Rutgers football salaries are soaring. But will it result in wins?
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
That's literally how every industry works.
As the entity makes more money, they give raises.
Know what happens when the raises ONLY go to management?
The rest of the staff gets pissed off and starts quitting. Or they start going to their managers and saying "I need a raise or I'm going to leave.
If your company made a huge increase in revenue but said "well sorry LetsGo. We are only giving raises to the managers. Thanks for your hard work though. Hopefully we have another great year. We dont actually have money for your raise. All these other expenses are adding up - including raises for management."
Literally other professional sports.
Valued rookies (high draft picks) make as much or more than just about all coaches immediately.
Experienced valued players (but not nearly as experienced as decades for coaches) make much more.
NFL HC average is $6.6m
Some players make more.
Some players make less.
Funny how nobody has said "The AD doesn't make any money. They can't afford these additional expenses. It's just not feasible."
That's a frequent refrain about ADs directly compensating players.
"There is no money"
But there always seems to be more money for coaches.
As I've said, it's a matter a expense prioritization.
Just because an expense is new doesn't mean it's the lowest priority.
That's a frequent refrain about ADs directly compensating players.
"There is no money"
But there always seems to be more money for coaches.
As I've said, it's a matter a expense prioritization.
Just because an expense is new doesn't mean it's the lowest priority.
That's very nice. But it is different. NFL players have proved themselves in the minor league of college football. Players out of high school are not experienced. They are still growing an developing. The large majority of college football players are undrafted free agents. And no, unproven recruits should not make what UFAs make in the NFL. So tired of these nonsensical arguments.
College players have proved themselves in the minor league of high school football.
Players out of college are not experienced (in the NFL).
They are still growing and developing.
The large majority of HS players are not recruited.
Its literally the same thing.
Again - if all HS players are the same and have no value, then why is recruiting so important?
Nobody is saying all players should make the same. Some players have more value than others.
Just ask HC Schiano if #1 NJ recruit has the same value as the #50.
The nonsensical argument is that college recruits have no experience or value.
Recruiting is literally based on certain players are more valuable than others.
P5 (and some G5) players use college football as their proving ground for the big leagues. To say high school is something akin to this is silly. You have 14 year old boys playing with 18 year old boys. High school is nothing compared to P5 and the pros.
College is where the real coaching, strength and conditioning and player development kicks in where boys become men ready (or not for the big leagues). To boot, they are getting a free education, free room and board, and lots of other perks. And they are getting some money--some of them a lot of it through NIL deals. That's fine. They have that free education to fall back on.
Maybe there should be minor league football like minor league baseball. They don't make much do they? And they don't get a $60-70K free benefit in room/board/education.
I am not going to respond any further. Good luck with your positions. It seems you want to play Mr. Contrarian with a lot of things. Apple TV vs. Cable TV, donations to the athletic department vs NIL, and now this. I still like you because you hate McNulty (if I understand correctly). I just don't have the time to keep going back and forth. I see this as apples vs. melons, but you see it differently. It's not political, which is a bonus.
Only the athletes aren't employees. But if they were, your point should work the other way then too when there is a deficit in the athletic department. Scholarships should be cut and athletes released.
Agreed.
And cut coaches salaries?
And the AD salary? And the other AD administrative salaries?
Don’t we already have a deficit and yet these other salaries keep rising?
Since you mentioned me . . . the disparities in the private sector between the earnings of ordinary employees and CEOs have been growing just as coaches' salaries have become so great. But the disparity in the private sector has become controversial, and so it's not surprising it's the same with coaches. The fact that something exists (here, a large disparity in salaries) is not necessarily proof that it ought to exist.
Correct. There is an increasing phenomenon (or should it be plural) of the rich getting richer and the rank and file stuck in place and/or getting poorer. Two wrongs don't make a right.
