Rutgers fundraising up 17%

[mildone]

Does any of the 17% go to new football coaches or is it for rainbow beach hockey? As Cuba Gooding Jr said "Show me where the money is going!"

Right now Army vs Bucknell is $10 more on Stubhub than Rutgers V Nebraska - Maryland game is $10. Something aint right.

I don't follow aftermarket ticket pricing. But I would've thought that the fact that the Army game is this weekend, while the RU v Nebraska game is mid-Nov and the RU-MD game is even later than that has something to do with the price difference.

Plus Army homecoming. Plus great time of year to visit West Point.

 

[mildone]

"Coach Flood told the Professor that he purposely didn’t wear any Rutgers’ apparel or insignia so he wouldn’t be recognized in public, meeting with the Professor.”

I've seen this quote a few times on the board. What's the original source of the quote? Who is saying that Flood did that?

 

[MADHAT1]

RUseaweed said: ↑
"Coach Flood told the Professor that he purposely didn’t wear any Rutgers’ apparel or insignia so he wouldn’t be recognized in public, meeting with the Professor.”

I've seen this quote a few times on the board. What's the original source of the quote? Who is saying that Flood did that?

scroll down to meeting between Coach Flood and the Professor
Kyle Flood report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/281423456/

 

[DJ Spanky]

I made a directed donation to the Athletic Department explicitly for enemas for all of the constipated posters on this board: was that included in the 17% increase?

 

[mdk01]

A hike in the donation related to parking would account for a 17% increase in donations to athletics? That means 1 of 3 things:

* That's one hell of a hike in the required donation
* The total amount of donations to athletics suck, or
* The assertion that the hike in the parking related donations accounted for the 17% is bullshit

I vote #3.

 

[mildone]

RUseaweed said: ↑
"Coach Flood told the Professor that he purposely didn’t wear any Rutgers’ apparel or insignia so he wouldn’t be recognized in public, meeting with the Professor.”

scroll down to meeting between Coach Flood and the Professor
Kyle Flood report

View embedded media

Thanks.

Even in that report, that quote seems to be unattributed. It's not clear what the source is although an assumption could be made that it was the professor. Except that there are several quotes attributed to the professor and to Flood and to the academic advisor (#1). So why not directly attribute such a damning quote? Strange.

The whole thing was a major brain fart by Flood. But on the bright side, should he remain another couple years, I don't think we'll see another instance of that particular mistake.

 

[mildone]

A hike in the donation related to parking would account for a 17% increase in donations to athletics? That means 1 of 3 things:

* That's one hell of a hike in the required donation
* The total amount of donations to athletics suck, or
* The assertion that the hike in the parking related donations accounted for the 17% is bullshit

I vote #3.

Or, you know, it could be #4 - all the above.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

When organizations, companies or people only tell me a small part of a story and leave out important details I know not to blindly trust what they are trying to get me to believe.

Of course you shouldn't be blindly trusting anyone but this was a report by athletics to the Board of Governors. It wasn't a press release or a report to donors/alumni. Nor was it a full accounting of all dollars for random people on the internet. But the fact that these are people reporting information to the top of their organization's governance should tell you that it's probably accurate. I don't know any fundraising professionals that would lie to their board about dollars raised.

The press merely passed along this nugget of information without any more insight. If you want important details you can see them every year in the annual fiscal report.

 

[bac2therac]

So if the goal is to raise donations, and Julie does that by using parking to squeeze more out of our notoriously tight walleted fan base, what, exactly is the negative?

People are acting like it doesn't count if it came from parking donations...not sure why that is. Seems like we all wanted Julie to find a way to raise more donations from the fans, and she has done that.

I guess its typical NJ nimby mentality. We wanted her to raise more money, but not from us. Why can't she get people in Iowa to pay for our basketball facility??? Is that too much to ask?

there is one poster in particular in this thread who has proven his idiocy with his constant attack on the athletic department and questioning of where this came from. The thing is there are a few yahoos like him that permeate the fanbase that cant move their agendas out of the way for the good of the school

 

[ru66]

MY HOPE IS ALL OF US CONTRIBUTE MORE-MUCH MORE--especially the complainers

 

[jtung230]

A hike in the donation related to parking would account for a 17% increase in donations to athletics? That means 1 of 3 things:

* That's one hell of a hike in the required donation
* The total amount of donations to athletics suck, or
* The assertion that the hike in the parking related donations accounted for the 17% is bullshit

I vote #3.

