RU Football turned $8.1 M profit in fiscal year 2015
- Thread starter brodo
- Start date
Will the Star Ledger acknowledge facts?
Can you also copy and paste the main parts since you need to subscribe to the online APP.
Can you also copy and paste the main parts since you need to subscribe to the online APP.
-NJ.com wrote a story on the same topic so put the tin hit away.
-Google search the title of the thread and you'll be able to get a clickable link to read the story.
The Star Ledger published the first article about it. Check them out they have been all over Rutgers with positive pieces since the new regime came in.
Rutgers only turned profits twice since 2007:
$2million in 2014. The $8.1 million represents a 305 percent increase. The other time was in Fiscal Year 2012, when Rutgers reported a profit of about $61,000.
$11.6 million in ticket sales, up from $8.7 million in the previous year, despite 6 home games!
“You can look at hiring Chris Ash because you want to be competitive in the Big Ten,” athletic director Pat Hobbs said. “You can see in the first year what happened on the ticket side. As that product improves on the field, the benefits are only going to grow there at the same time that revenues from the conference are getting closer to being full participation. That’s going to help us.”
$2million in 2014. The $8.1 million represents a 305 percent increase. The other time was in Fiscal Year 2012, when Rutgers reported a profit of about $61,000.
$11.6 million in ticket sales, up from $8.7 million in the previous year, despite 6 home games!
“You can look at hiring Chris Ash because you want to be competitive in the Big Ten,” athletic director Pat Hobbs said. “You can see in the first year what happened on the ticket side. As that product improves on the field, the benefits are only going to grow there at the same time that revenues from the conference are getting closer to being full participation. That’s going to help us.”
F them. I would not line a bird cage with their drivel. They are lying in wait to pounce.
Note to Barchi/Hobbs. Investing in the men's basketball program can yield the same types of positive return..
that is big news to share with our often lovely NJ residents..
that is big news to share with our often lovely NJ residents..
Last edited:
Thats great news. Hopefully it can silence many of the detractors and show the programs are turning over a new leaf. Like a prior poster said it would be nice if we could get the bball program to start showing promise. That seems ways away due to facilities and inability to retain Jersey talent wanting to play at the RAC. Good news for RU how ever!
Hate to continue harp on Flood, but keeping the money flowing was another very important reason to let him go now. Fan moral was very low and crowds were trending downward. A new regime and renewed hope for the program will stem that bleeding even if the results aren't out-of-this-world at first.
I think it depends on how you define profit.
If the NJ State subsidy for athletics was eliminated would Rutgers Athletics show a profit.
I think the article indicates that the program is economically improving and therefore only requires $23.8 million state subsidy for fiscal year 2016.
Good improvement.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
If the NJ State subsidy for athletics was eliminated would Rutgers Athletics show a profit.
I think the article indicates that the program is economically improving and therefore only requires $23.8 million state subsidy for fiscal year 2016.
Good improvement.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
----------------
I think this indicates that the football and basketball program are not causing a shortfall, they are producing a profit, so it is all the other
sports programs that cause a need for a subsidy.
That is the reason some schools have eliminated some of their sports programs.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
-------------
yes, and if RU wanted to do more cutting of programs the local papers here would tie it into, and blame, football coaches salaries, and now the cost
of tutoring all sports students....they would ignore that as a stand alone thing, football & bb make money.
Not exactly the same. The Ledger's headline was that the RU athletics subsidy, although still huge, is going down. The Ledger did not emphasize the fact that football turned a huge profit, as the APP headline makes clear.
Agree.
That is the dilemma that many schools face.
Caches salaries are an easy target for media.
Coach and staff get $4 million per year but the school had to eliminate 2 programs and 30 students will no longer receive ships.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Way to miss the point.
Football made an $8.1M profit in Fiscal 2015 (which includes RU's first year in the B1G).
Even if you charged the $4.8M of debt service on the 2010 stadium expansion, Football still made $3.3M profit.
Men's Basketball, even with it's inability to draw large crowds to the RAC, made a small profit.
Non-Revenue athletic programs are not expected to make a profit. But increasing revenues from the B1G will cover these costs in the future.
Even with that, Rutgers Athletics as a whole is not expected to ever show a profit. It is expected to be Revenue Neutral. And that's the way it should be.
btw - The state of NJ contributes a tiny percentage of Rutgers' athletics budget ($1 - $2 Million), so your insistence on referring to the Rutgers Athletics subsidy as the "NJ State subsidy" is dishonest.