No single position is right. These issues are subject to debate, and hopefully the debate can be respectful and not political. I see the points @NickRU714 , but I can't agree with them now. In the future, perhaps I may feel differently. The times are changing.
As Bruce wrote and sang in Atlantic City, "it's just winners and losers and don't get caught on the wrong side of that line."
Rutgers landed on the right side of conference realignment. Thank you, Tim Pernetti. The TKR board seems to have a rare consensus on this one.
FInances will continue to be a challenge. B1G membership won't fix this. Observe the record smashing operating deficits and the facilities fundraising difficulties. The indoor practice facility was announced in 2019 and has not broken ground.
Thanks -- I agree. The fundamental issue, I think, is whether one thinks it's proper for a scholarship to be the sole compensation for an athlete in a world in which everybody else involved in college athletics has the chance to make oodles of money. And I think that issue rests on whether one thinks that paying athletes destroys the idea that they are playing for the institution as opposed to being mercenaries who just happen to have been hired by a particular school. @Geo_Baker_1 's post in another thread argues that scholarship athletes are students in name only don't get much of an education. If that's true, then it's hard to say that even now they are playing for the institution in any real sense or that the scholarship is sufficient compensation -- how much worth does a bachelor's degree have if it's not backed by a real education?
Last edited:
You clearly follow the numbers more closely than I do -- are the deficits increasing? I thought they were diminishing.
Rutgers athletics operating financials
2024 budget
-$35,019,000
2023 actual
106 of 107 of Football Bowl Subdivison public universities (UCLA 107)
-$28,045,427
2022 actual
107 of 107 of Football Bowl Subdivison public universities
-$28,837,548
Thanks! Some questions:
Holloway became president in 2020, and has made clear that he expects athletics to run at a deficit. If you know, was the trend different under Barchi?
Is there any reason to think that the 2024 deficit is exceptional? After all, there was no growth between 2022 and 2023.
I notice 2024 is a budget figure, not an actual figure. Is there any evidence that actual deficits tend to be significantly less than budgeted deficits? (It could be that the budget tends to overestimate the projected deficit to avoid unpleasant surprises.)
Thanks again!
I'm OK with a scholarship NOT being the sole compensation. Where I disagree with some is that the compensation should be measured relative to compensation of the head coach and other coaches. To me, this does not make sense. We are considering the compensation of very young people right out of high school.
As far as what was said by Geo and education, that seems to be more on the individual athlete than the system. It is up to each person to ensure they are actually acquiring skills for life after/beyond their sport. They should know that the odds are slim that they will be playing professionally and making sufficient money long enough that their life should revolve around the sport to the exclusion of their studies. I surmise that someone will pounce in and say- that's why they need to get paid more money now! I do not agree with that.
As we both know well, it is hard for 18-21 year olds to think as much about the future as they should. (I sure didn't!) If someone in the the athletic department is telling you, "hey, I can find you some easy courses so that you can focus on your sport and get your degree anyway," that's hard to resist, especially because many scholarship athletes don't have a strong academic background.
As for how much they should get paid, to me that depends on the market. We don't pay people in this society based on how deserving they are, but rather on supply and demand. It seems to me athletes should be treated the same way rather than being prohibited from trying to make money the way everyone else does. If someone wants to pay millions to some kid right out of high school (how much money did LeBron James make his first year out of high school?), that's just like paying new law school graduates outrageous salaries to join NYC law firms. If they can get it, good for them.
The subtle irony of the "CEOs make more than entry level employees" is that HC Schiano makes over $6m/year while his boss AD Hobbs (the CEO of the athletic department) makes under $2m/year.
The argument of "the higher ups always make more - players should deal with it" seems to not apply to everyone involved with college athletics.