It's called a donation. People donate because they like the cause. All the other benefits is gravy. Too bad many on this board think of it as a cost for parking passes.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I would rather pay more for tickets and go back to the Silver lot. The parking push back was an insult and it is dishonest because they make you pay before knowing where you will go.

 

[mdk01]

I don't know any fundraising professionals that would lie to their board about dollars raised

If the numbers came from an internal Rutgers group there are people here who can better address the possibility of "puffing" the numbers than me. If the numbers came from outside consultants, having a father who did this for a living for over 40 years, I can tell you that if it ever came out that they used bogus numbers they would never get work from a large client (university, hospital) again.

 

[RUChoppin]

I would rather pay more for tickets and go back to the Silver lot. The parking push back was an insult and it is dishonest because they make you pay before knowing where you will go.

There's no way to have a priority point based parking system and to provide knowledge of where you will go prior the priority point cutoff. You seem to be advocating removing parking from the priority point system... but that leaves a lot of money on the table for the athletic department.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

If the numbers came from an internal Rutgers group there are people here who can better address the possibility of "puffing" the numbers than me. If the numbers came from outside consultants, having a father who did this for a living for over 40 years, I can tell you that if it ever came out that they used bogus numbers they would never get work from a large client (university, hospital) again.

No different for internal Rutgers staff. If you "puff" up numbers to the board you're going to find yourself out of a job.

In fact, as a fundraising professional you want to be sure you are not setting the board up to expect too much at year end. There is no incentive to make the numbers look good on a quarterly basis because the year end is going to speak the truth. So this 17% increase could be the result of receiving some standard gifts earlier than usual, a result of several major gifts finally coming through, or a general rising of the tides across donation platforms.

Why it is up 17% we don't know but it's a good thing. The first quarter (in a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year) is often a slow time for fundraising. So it's great to see the numbers up at this time. That doesn't mean they will finish the year up that much but it also could mean that it's the start of a great year.

 

[Caliknight]

I would rather pay more for tickets and go back to the Silver lot. The parking push back was an insult and it is dishonest because they make you pay before knowing where you will go.

Donate more and you won't have that problem.

 

[Upstream]

No different for internal Rutgers staff. If you "puff" up numbers to the board you're going to find yourself out of a job.

In fact, as a fundraising professional you want to be sure you are not setting the board up to expect too much at year end. There is no incentive to make the numbers look good on a quarterly basis because the year end is going to speak the truth. So this 17% increase could be the result of receiving some standard gifts earlier than usual, a result of several major gifts finally coming through, or a general rising of the tides across donation platforms.

Why it is up 17% we don't know but it's a good thing. The first quarter (in a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year) is often a slow time for fundraising. So it's great to see the numbers up at this time. That doesn't mean they will finish the year up that much but it also could mean that it's the start of a great year.

Not only is there no incentive for Athletic Development to "puff" the numbers, it is not easy for them to do even if they wanted to. The donations don't go to the Athletic Department; they go to the Rutgers University Foundation and then gets dispersed to the Athletic Department. So to "puff" the numbers would require the Foundation to also 'puff' the numbers, which would then require them to come up with the cash that would then have to go to the Athletic Department.

 

[Upstream]

There's no way to have a priority point based parking system and to provide knowledge of where you will go prior the priority point cutoff. You seem to be advocating removing parking from the priority point system... but that leaves a lot of money on the table for the athletic department.

I think he is actually asking to remove the commitment to buy parking prior to knowing your assignment. He is suggesting that you would indicate your intent to buy season parking, and if you don't like your lot assignment, you just say "never mind, I'll buy single game parking instead".

