Would be nice if a sport or three were endowed. Or a head coaching position or two were endowed. At nearby Lehigh University, the wrestling program is fully endowed, soup-to-nuts.
Rutgers' subsidy to athletics was $14.5 million in 2019, records show--Report Details
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
No, the field hockey, swimming and baseball teams travel to Wisconsin and Nebraska becasue the Big Ten Conference payout is nearly 10 times that of the AAC, which easily covers the additional travel costs. It has nothing to do with football.
Big Ten was a school move, not a football move.
it’s annoying they leave this part out yet draw attention to Schianos salary and lead every Schiano hire story with “record setting salary”.
The old adage that you have to spend money to make money applies a thousand fold in this instance.
Look were going cheap got us for the last two head football coaches-- season ticket sales plummeted, and the lost revenue from ticket sales alone is significantly hire that the money RU "saved" by picking head coaches from the bargain basement bin. But it is hard for spineless leaders to defend a decision of paying a football coach so much money and to point out that such an investment will pay off in increased ticket sales, merchandise sales, licensing revenue, etc. It really isn't that hard to explain. But when you have a local press that loves to throw Rutgers under the bus at every opportunity with headlines and tweet that make RU look like it is wasting money, it is hard to counter.
It was very much a football move, let's not play dumb on this.
And even if it weren't you have to acknowledge that the costs for all these other programs was going to increase with the move.
Now I don't know how they account for the payout vs the travel expenses? Do they credit each team with revenue that is directly from the payout? If not then the non revenue teams costs are going to jump dramatically while their revenue's will not.
The only explanation for Rutgers not fighting back is they are doing sh*t accounting on their end. The business case is is unquestionable.
I don't believe that's true.
The football program has reported expense lines for debt service on the stadium expansion every year since it was done.
Exactly. They sold out the last few games by doing buy one get one free. Let's sell out every seat to season ticket holders at full price, not a B1G package or a Cyber Monday deal, then let's talk.
I remember pretty clearly that the Stadium was going to be accounted for as an asset for the school, not the athletic's dept.
Which would explain why dining services profits are accounted under the school.
Which they will. And even when you explain it to them, logic doesn't seem to have much effect with these types.
This is not the expansion specifically, but I'm pretty sure the expansion, and the stadium itself is accounted for as an asset of the school.
http://www.alumni.rutgers.edu/s/896/index.aspx?pgid=651
Assertion: "Utility and maintenance costs [for the stadium] are lumped in with the rest of the campus and not reflected in the athletics budget."
The Facts: It is standard business practice at the university to budget utilities and maintenance costs centrally. This is true for all our academic departments and programs.
A football move first and foremost that has benefits that extend far beyond the football field.
An asset is a balance sheet item. It would be very unusual for an organization to allocate assets to individual departments. The debt service expense is part of the operating expenses (part of the operating, or income statement) and is allocated to the athletic department. Utilities and maintenance expenses may have been oaid centrally, but the debt service expenses have been allocated to athletics.
Not claiming to have a great memory, but I think I remember when they announced it was going to be accounted as a school asset. Even had discussions with a coworker about it at the time.
If we have anything that proves me wrong I'll gladly concede.
Last edited:
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2017/01/did_rutgers_football_turn_a_profit_in_2015-16_look.html
"Eight years after completing a $102 million expansion on High Point Solutions Stadium, Rutgers owes $85.5 million in debt service. For Fiscal Year 2016, Rutgers paid $4.8 million toward that debt, although the figure isn't earmarked on the football program's ledger."
So maybe it is under athletic's? But it's not on the football team.
"Eight years after completing a $102 million expansion on High Point Solutions Stadium, Rutgers owes $85.5 million in debt service. For Fiscal Year 2016, Rutgers paid $4.8 million toward that debt, although the figure isn't earmarked on the football program's ledger."
So maybe it is under athletic's? But it's not on the football team.
if football and basketball get good again you will be selling more licensed merchandise leading to more indirect school revenues.
Because we are in NJ where the avg citizen can be anti-Rutgers it will never stop.
Consider where your neighbors send their kids to school
- some will go to religious based colleges (like Seton hall or Villanova)
- some will go to non Rutgers state schools
- many will go to in and out of state private colleges (Monmouth, Lehigh, NYU, Syracuse)
- many will go to out of state public colleges (PSU, Delaware, URI)
There is a stigma in NJ to going to the state school that for some is closer to home then commuting to work. To some it is looked at like a City college and not a State university. many NYC baby boomers would say back in the day the CUNY schools were great for those with limited budgets since they attended very cheaply where a SUNY school was pricey.
Those in the more affluent NJ towns have their kids apply to Rutgers as a safety school but would be willing to pay for a private or out of state instead.
Because we are in NJ where the avg citizen can be anti-Rutgers it will never stop.