It gets a lot more complicated. I'm too lazy to get into it deeply but an act of Congress in the early 90's restricted public corporations from deducting more than $1 million of the basic salary to their top 5 executives. Less than the salary of a reserve infielder of the Mets, which is fully deductible. But the legislation also contained an exemption for "incentive pay", in essence stock options and restricted stock. Guess how executive compensation was adjusted. And with of the last 30 years of stock market gains it cased executive comp to soar. For people lower on the totem pole, who need their salary for living expenses, and for whom a year or two of no stock appreciation would be a disaster, they were not as enthusiastic.
Boston and North Carolina have:
1) The largest and 6th largest cities at your doorstep?
2) An intl airport the caliber of EWR, with 2 others across the river?
3) The diversity of people, restaurants, bars, etc?
4) A 24-7 culture?
5) Beaches and mountains within 2 hours tops?
I'm far from an expert on this, but it appears that the Trump tax cuts extended the limit on deductibility to all forms of compensation for top executives. The Biden "rescue plan" legislation expands who is defined as a top executive. But from the point of view of the company's tax liability, it may still make sense for it to give compensation in the form of stock options.
Believe or not, I knew some people who complained because their tax options were underwater. This happened to people who got options right before the Great Recession of 2008. I'm sure they're doing quite well right now.
The argument for tax options is that they give executives an incentive to do things that will increase the company's stock price. But that's not necessarily a good thing; what makes sense in the short run may not make sense in the long run. When Robert Townsend became head of Avis (during the "we're #2, we try harder") period, he asked his banker to *never* mention the price of the stock so that he could focus on long-term strategy.
Sorry for taking us on a tangent!
https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2023/dec/executive-compensation-and-changes-to-sec-162m.html
It's a mistake to put down Boston. I've lived in the Research Triangle Park area in North Carolina; it's not my cup of tea but a *lot* of northerners find it quite attractive.
And when you lived in the Research Triangle didn't you have beaches and mountains within 2 hours? I'm sure Boston does. If you travel internationally often that point might be important. The rest is either flat wrong or not enough to "pale" in comparison? True, NYC is a more lively place between 2 and 6 AM.
The people that complained were the ones sitting on options about to expire that had a 10 year window. IE those granted in 89 -90 that hadn't been exercised. Was unaware of the 2017 change. It is indeed complex
Let me add #6 - life science clusters.
New Jersey used to be the world leader in pharmaceutical research.
Beginning in the 1990s, New Jersey pharmaceutical companies began struggling to attract talented researchers to the state. In response, pharma R&D investment moved to other markets, places where the best scientists wanted to live and work.
Alexandria, a real estate company that rents lab space to researchers, is the leader in life science real estate. Alexandria focuses on 7 markets, including Boston and Research Triangle. New Jersey did not make the cut.
During the Barchi era, the athletic department's finances were a shambles. The university loaned massive amounts of money to the athletics department which was bleeding money trying keep up with B1G peers on spending when generating less in revenue. Rutgers received a partial share of B1G media deal payouts, and generated far less in ticket sales and donations.
To conceal operating deficits, the athletics department, led by Hobbs, reported the loan proceeds as operating revenue. This behavior violated NCAA rules and Rutgers policies - Enron-like accounting gimmicks.
Fortunately, the NCAA has published updated rules for athletic department accounting. The athletics departments at Division I schools now create audited annual reports certified by university leaders.
Here are the 2022, 2023, and 2024 budgets, along with the actuals from 2022 and 2023. If there is a trend, both budgeted deficits and actual deficits are in the $20 million to $40 million range.
2022 budget
Profit (deficit) ($39,616)
2023 budget
Profit (deficit( ($22,858)
2024 budget
Profit (deficit) ($35,019)
2022 actual
Profit (deficit) ($28,838)
2023 actual
Profit (deficit) ($28,045)
TBH, the budgets don't interest me very much -- maybe I'm too cynical about budgeting. The actuals are more important. Let's see what the 2024 actual deficit is so that we can see if it is larger or great than the 2022-203 deficits of about $28 million.