While it isn't feasible to call every person and ask them if they like their parking assignment, they could allow you to preselect the lots you are willing to buy. You would indicate on your parking preference form which lots you would accept. If I check Scarlet, Green, Yellow, Blue, Purple, and Black, and I get assigned to one of those lots, then I get charged for parking. But if I get assigned to Silver or Light Blue, since I didn't check those lots, then I don't get season parking, and they just move on to the next person. That is workable. Of course, if you don't get season parking, you can't later come back and say that you changed your mind and want the Silver pass you otherwise qualified for. At that point you are at the RAC, or take your chances on game-day lots.

 

[RUChoppin]

I think he is actually asking to remove the commitment to buy parking prior to knowing your assignment. He is suggesting that you would indicate your intent to buy season parking, and if you don't like your lot assignment, you just say "never mind, I'll buy single game parking instead".

While it isn't feasible to call every person and ask them if they like their parking assignment, they could allow you to preselect the lots you are willing to buy. You would indicate on your parking preference form which lots you would accept. If I check Scarlet, Green, Yellow, Blue, Purple, and Black, and I get assigned to one of those lots, then I get charged for parking. But if I get assigned to Silver or Light Blue, since I didn't check those lots, then I don't get season parking, and they just move on to the next person. That is workable. Of course, if you don't get season parking, you can't later come back and say that you changed your mind and want the Silver pass you otherwise qualified for. At that point you are at the RAC, or take your chances on game-day lots.

I see that as a recipe for a lot of unhappy folks. If you make your donations and put your lowest tier as Blue... and then get no parking instead of being bumped to Purple... I think those people would be much more frustrated - "I'm forced to park in the RAC, even though I donated X dollars! It's outrageous!"

Especially if they are donating additional money specifically to get to a certain parking tier - if they don't get it, they donated all of that money with no parking passes to show for it at all. I'm sure there's a secondary market for parking passes if they'd really rather park at the RAC each game instead of whatever lot they were assigned.

 

[Upstream]

I see that as a recipe for a lot of unhappy folks. If you make your donations and put your lowest tier as Blue... and then get no parking instead of being bumped to Purple... I think those people would be much more frustrated - "I'm forced to park in the RAC, even though I donated X dollars! It's outrageous!"

Especially if they are donating additional money specifically to get to a certain parking tier - if they don't get it, they donated all of that money with no parking passes to show for it at all. I'm sure there's a secondary market for parking passes if they'd really rather park at the RAC each game instead of whatever lot they were assigned.

I wasn't saying it was a good idea; I was saying it was a feasible idea.

The only case I see for people being better off with game-day parking instead of season parking is for those who were assigned to the RAC. They get no advantage for buying season parking, and if they miss a game, they are out the parking fee that they wouldn't have had to pay if they had game-day parking. But this is easily fixed by increasing the cost for game-day parking at the RAC and UMDNJ lots from $20 to $30. That way people with season parking at the RAC get a price discount for purchasing season parking passes. (I also think game-day parking at Johnson Park should be increased to $40, since the market would easily bear the increase.)

 

[Phi_1055]

Of course you shouldn't be blindly trusting anyone but this was a report by athletics to the Board of Governors. It wasn't a press release or a report to donors/alumni. Nor was it a full accounting of all dollars for random people on the internet. But the fact that these are people reporting information to the top of their organization's governance should tell you that it's probably accurate. I don't know any fundraising professionals that would lie to their board about dollars raised.

The press merely passed along this nugget of information without any more insight. If you want important details you can see them every year in the annual fiscal report.

What I was getting at in my post is that the one number doesn't tell the story. I didn't mean to imply that the number RU gave could be false.

For example, was what was the target for donations in the quarter? Is 17% growth above or below it?

Or Were there new fundraising initiatives? How much did they cost and did the increase in donations cover what it was expected to?

Or Was the Q1 growth just a blip or do you expect it to continue? Was some of it due to timing?

Or Historically, what percentage of donations come in Q1? (For example if Q1 usually represents only 10% of donations and the rest of the year is expected to be flat, then overall donations are projected to be up only 1.7% for the year)

Or many other questions.

I know the average fan may not think of these types of questions, but believe me the heads of big organizations and their finance teams do. And the fact that RU didn't address ANY of them is highly unusual. You don't just trumpet 17% growth and leave it at that unless there are things that, if released, would temper the enthusiasm. It doesn't mean they are bad things. They could just be things that would make the picture less rosy.

