
Now add in the travel, the scholarships, the food, the academic support staff, uniforms, equipment...that's feeling like a 2 mil a year team to me.
Last edited:
Inter company charges against other programs using the APC or some goofy accounting nonsense?
Rutgers does not disclose state paid fringe benefits for individual employees.
No way Greg is getting 70% on top of his salary - that would be more than $4 million of fringe benefits. On fringe benefits, Greg's contract states, "You will continue to receive fringe benefits on the same basis as they are provided to full-time non-aligned employees at the University as such benefits may be amended from time to time, with contributions and benefit amount based upon salary where relevant and permitted by New Jersey and federal law."
Rutgers does disclose what it budgets for employee fringe benefits overall.
2022 $813,897,000
2023 $951,424,000
2024 $1,028,432,000
Football does not lose money. Cut all the Title IX sports and football and hoops are profitable standing alone.
Where do you get this data?
Here is the data I see. A trend in the tables is apparent.
Source: NCAA 2023 financial statements provided by B1G public universities
Rank School Profit (Deficit)
Football
1 Michigan $74,921,582
2 Ohio State $54,972,839
3 Nebraska $50,004,092
4 Penn State $46,887,319
5 Iowa $41,955,461
6 Wisconsin $39,864,850
7 Michigan State $36,506,832
8 Illinois $35,342,162
9 Minnesota $35,020,493
10 Purdue $28,227,817
11 Indiana $27,520,615
12 Maryland $24,015,362
13 Rutgers ($26,825,880)
Men's basketball
1 Illinois $13,973,196
2 Indiana $9,900,555
3 Ohio State $9,671,176
4 Michigan $8,804,099
5 Minnesota $8,796,453
6 Michigan State $8,196,713
7 Wisconsin $7,162,017
8 Nebraska $7,093,068
9 Purdue $5,816,893
10 Iowa $4,290,935
11 Maryland $3,028,295
12 Penn State $385,387
13 Rutgers ($7,981,530)
Women's basketball
1 Purdue ($3,274,678)
2 Nebraska ($3,449,799)
3 Wisconsin ($3,586,130)
4 Penn State ($4,208,675)
5 Iowa ($4,406,873)
6 Illinois ($4,477,965)
7 Michigan ($4,635,834)
8 Minnesota ($4,995,844)
9 Ohio State ($5,282,421)
10 Michigan State ($5,542,316)
11 Indiana ($5,760,773)
12 Maryland ($6,422,567)
13 Rutgers ($7,139,644)
I don't have the time or patience with you to explain this.
These numbers appear to be wrong.
You previously posted the AD deficit was 28m, correct?
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...cial-statements-for-rutgers-athletics.272723/
But you are showing a nearly $43m deficit for just CFB, MBB, WBB.
I'm positive he rest of the sports aren't a profit of $15m.
I would hypothesize numbers aren't adequately allocating media revenue to individual sports.
That is the key to sorting out the individual sports numbers.
How much is allocated to CFB and MBB? It should be nearly all of it.
See my post above. The information being referenced clearly is the reliable for a true and accurate picture.
They rent out their space in the APC to local gymnastics clubs.
I saw quite a bit of off balance sheet transactions in the past with Sonny Werblin Center.
The numbers are accurate.
The $28 million loss is a figure for the Rutgers athletic department. It is a sum of each individual sport's profit or deficit, plus the significant sum of Rutgers athletics revenues and expenses not specific to an individual sport.
What is allocated to individual sports? Ticket sale revenues and coaching salary expenses. The $8 million the B1G paid Rutgers in conference bowl distributions is counted as football revenue.
What is allocated to non sport specific? On revenue, the big ones are media rights, student fees, state government and university transfers. On expenses, it is administrative overhead and debt service.
One could estimate an allocation of some non sport specific amounts to individual sports. For example, football deserves credit for most of the media rights revenue but also most of the debt service because it relates to the football stadium expansion.
Other non specific sport amounts are more difficult to allocate, particularly administrative overhead.
Here is my take on the sport by sport profitability if one reasonably allocates non sport specific items to individual sports.
Football $2,057,579
Men's basketball ($1,838,275)
Women's basketball ($5,410,128)
Other 19 sports ($22,854,604)
Total ($28,045,427)
Key inputs:
Media rights - 77% football, 15% men's basketball, 5% women's basketball, 3% other sports
Debt service - 50% football, 10% each men's and women's basketball, 30% other sports
Administrative overhead - Evenly at 4.5% across each of the 22 sports
Football $2,057,579
Men's basketball ($1,838,275)
Women's basketball ($5,410,128)
Other 19 sports ($22,854,604)
Total ($28,045,427)
Key inputs:
Media rights - 77% football, 15% men's basketball, 5% women's basketball, 3% other sports
Debt service - 50% football, 10% each men's and women's basketball, 30% other sports
Administrative overhead - Evenly at 4.5% across each of the 22 sports
thank you for (finally) using data to attempt to create a balanced picture.
15% men’s basketball media rights is much too high from my understanding, as is 5% women’s basketball.
To get to the media rights allocation, I started with figures cited by a TKR poster on Thursday.
"IIRC 85-90% is football/basketball with 85%-90% attributed to football, according to consensus from the few public sentiments from the media exec side not the school/conference side."
This seemed fair to me. So I took the mid points to get to the 77% allocation for football (0.875 * 0.875 = 0.766). From there, I filled in the rest, giving the most credit to the basketball programs, and next to nothing to the other sports.
What figures would you use?
That was my thought too. Makes sense for Rutgers to generate some revenue from its facilities like this while also getting some young local athletes training on the campus.
Rutgers uses a different accounting method than most other schools. Facilities spending is generally placed in school's general budget for accounting purposes. Rutgers puts it into the athletic bidget. That's just one example off the top of my head.
Your statement is false. If you disagree, then defend your statement with facts.
Rutgers uses the same accounting procedures as its Division I competitors.
In its reports to the NCAA, each university accounts for athletics facilities spending based on these procedures. Athletics facilities spending shows up in two line items. One reflects recurring maintenance, such as repairing a broken sink in a locker room. The second reflects the debt service on loans used to construct new facilities or expand existing ones.
Last year, on both line items, Rutgers spent less than most power conference schools. In other words, power conference schools are counting athletic facilities spending correctly, not hiding this spending outside the athletics department. For example, if Ohio State was hiding athletics department debt service, then why did Ohio State report the athletics department spend $45 million in athletics department debt service?
The athletics department financial statements created by these schools are audited by independent accountants and certified by the institutions' presidents.
To be sure, athletics departments cooked the books in the past. Pat Hobbs was one of the worst offenders. Rutgers athletics repeatedly counted loan proceeds as operating revenue, as if borrowing money to pay expenses was as sustainable as selling tickets to pay the bills. NCAA accounting procedures no longer allow such chicanery.
Similar threads