Maybe I made this additional point in this thread already, and if I did, here is some reinforcement. I have told many young professionals and students right out of college that the "best" job is often not the best paying job. In order of priority, I rank: 1) work environment and co-workers; 2) the boss; 3) opportunity for learning and career development; 4) location and life outside of work; 5) salary and benefits.
Here are two answers from two different Rutgers coaches that support the point that not everyone cares about being paid top dollar, particularly early in their career. Sure, there are many (maybe more) candidates that will take the money, but do you want that person working with you if that is their primary focus? Coach Orphey about having other opportunities to make more money. "As a coach I have been places where that (culture) has not been that way. . and you talk about the staff and the people in the building, that makes the difference for me. . . it's never a mattter of the contract extension or money, it always the people. . . Coach Schiano, I can't thank him enough" :
Coach Harymiak on the culture of Jersey. "I love it here. Ultimately, I believe in Coach (Schiano). ... When you believe in people and you have a connection with people, that's the most powerful thing. I tell recruits all the time, the reason you want to come here is you believe in us. And I believe in Coach Schiano and this place. . . . Jersey is different."
Finally, this short clip of the great Jimmy V resonates. It's all about the culture and leadership. In interviews when a candidate asks: "What's the benefits here? I've never hired someone who asked me what the benefits are. One fella last year said to me, 'Do you have a dental plan?' I said: 'Yeah, if we don't win the alumni kick our teeth in.'"
Here's the kind of people you get who only care about the money:
What do coaching salaries have to do with players?
None of their business
I'm not putting it down. I'm just saying this part of the country is better.
My opinion is that in terms of real cities, the two in the US are NYC and Chicago. But I understand not everyone wants a big city and some people really hate the cold.
There are very few fields you won't find in NJ/NYC/Philly...the breadth of opportunity isn't really matchable.
An anecdote is not data, but my older sister's experience makes me think that indeed pharmaceuticals are moving to the Research Triangle Park area.
You think that only NYC and Chicago are "real cities?" You're entitled to your opinion, but recognize that many people (including me, and I've lived in several urban areas) have a contrary view.
In the US...yes...others too small. Lacking 24/7 culture. Lacking strong public transportation.
They very well maybe. But many of them are still in NJ and not going anywhere. But if J&J is moving to NC I hope they give RU a heads up so they can buy their campus!
Not sure I understand.
Every person associated with college athletics has increased their direct compensation (including head coaches) excessively. Except players.
It's hard to cry poor ("AD can't afford to directly compensate players. Fans need to pay it") when the coaching staffs keep getting huge raises.
Imagine you are a free agent and are meeting with the Pirates.
Management: We really want you to be on a our team again next year. We have a good thing going and you are key part of it. But we can't offer you more money. There just isn't any money. We are breaking even at best and likely losing money.
You: But didn't you greatly increase revenue over the past years?
Management: Oh ya. We've making much more than we were just a couple years ago. And it should keep going up.
You: And didn't you just give the manager a raise? And the hitting coach a raise? And the pitching coach a raise? And yourself a raise?
Management: That we did.
You: But there isn't any money to pay me? Where is all this extra money going? If you are losing money - how are the coaches getting huge raises?
Management: Well we have all these other expenses. But don't worry. We're going to upgrade the weight room and practice facilities. We'll even get better snacks for the dugout.
Never understand why some guys are so concerned what coaches are making and that because Coach so and so is making $XXXX the college players should be paid more too.
Makes no sense to me.
As for true NIL - not the BS that is happening now- I do understand more of an argument that if a coach is making $1 mil off a sneaker deal- then that should be something players should get a piece of- but not their salary.
It's the entitlement generation. They think they can move right to the top of the compensation scheme without putting in the time or the work. They don't understand the concept of working their way up. Our salaries pale in comparison to Ohio State.
Ohio State football's assistant coach salary pool reaches eight figures for first time
Ohio State is set to spend more than $11 million on the base salaries for its assistant football coaches this year.
www.dispatch.com