Consider where your neighbors send their kids to school
- some will go to religious based colleges (like Seton hall or Villanova)
- some will go to non Rutgers state schools
- many will go to in and out of state private colleges (Monmouth, Lehigh, NYU, Syracuse)
- many will go to out of state public colleges (PSU, Delaware, URI)
There is a stigma in NJ to going to the state school that for some is closer to home then commuting to work. To some it is looked at like a City college and not a State university. many NYC baby boomers would say back in the day the CUNY schools were great for those with limited budgets since they attended very cheaply where a SUNY school was pricey.
Those in the more affluent NJ towns have their kids apply to Rutgers as a safety school but would be willing to pay for a private or out of state instead.
Also from the above article, related to something someone mentioned above:
"Rutgers carried just over 115 players on its roster in 2015. A total of 94 received scholarship aid. In all, Rutgers paid $4 million in scholarship aid for the 2015-16 school year."
Who is Rutgers paying scholarship aid too?
And this to me is an odd expense as I'm not sure it increases costs by $4 million. I would think that cost per student for the school would be on a fairly large curve. And the addition of 115 additional students to would be fairly insignificant.
"Rutgers carried just over 115 players on its roster in 2015. A total of 94 received scholarship aid. In all, Rutgers paid $4 million in scholarship aid for the 2015-16 school year."
Who is Rutgers paying scholarship aid too?
And this to me is an odd expense as I'm not sure it increases costs by $4 million. I would think that cost per student for the school would be on a fairly large curve. And the addition of 115 additional students to would be fairly insignificant.
Debt service, and operating expenses that include maintenance and utilities of all athletic department buildings are attributed to the athletics budget. The university allocates app assets under the university umbrella (buildings themselves).
There were a whole lot of buildings put up between 1988 and the bond issue($1.3 billion for the entire State system, not just Rutgers) of 2013 that were paid for with university debt.
Meaning student tuition and fees over time.
Now those assets are legal property of the State of New Jersey. But no taxpayer money was used to build or acquire them. I think we send a bill to Trenton?
By contrast every building built in the SUNY system over that period was paid for by the State. Same time frame about 4 billion in CT state funds paid for a new Storrs and UConn to be built. Plus built them a football Stadium.
Jersey tax payers are getting a deal.
Meaning student tuition and fees over time.
Now those assets are legal property of the State of New Jersey. But no taxpayer money was used to build or acquire them. I think we send a bill to Trenton?
By contrast every building built in the SUNY system over that period was paid for by the State. Same time frame about 4 billion in CT state funds paid for a new Storrs and UConn to be built. Plus built them a football Stadium.
Jersey tax payers are getting a deal.
The current Big East has about the same footprint as the Big Ten and the AAC is much more spread apart.
So.... not really an issue.
Miami, South Florida, Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, SMU, Houston, and VT are some of the teams we played prior to the B1G.
It's also a few miles farther to Syracuse than Penn St.
The Big East also has 5 schools that are a bus ride away.
Current AAC would be terrible spot no doubt.
In my post above I provided a link which said maintenance and utilities are budgeted centrally.
Given the assertion to which it is answering I'm pretty sure it is saying maintenance for the stadium is budgeted centrally, same as the academic departments building are.
Yes. The School of Engineering is charged $9.3MM in scholarship expense in the current budget.
Yeah, WTF. Why is money allocated to athletics considered some kind of charity. What revenues do the academic and arts departments bring in? Don't those departments require University funding?
I think he is making a counterpoint to those who want to argue that going to the Big Ten was solely a football move and therefore all Big Ten revenue belongs to Football. As you note, the move to the Big Ten was a university move (or at least an all-athletics move), and therefore the athletics costs and benefits are shared across the athletics department.
I don't understand you on this. In what way was the move to the Big Ten a "football move" for Rutgers? Rutgers didn't go to the Big Ten to help its football team. Rutgers went to the Big Ten for $$$$ associated with the conference payout Increased travel expenses for your sports is meaningless when the conference payout increases from $7mm to $55mm.
Now, you can say that the Big Ten only wanted Rutgers bc of its football program, but why they wanted us is really not relevant. To talk about increased travel expenses associated with western big ten schools (who we only play once every 4 years in most sports) is to completely miss the point. We are reimbursed by the conference many times over for those costs.
If you were to actually look at a Rutgers Athletics NCAA Financial Report you would know the answer to these questions. It's all right there in the document.
I have not seen anyone say that, but anyone arguing that the Big Ten conference payout "belongs" or is attributable to Rutgers football is misguided. It belongs to the AD, for use among the sports. Certainly, football "drives the bus" and should therefore receive the lion's share of the AD budget -- it has to to remain (ahem, become) competitive -- but the payout does not belong to football in any way.
You're only responding to my rebuttal, while not considering the original post.
The post in which I responded too was noting that the non revunue sports lose money while the football team is responsible for the B1G $$$. And the football team is responsible for the B1G $$$ I don't dispute that in the least, but with that comes the added costs of the other programs. That was my point. You can't seperate the two. It's one big ball of wax.
Last edited:
I can't make any sense of this. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
