University of Buffalo is dropping 4 sports because of money. Baseball, Men's Swimming and Diving, and I can't remember other 2. Ha
Semi OT-Buffalo dropping 4 sports
- Thread starter huskersalways
- Start date
http://wivb.com/2017/04/03/ub-to-cut-4-sports-teams-after-spring-season/
Men's Baseball
Men's Swimming and Diving
Men's Soccer
Women's Rowing
Men's Baseball
Men's Swimming and Diving
Men's Soccer
Women's Rowing
You are not good at math? 3+2= 5.
http://wivb.com/2017/04/03/ub-to-cut-4-sports-teams-after-spring-season/
he programs being cut are men’s baseball, men’s soccer, men’s swimming and diving and women’s rowing.
I think "Men's Swimming and Diving" is considered a single sport.
Men's swimming and diving are considered one sport.
:flushed::flushed::fistbump::fistbump:[cheers][cheers][cheers]
I think you meant to post this on nj.com. That's something those guys say.
I think your going to see it in P5 schools also. Has to happen. Schools cannot maintain the level of spending they are currently doing it at. Having a sport at a school and not being able to spend on it so it can be competitive is the same as not having one.
I've identified the source of 80% of NJ.com comments
Do you also believe Rutgers should be playing Montclair State in football in Div 3? Tax payers are paying far less for UB athletics then Rutgers.
Show your work per sport/per athlete.
If true, CVS might be the big difference here.
I'd be shocked if UB didn't lose their ass in FB - zero from conf, zero from tix. Plus, for the same sport, it's hard to fathom how our non FB/BB expenses are that much greater than UB's.
Yeah, how is Buffalo not a major state university? I thought they were one of the big four New York state schools (along with Binghamton, Albany and Stony Brook.)
Anyway they can bring those sports back once they get into the B1G which they will have to join as the only FBS AAU member in New York. I read that in a realignment forum once, it must be true!
Anyway they can bring those sports back once they get into the B1G which they will have to join as the only FBS AAU member in New York. I read that in a realignment forum once, it must be true!
Baseball is a drain on Title IX for football schools, with their 25 men's roster spots & 11.7 scholarships. Compound this with the fact that the northern schools are at a disadvantage with the poor February / March weather, and this is a very strategic move for them. Wisconsin & Syracuse dropped baseball in the 90s & Temple dropped it a few years ago.
Here you go:
http://www.chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=table_2014
For 2014:
Rutgers: $36,340,665 $53,130 per athlete $1,514,194 per sport
Buffalo: $23,979,061 $36,059 per athlete $1,141,860 per sport
Last edited:
Just noticed you are working off of 2014 numbers. Below is for current numbers for RU. I'll guess that UB hasn't changed significantly until today.
RU has 24 sports. UB has (soon had) 20. Not apples to apples.
As per: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2017/01/25/rutgers-athletic-subsidy-rose-2016/97043458/
In 2016, RU's subsidy was 28.6M. There was one-time loan for 10M. Obviously the loan will be paid back, and has zero effect on any subsidy.
So, does 4 sports cost ~1M each? Maybe. If so, then the number are almost the same. And certainly, tax payers are NOT paying "far less" for UB athletics then Rutgers.
Last edited:
Within the last few years, I think I read somewhere that they were looking into adding hockey. The Buffalo Sabres owner is a big college hockey guy--MAYBE they are doing this to move money around to start a mens and possibly womens program at some point and play at the Buffalo arena. By the way, North Dakota also just dropped some sports--mens swimming,womens swimming, and womens hockey.
And just basing on subsidy (not tax dollars), per USA Today's most recent numbers for 2014-15 (http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/)
Rutgers: $23,803,903 ($0.992M/sport)
Buffalo: $24,353,178 ($1.218M/sport)
In 2016, the RU subsidy rose per NJ.com to $28.6M ($1.19M/sport). Couldn't find a current number for Buffalo.
The idea that Buffalo athletics are subsidized "far less" or even "less" than Rutgers on a per sport basis isn't accurate. Looking at how much of that subsidy is contributed by tax dollars is another question, which would require a better breakdown of where the subsidy comes from, such as how much of the subsidy comes from student fees, what portion of the overall university budget comes from state taxes, etc.
There are 20+ SUNY campuses in the New York State.
Only one Rutgers .
Real bad comparison.
I randomly checked some schools--Tennessee has 14 sports,Mississippi has 15 (16 if you count Rifle),Mississippi State has 14,Texas Tech has 15,Virginia Tech has 17,Wake Forest has 16
Rutgers New Brunswick
Rutgers Camden
Rutgers Newark
William Paterson
Montclair St
Kean
Ramapo
The College of NJ (Ewing twp)
Rowan
Stockton
I may have missed a State school or 2. But only Rutgers New Brunswick plays D1 football, of course.
