Rutgers Athletics Subsidy

[Eagleton96]

I know there is a long thread on this, but I wanted to elevate some conclusions from that thread. And to any reporters out there, you really need to add some balance and context to your reporting on RU athletics.

To the board hive mind, correct me if this analysis is wrong. But it seems that the subsidy that RU athletics receives was $14.5 mil last year. The "subsidy" means all sources of revenue other than self-generated revenue (self-generating = beer sales, ticket sales, B1G TV money, etc.). The subsidy includes money from the State, student fees, and the university proper. The previous year the subsidy was $29mil.

So 14.5mil is how much it costs Rutgers to have a sports program. Field hockey, swimming, as well as football. The whole thing.

How does that compare? This Table from USA Today shows the revenue, expenses, and subsidy (called allocation) for every D1 public school. Wow. Here are a few conclusions to take away:

1. Shocking, with the exception of a handful of P5 schools, having a sports program costs money! A "subsidy" is normal. A "subsidy" is actually just paying the cost of the sports program. Same as any high school does. Same as you pay for any program at any place. It costs money. Having a "subsidy" is no mark of shame whatsoever. Not having a subsidy - in other words, having a "free athletics program" -is the very rare exception.

2. Rutgers pays less to have an athletics program than most schools. From that 2018 table, Rutgers pays less than most schools in the A-10, America East, AAC, Mt West, etc.... Less than Umass and UConn. Less than Stoney Brook and Vermont. Less than NJIT.

3. So, while we aren't getting as much free stuff from being in the Big Ten as other Big Ten schools, YET, we are still getting way more free stuff than if we dropped down and payed against, Maine, Vermont, and Suny Binghamton.

So to critics who complain about spending on big time athletics, ask them what's the alternative? Go down and play Maine and Vermont and Umass? They spend MORE than us because they still have scholarships and travel and doctors, but they make no revenue.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Well said. I don't know why people think athletics should be a profit center when other components of a university are not (nor should they be).

If a university consisted only of those programs which paid for themselves, we'd be left with only a Business School and some STEM programs. And maybe a football team.

 

[Eagleton96]

Well said. I don't know why people think athletics should be a profit center when other components of a university are not (nor should they be).

If a university consisted only of those programs which paid for themselves, we'd be left with only a Business School and some STEM programs. And maybe a football team.

Agree. I think it's fair to have an opinion about how much a school should pay for athletics vs. other things. But we seem to pay way less than other small time sports schools. The basics of an athletics program, even in the small time, costs a reasonable chunk of change.

 

[patk89]

The value of having undergrads, a certain percentage who will go on to immense success, attend games and see RU as a winner is huge. Schiano's teams got a whole decade of students to attend games and who are much more likely to donate in the future. Going 3-33 in the B1G drives students away. What is the long term cost of that? Immeasurable.

 

[Eagleton96]

The value of having undergrads, a certain percentage who will go on to immense success, attend games and see RU as a winner is huge. Schiano's teams got a whole decade of students to attend games and who are much more likely to donate in the future. Going 3-33 in the B1G drives students away. What is the long term cost of that? Immeasurable.

Totally agree. Critics who don't like sports will never give us that. And since, as you say it's "immeasurable" it's hard to prove. But we don't even need to prove that since the raw financial numbers actually look really good for RU.

 

[Knight Shift]

I know there is a long thread on this, but I wanted to elevate some conclusions from that thread. And to any reporters out there, you really need to add some balance and context to your reporting on RU athletics.

To the board hive mind, correct me if this analysis is wrong. But it seems that the subsidy that RU athletics receives was $14.5 mil last year. The "subsidy" means all sources of revenue other than self-generated revenue (self-generating = beer sales, ticket sales, B1G TV money, etc.). The subsidy includes money from the State, student fees, and the university proper. The previous year the subsidy was $29mil.

So 14.5mil is how much it costs Rutgers to have a sports program. Field hockey, swimming, as well as football. The whole thing.

How does that compare? This Table from USA Today shows the revenue, expenses, and subsidy (called allocation) for every D1 public school. Wow. Here are a few conclusions to take away:

1. Shocking, with the exception of a handful of P5 schools, having a sports program costs money! Sports programs in 99% of schools don't pay for themselves. A "subsidy" is normal. A "subsidy" is actually just paying the cost of the sports program. Same as any high school does. Same as you pay for any program at any place. It costs money. Having a "subsidy" is no mark of shame whatsoever. Not having a subsidy - in other words, having a "free athletics program" -is the very rare exception.