 

[MoobyCow]

What I was getting at in my post is that the one number doesn't tell the story. I didn't mean to imply that the number RU gave could be false.

For example, was what was the target for donations in the quarter? Is 17% growth above or below it?

Or Were there new fundraising initiatives? How much did they cost and did the increase in donations cover what it was expected to?

Or Was the Q1 growth just a blip or do you expect it to continue? Was some of it due to timing?

Or Historically, what percentage of donations come in Q1? (For example if Q1 usually represents only 10% of donations and the rest of the year is expected to be flat, then overall donations are projected to be up only 1.7% for the year)

Or many other questions.

I know the average fan may not think of these types of questions, but believe me the heads of big organizations and their finance teams do. And the fact that RU didn't address ANY of them is highly unusual. You don't just trumpet 17% growth and leave it at that unless there are things that, if released, would temper the enthusiasm. It doesn't mean they are bad things. They could just be things that would make the picture less rosy.

Erm RU didn't address any of them because RU didn't release a report, a reporter tweeted a tidbit he got from sitting outside of a meeting. This wasn't a press release, or a report it was a farking tweet.

 

[Phi_1055]

Erm RU didn't address any of them because RU didn't release a report, a reporter tweeted a tidbit he got from sitting outside of a meeting. This wasn't a press release, or a report it was a farking tweet.

Sure. The BOG Athletics Committee Chair just casually mentioned this to reporters without any expectation it would get put out there.

 

[Scarlet16E]

WTF is wrong with some people?
A sports reporter, who was at the BOG meeting fishing for bad news about the football program, instead heard some positive news about athletics fundraising. Sports reporters usually aren't very good at reporting on finance, so if you want more data read the public minutes from the BOG meeting.
Or for a complete picture wait until July and read the Annual Report the AD produces each year.

 

[Upstream]

Sure. The BOG Athletics Committee Chair just casually mentioned this to reporters without any expectation it would get put out there.

I was under the impression that it was information that was in a presentation to the BOG during the public part of the BOG meeting, and the reporters reported it. If the BOG has detailed financials, and the quarterly increase of 17% is highlighted on a slide, then the BOG has the background information to the rest of your questions, but the news reporter does not have the background info since he does not have the detailed financials. If the BOG did not delve deeper and ask questions, one can assume that they already have information that provides the answers to their questions, or they didn't think the issue was important enough to probe further. Since presumably athletic fundraising is a significant issue, I am guessing they already know the details.

(I've made multiple presentations to management boards. Sometimes they don't ask questions because they already know the answers, and sometimes they don't ask questions because the don't see the issue as significant enough to take up time during the meeting. I've also seen them spend an hour trying to reconcile why I presented a 5% increase and Joe presented a 4% increase.)

 

[MADHAT1]

I made a directed donation to the Athletic Department explicitly for enemas for all of the constipated posters on this board: was that included in the 17% increase?

Some $hit is dumped in a special account and most only get a whiff of it :flush:

 

[Scarlet Pride]

What I was getting at in my post is that the one number doesn't tell the story. I didn't mean to imply that the number RU gave could be false.

For example, was what was the target for donations in the quarter? Is 17% growth above or below it?

Or Were there new fundraising initiatives? How much did they cost and did the increase in donations cover what it was expected to?

Or Was the Q1 growth just a blip or do you expect it to continue? Was some of it due to timing?

Or Historically, what percentage of donations come in Q1? (For example if Q1 usually represents only 10% of donations and the rest of the year is expected to be flat, then overall donations are projected to be up only 1.7% for the year)

Or many other questions.

I know the average fan may not think of these types of questions, but believe me the heads of big organizations and their finance teams do. And the fact that RU didn't address ANY of them is highly unusual. You don't just trumpet 17% growth and leave it at that unless there are things that, if released, would temper the enthusiasm. It doesn't mean they are bad things. They could just be things that would make the picture less rosy.

First when you say - "I know not to blindly trust what they are trying to get me to believe." - you clearly imply that you are questioning the numbers.