Abro got most of them--add NJIT and New Jersey City University. I guess Thomas Edison State is also public,but I am not sure if they have a campus. I think there about 19 community colleges too. And for some unknown reason,the taxpayers of New Jersey are contributing money to Seton Hall's new Med School.
The $10 million loan is still a subsidy because it came from the university. The short fall they had to make up is still $38.6 The numbers I was using were the latest I could find to compare the two. Either way both schools are a drain on resources for the respective university. If your saying Buffalo athletics is a drain the same could easily be said about Rutgers. Rutgers has made progress but it still not to the point where you can say it is not a drain on tax payers.
Year Rutgers U at Buffalo Difference
2014 $ 36,340,665 $ 23,979,061 $ 12,361,604
2013 $ 46,996,697 $ 22,090,445 $ 24,906,252
2012 $ 27,996,056 $ 20,119,546 $ 7,876,510
2011 $ 28,475,523 $ 20,823,478 $ 7,652,045
2010 $ 26,867,679 $ 19,786,314 $ 7,081,365
Total $ 166,676,620 $ 106,798,844 $ 59,877,776
The Sabres and Bills owner is the Pegula who funded Penn State's program. I don't see him making a significant donation to Buffalo.
Couple things.
First, you keep confusing the words "subsidy" and "tax payers".
The $10M loan has nothing to do with tax payers... if anything, it's a boon to the non-athletics portion of the university budget, because it will be repaid with a favorable interest rate.
As for the rest of the subsidy, student fees have nothing to do with taxpayer dollars ($11.7M last year). Direct institutional support only has taxpayer impact insofar as a percentage of the overall institutional budget that is funded by taxpayer dollars (for Rutgers, currently 21%) - so, 21% of the $17.1M in direct institutional support comes from tax dollars, which is $3.6M. There is also $29K in state government support.
So, the "drain on tax payers" for Rutgers for 2015-16, came to a grand total of $3.6M... across 3.2M households.
Second, you keep ignoring the readily available data for 2015, which was linked to above. So, looking at the trend over the last three seasons where official numbers are available for both schools.
Year Rutgers U at Buffalo Difference
2015 $ 23,803,903 $ 24,353,178 $ (549,275)
2014 $ 36,340,665 $ 23,979,061 $ 12,361,604
2013 $ 46,996,697 $ 22,090,445 $ 24,906,252
Excellent breakdown Choppin. psu nut has been distorting the facts to make his point, which is quite naive on his part. He really needs to do more research before he posts. How can he possibly say a $10 mil. dollar loan is part of the subsidy? He does realize a subsidy is defined as something not liable to be paid back. Basically it's a grant.
Last edited:
Ok we will use 2015...that reduce the difference down to only $59,328,501 since 2010...my point still stand that Rutgers athletics has used far more subsidies then Buffalo. One year it did have a lower subsidy.
The point you stated: "Tax payers are paying far less for UB athletics then Rutgers."
That point stands? Not sure any of the sentence is correct. Even the "then" is incorrect.
no, the subsidy comes out of RU's private funds, not from tax dollars. Perhaps NJ would cut its appropriation if RU ended the subsidy, but that wouldn't necessarily happen.
I thought there was a notion that sponsoring various athletic non-revenue sports is a part of the educational experience for students like the orchestra band or choir as part of creating well rounded individuals. I guess that it is all about dollars now, and if based on some narrow accounting you can't show a profit, then you must cut it. What's next - the library? That doesn't generate a profit either and you can pretty much access most any periodical or book at lower cost online.
Your "point" was that "Tax payers are paying far less for UB athletics then Rutgers.".... which is of course nonsense. You haven't even tried to back that up, but instead pivoted to subsidy.
I'll assume you've abandoned that argument and conceded that point, since you don't seem interested in actually providing any support for it. Again, since you don't seem to get it, and keep conflating the two.... the "subsidy" and "tax dollars" are wholly different things. The "tax burden" of Rutgers athletics on the average NJ taxpayer is less than the cost of a cup of coffee.
So, switching to the subsidy argument, you're on a bit sturdier ground.... but then you tried to conflate the $10M with the subsidy. "The $10M loan is still a subsidy", which shows a lack of basic understanding. Loans are not subsidies, as they are paid back with interest (in this case, very favorable interest for the non-athletic side of Rutgers).
You then say "one year it did have a lower subsidy" without considering that it also was carrying 24 sports to Buffalo's 20... while still coming in at a lower overall subsidy. For two seasons, Rutgers has had less subsidy per sport than Buffalo, and the trend is going in a positive direction for Rutgers. By 2021, the subsidy will be all but erased, while Buffalo will still be carrying their $20M+.
This "ONOZ, TEH RUTGERZ SUBSIDY!!!11!" argument is dying a slow death, but it'll be gone in a few years, and then people will have to make up something else to bitch about.