2. Rutgers pays less to have an athletics program than most schools. From that 2018 table, Rutgers pays less than most schools in the A-10, America East, AAC, Mt West, etc.... Less than Umass and UConn. Less than Stoney Brook and Vermont. Less than NJIT.

3. So, while we aren't getting as much free stuff from being in the Big Ten as other Big Ten schools, YET, we are still getting way more free stuff than if we dropped down and payed against, Maine, Vermont, and Suny Binghamton.

So to critics who complain about spending on big time athletics, ask them what's the alternative? Go down and play Maine and Vermont and Umass? They spend MORE than us because they still have scholarships and travel and doctors, but they make no revenue.

Tweet back at the idiotic writers and newspapers. Or put that in the comment section.

 

[Eagleton96]

Tweet back at the idiotic writers and newspapers. Or put that in the comment section.

Feel free!

 

[ScarletStateofNJ]

Like it or not but the university is a business. Like any other business, if there was a division that put out a subpar product AND was losing money then it would naturally be scrutinized.

 

[Knight Shift]

Like it or not but the university is a business. Like any other business, if there was a division that put out a subpar product AND was losing money then it would naturally be scrutinized.

Disagree that a University is a business. If that was the case, the football program would have been divested, and the coaches would have been laid off in 2018, and the stadium would have been sold.

A University is educational institution designed for learning, research and the growth and training of young adults, not only in the classroom, but through extracurricular activities such as semesters abroad, band, glee club, various clubs, fraternities and athletics, both extracurricular and interscholastic.

 

[RRRRUUUU]

Hey this is a bit misleading. The subsidy line is 14.5mm but in addition to that there was a 15.4mm “internal loan.” That’s just another subsidy bc rutgers Athletics isn’t ever going to pay that back to the university. Then there’s the 3.2mm from NJ gov. I don’t think it’s fair to count the student fees as a subsidy since that’s what they pay for tickets etc.

so the true shortfall was $33mm. This is before all the money it’s going to cost Schiano and staff.

I’m all for it but it means we all need to chip in more so don’t complain when ticket prices go up when we get good!

https://www.nj.com/rutgers/2020/01/...ics-in-2018-19-a-look-at-the-103m-budget.html

 

[sunsetregret]

One thing left out of your analysis is that the university is required by federal law to carry many women's sports and scholarships that will never, ever be anything than a money drain. The Athletics Department isn't receiving a subsidy; the non-revenue sports (required by law) are receiving a subsidy.

 

[Myrtleknight]

Hey this is a bit misleading. The subsidy line is 14.5mm but in addition to that there was a 15.4mm “internal loan.” That’s just another subsidy bc rutgers Athletics isn’t ever going to pay that back to the university. Then there’s the 3.2mm from NJ gov. I don’t think it’s fair to count the student fees as a subsidy since that’s what they pay for tickets etc.

so the true shortfall was $33mm. This is before all the money it’s going to cost Schiano and staff.

I’m all for it but it means we all need to chip in more so don’t complain when ticket prices go up when we get good!

https://www.nj.com/rutgers/2020/01/...ics-in-2018-19-a-look-at-the-103m-budget.html

Isn’t the facilities debt something other athletic departments not includ in their budgets?

 

[RU4Real]

Hey this is a bit misleading. The subsidy line is 14.5mm but in addition to that there was a 15.4mm “internal loan.” That’s just another subsidy bc rutgers Athletics isn’t ever going to pay that back to the university.

This statement is factually incorrect.

It is also wrong and obviously contrived.

You're bad at this.

 

[Eagleton96]

The questions about the accounting methods are fair and I don’t know the answer. The APP article gave a simple “14.5mil subsidy” figure. I don’t know what the “internal loan” is. If that is the loan that RU took against future B1G conference distributions, that should not count as subsidy. But I don't know what it is. Then there are facility expenses which include paying off the loans for new facility construction. I’m not sure where those appear but in fairness they should count against expenses.

Similar arguments can probably be made on the revenue side. Is logo licensing and merchandising included? What booster donations are included?