In terms of your list of questions - all legitimate but not ones that you should expect answers to. All of those things are legitimate questions for the board and internal people. This was a report to the board and yes they may have asked all those questions or been supplied with data that would answer those questions. I think it's safe to say that the Assoc AD for Development didn't just say "fundraising is up 17% - woohoo". Rutgers is a multi-billion dollar operation. These are professionals reporting to the Board just like a corporate environment.

The point is that Rutgers didn't do this as a press release or official announcement. It was information gleaned by the press from a BOG meeting.

 

[NotInRHouse]

There's no way to have a priority point based parking system and to provide knowledge of where you will go prior the priority point cutoff. You seem to be advocating removing parking from the priority point system... but that leaves a lot of money on the table for the athletic department.

No- what I am advocating is filling the lots rather that pushing everyone back. I would rather them have left the parking as it was and just raise the cost of tickets or concessions.

 

[Scarlet16E]

No- what I am advocating is filling the lots rather that pushing everyone back. I would rather them have left the parking as it was and just raise the cost of tickets or concessions.

Unless they raise the ticket prices by a thousand dollars each, I don't see how.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Unless they raise the ticket prices by a thousand dollars each, I don't see how.

What was the problem the ways things were before they pushed everyone back?

 

[RUChoppin]

What was the problem the ways things were before they pushed everyone back?

The more people that donate larger amounts, and gain larger amounts of priority points, the more people will be pushed down to lower lots. Priority points required for each lot will fluctuate every year, and will likely go up every year - for people who want to stay in the closer lots, that means staying ahead of that curve - and no one knows what that curve will look like until the donation cutoff is reached.

So, if you donate 10% more than normal, and everyone ahead of you in priority points donates 20% more than normal... you may get bumped down. Alternately, if everyone ahead of you donates 5% more than normal, you'll be fine. But you can't know that when you're making your donation. In this way, the university is receiving more donation money than they ordinarily would have as people try to "keep up with the Joneses" and stay ahead of that curve.

If people were aware of the "going rate" even a week before the cutoff, there would be a rush to donate to get into the next tier... but with all those people donating, the tier lines would move.

The only way to do it fairly is to let everyone donate whatever they feel they can, and then determine who has qualified for what lots.

 

[50 yd line RR]

Julie is a winner. I've been convinced of that ever since I met her. I would trust her judgement to decide whether we are best off with Coach Flood or should seek a replacement.

Personally, I think Kyle Flood is the right coach for Rutgers. He's a working class guy who has the courage to test the limits of the ankle biter's envelope.

I understand that there are "fans" whose entire agenda is cemented in winning all games, so as to satisfy their unquenchable ego needs. Forget them.

G.S she may be the best AD in the country but you wouldn't know it. Throughout all the turmoil this season,not a peep out of our AD. You would think a good AD would be out in front of all this. Not a peep from Julie, Did President Barchi put gag order on her. Are they just buying time for a clean sweep of the athletic dept? Or is she doing a great job behind the scenes and we should be seeing the results sometime in the near future? It would be nice if she made a statement every now and then. For me the jury is still out.
As for the "fans" and their unquenchable ego's. Most fans I know, understand the magnitude of this BIG endeavorer. It is going to take time. That being said, we are hoping we can have an athletic dept. that does not look like a bunch of amateurs. It is critical at this juncture. Are we going to be a player in this conference or a perennial bottom feeder?
I know the gossip girls in the media do a disservice to the athletic dept. but unfortunately that is the hand we are dealt right now.
Let's have an athletic dept that can generate some positive PR and get this moving in the right direction.
I guess 17% increase in fundraising is a start. She gets an A for a day.
Let's see what tomorrow brings.

 

[rutgersguy1]

How many statements do you hear from other ADs when trouble pops up. Not usually much beyond simple boilerplate stuff like the legal process has to play out or the investigation needs to conclude, etc...That's exactly what she did and all she should do. How many here were calling for JH to make a statement in support of Flood when most thought that the email thing was nothing. O'hara criticizing from the outside too. Guess what, how would that have looked now seeing Flood's whole Johnny English routine come to light. It would have looked foolish.