Interesting.
I've read a number of articles that state "Rutgers Athletics received $36 million subsidy in 2014".
Rutgers Athletic budget at $76.6 million and received $36.3 million subsidy.
Maybe I am confusing the term subsidy and NJ.
You can google the topic and see what comes up.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
where's bac's bs about Julie being the reason?? by the way much of increased contributions in that article was not attributed to fund raising---"Contributions skyrocketed from slightly more than $1 million to $4.4 million, mostly as a result of instituting mandatory seat gifts that fans must pay along with purchasing season tickets"
11% of the subsidy went to WBB.
6% went to M&W track
4% went to M&W soccer
The other 17 sports average roughly $400,000 per sport. Basically the cost of the coaching staff & gas for the buses to games.
The term subsidy refers to moneys from Rutgers General Operating Fund (made up of various revenue sources including tuition, as well as state appropriations), and in this case the number also includes moneys collected from students as "Student Fees". Students pay an "athletics fee", and in return receive free admission to games.
Filtered through Rutgers General Fund into the Athletics budget (which represents less than 1% of Rutgers Budget), The state contributes very little to Rutgers Athletics. My $1 - $2 Million estimate is probably way overstated.
Title IX and the realities of which sports you are going to keep (i.e. you are going to keep men's wrestling, soccer, football, BB, baseball, and lacrosse in basically any scenario) means that the max you could save would be somewhere around $2 million a year.
Given that we are already below our FY 2012 subsidy (which was $28 million), it would be incredibly bad politics to cut sports to save such piddling money relative to the overall athletics budget.
Football and BB subsidize the other sports at major schools and should be expected to at RU (along with general conference distributions - which of course are themselves mostly for FB and BB). That they havent before has given opponents room to attack RU for its athletics spending.
Yes, money is fungible but it is not a State subsidy. This is money from student fees and other non-appropriated revenue (tuition, donations, etc.) generated by the university outside what comes from Trenton. At RU only about a quarter if the entire budget comes from State money. I'm guessing at Pitt it is similar or even less. So when folks complain about "their tax money" paying for the football coaches salary or stadium expansion, that is nonsense. What they have done with the stadium is borrow the money for the stadium and pay it back with revenues generated by fans in tickets sales.
Using that sort of terminology is feeding into the press, faculty union and know-nothings that use the "subsidy" as a club in their anti-athletics attacks.
I'll disagree. She was our AD the year we went into the B1G. Anyone could've been AD at the time because momentum and excitement of the fan base were increased due to the move. The reason donations and profits went up is because we had teams like Michigan, PSU, ans Wisconsin coming to Piscataway instead of Tulane, Cinci, and USF.
Going to get attacked for this but to consider the football program positive we really need to consider the stadium debt AND women's sports that offset the 85 scholarships. That's the minimum the program needs to cover to self sustain as that is what is required for football to run and generate the revenue (without stadium expansion ticket sales would be significantly lower).
I am proud of the improvement and think its great news we are in the black by current accounting.
If I have time I will try to figure out which sports support the 85 female scholarships and how that goes against football costs.
I am proud of the improvement and think its great news we are in the black by current accounting.
If I have time I will try to figure out which sports support the 85 female scholarships and how that goes against football costs.
You're assuming those sports wouldn't already be carried or be carried independent of football. Every athletic department operates the same way.
in reality she had a lot to do with many big contributors holding back--we could have done much better--just look at our positive press since she was fired and she was fired for reason, she was a flop-RU's entire perception has changed for the good--read the article --most of the increase in contributions came from "excise" taxes
I think this profitable football thing is why the detractors have focused on the whole athletic department now. We know "big time" sports = football in most peoples minds... means you dare to field a top level football program with its high costs.. but since it is generally revenue neutral or now profitable, they cannot simply rail against football spending.
Now I await the stories about how much supporting womens sports and Title IX has cost Rutgers.
Now I await the stories about how much supporting womens sports and Title IX has cost Rutgers.
11% of the subsidy to woman's basketball! Wow. Guess they have to reduce the coaching salary so that it falls in line with the other sports subsidies.
We have more varsity sports than TEXAS.....let that settle in.