Conclusion: this is pretty unclear.

 

[RRRRUUUU]

This statement is factually incorrect.

It is also wrong and obviously contrived.

You're bad at this.

what are you talking about. Have any facts to back up what you’re saying or do you just spout out nonsense all the time? Aren’t you the guy that said Hobbs is getting fired? That Schiano was already signed? Take your tinfoil hat bs and keep it to yourself.

 

[RRRRUUUU]

The questions about the accounting methods are fair and I don’t know the answer. The APP article gave a simple “14.5mil subsidy” figure. I don’t know what the “internal loan” is. If that is the loan that RU took against future B1G conference distributions, that should not count as subsidy. But I don't know what it is. Then there are facility expenses which include paying off the loans for new facility construction. I’m not sure where those appear but in fairness they should count against expenses.

Similar arguments can probably be made on the revenue side. Is logo licensing and merchandising included? What booster donations are included?

Conclusion: this is pretty unclear.

the internal loan is not the loan from the big ten against future payments. Take a look at the nj.com article.

 

[RU4Real]

what are you talking about. Have any facts to back up what you’re saying or do you just spout out nonsense all the time? Aren’t you the guy that said Hobbs is getting fired? That Schiano was already signed? Take your tinfoil hat bs and keep it to yourself.

I don't need facts, you do.

You said that the athletic department would never pay back the internal loan. That's crap.

 

[RRRRUUUU]

I don't need facts, you do.

You said that the athletic department would never pay back the internal loan. That's crap.

if you think the athletic dept is going to end up being profitable to the point where they pay back all these loans AND continue to raise 100s of millions of dollars for facilities, I have a bridge to sell you.

In any event the $33mm loan represents the shortfall this year between revenues and expenses that are covered by the university/gov. And that’s not the big ten advance or student fees.

 

[Eagleton96]

the internal loan is not the loan from the big ten against future payments. Take a look at the nj.com article.

OK I just did. It doesn't explain what the internal loan is. It says that the loan with the B1G conference against future revenue is with the university, not the atheltics department which operates independently. So it's maybe the internal loan is the transfer of funds from the university and the athletics department.

 

[RU4Real]

if you think the athletic dept is going to end up being profitable to the point where they pay back all these loans AND continue to raise 100s of millions of dollars for facilities, I have a bridge to sell you.

Those two things have nothing to do with each other. The loans get paid back as part of the budget process. The donations for facilities like the Battaglia Complex, the Rodkin Center and the new hoops facility are external to that process.

You really need to either familiarize yourself with this reporting or STFU, because you look like an idiot.

 

[Knight Shift]

The questions about the accounting methods are fair and I don’t know the answer. The APP article gave a simple “14.5mil subsidy” figure. I don’t know what the “internal loan” is. If that is the loan that RU took against future B1G conference distributions, that should not count as subsidy. But I don't know what it is. Then there are facility expenses which include paying off the loans for new facility construction. I’m not sure where those appear but in fairness they should count against expenses.

Similar arguments can probably be made on the revenue side. Is logo licensing and merchandising included? What booster donations are included?

Conclusion: this is pretty unclear.

The App article that was in the other thread? Where's the link? In that article, they had a Word Press document with a detailed report.

 

[RRRRUUUU]

Those two things have nothing to do with each other. The loans get paid back as part of the budget process. The donations for facilities like the Battaglia Complex, the Rodkin Center and the new hoops facility are external to that process.

You really need to either familiarize yourself with this reporting or STFU, because you look like an idiot.

If I wanted to look like an idiot Talk about how Hobbs was getting fired or that Schiano was already signed. I feel bad for your wife or husband, who has to argue with a dunce like you all day.

 

[RU4Real]

If I wanted to look like an idiot Talk about how Hobbs was getting fired or that Schiano was already signed. I feel bad for your wife or husband, who has to argue with a dunce like you all day.

Everybody gets bad information. even from well-qualified sources.

That's an entirely different thing from being Actually Stupid.

You are Actually Stupid.

You're also the latest inauspicious entry to my Ignore List.

 

[RRRRUUUU]

Everybody gets bad information. even from well-qualified sources.

That's an entirely different thing from being Actually Stupid.

You are Actually Stupid.

You're also the latest inauspicious entry to my Ignore List.

Lol