She supported him behind the scenes and that came out to public but she never made any vigorous public statements. That to me was perfect. You've got both sides of the fence covered whichever way the investigation turned. The support for him came out through back channels but nothing official. You're covered either way.

Too many people are concerned about public statements and media rather than meat and potatoes of the job. That's not the media, it's raising money and hiring good coaches. Those are the 2 things I focus on, not the minutiae. Most ADs don't even do much media unless they're hiring new coaches in one of the main programs. The real work that needs to be done is behind the curtains.

Like I said above, how many could name more than a handful of ADs off the top of their head? I actually follow that stuff and I could probably only give you 10-15. How many could name the football coaches and basketball coaches of these schools. I could probably name just about every P5 football coach including many mid majors and I could name a ton of basketball coaches. Those are the faces of the athletic department, not the athletic director. Yes the athletic director is the boss but he/she isn't the public face of the department. In most instances the coaches are being paid much more than the athletic director too.

Focus on what's important to lifting our athletic department not the sideshows, media created or otherwise. She can hide under a rock for the rest of her time here for all I care, just hire good coaches and continue to raise money. Most press can be done on RU media platforms and through statements. I've said that should be the blue print for any future AD as well, not just JH. The media does you no favors no matter how nice or good you are to them. So it does you no good to even bother. Give them nothing more than necessary. They're going to take their pot shots whether you're nice to them or not, so why bother. Just put your blinders on and focus on the real business that needs to get done to lift the entire AD.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The more people that donate larger amounts, and gain larger amounts of priority points, the more people will be pushed down to lower lots. Priority points required for each lot will fluctuate every year, and will likely go up every year - for people who want to stay in the closer lots, that means staying ahead of that curve - and no one knows what that curve will look like until the donation cutoff is reached.

So, if you donate 10% more than normal, and everyone ahead of you in priority points donates 20% more than normal... you may get bumped down. Alternately, if everyone ahead of you donates 5% more than normal, you'll be fine. But you can't know that when you're making your donation. In this way, the university is receiving more donation money than they ordinarily would have as people try to "keep up with the Joneses" and stay ahead of that curve.

If people were aware of the "going rate" even a week before the cutoff, there would be a rush to donate to get into the next tier... but with all those people donating, the tier lines would move.

The only way to do it fairly is to let everyone donate whatever they feel they can, and then determine who has qualified for what lots.

I guess my question is then, is this in fact happening enough for the school to generate a profit off of it? I don't see how they are making monies off empties. When spots in Blue or Yellow are open, is someone from the AD calling the lower lot people, and asking them to donate more to be bumped up? You would think someone would have jumped on it.

 

[MADHAT1]

I guess my question is then, is this in fact happening enough for the school to generate a profit off of it? I don't see how they are making monies off empties. When spots in Blue or Yellow are open, is someone from the AD calling the lower lot people, and asking them to donate more to be bumped up? You would think someone would have jumped on it.

So you're saying some lots aren't completely sold out and wondering why the AD's office isn't making sure they are full by offering them to the lower lot people.
Could it be those lots are sold out and not filled every game because that lot has people that don't make every game ?

 

[NotInRHouse]

So you're saying some lots aren't completely sold out and wondering why the AD's office isn't making sure they are full by offering them to the lower lot people.
Could it be those lots are sold out and not filled every game because that lot has people that don't make every game ?

Sure but that is A LOT of empties while the lower lots are totally jammed, like black and purple.

I just don't think there is as good realization of revenues as could be, but people keep getting pushed out.

 

[MADHAT1]

Sure but that is A LOT of empties while the lower lots are totally jammed, like black and purple.

I just don't think there is as good realization of revenues as could be, but people keep getting pushed out.

Think the best way to find out is to call and see if any spots in the Blue or Yellow lots are still available.
I can't say they're sold out and you seem to be implying , because of the number of empty spots,they not and a better effort is needed to get them filled.
That is a good point if the lots aren't sold out and if a lower lot person pays to move up, the lower lot spot they leave will become available and the possibly sold.
That would be a win-win in my book !