Severe Rutgers bashing going on at 101.5 right now

[bac2therac]

talking about CVS getting a $500K bonus if she beats UConn tonight to collect the one time bonus for making the Sweet 16. Of course they usually have the facts wrong and lots of mistruths and a whole bunch of people are coming out with general RU bashing on spending on athletics and how the taxpayers money is being wasted.

Cant fight stupid

 

[e5fdny]

Is it the guy/gal hosts?

 

[bac2therac]

Its just Dennis today that's probably why they have this topic

 

[rujets]

Rutgers and fans get no love....Rutgers fans should boycott 101.5,the fan(especially obnoxious Mike Fatcesa) and the ledger...

 

[bac2therac]

That ahole Eric Scott (I think that's his name) just led the news with the headline of "a lot of money at stake tonight as CVS can earn a $500K bonus for beating UConn". He then when on to say that CVS demanded last week that NJ taxpayers pony up $50 million for a practice facilty

what the f what a freakin creep and slimeball...RU should pull any and all advertisement from this station. This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

 

[Knightmoves]

No need to worry about CVS making the Sweet 16 this year. Expect a major azz kicking tonite at UCONN.

OTOH undefeated Princeton and HC Courtney Banghart have a tough game vs UMD in College Park tonite. Will be interesting to see if either RU or Princeton can make a game of it.

 

[RUfinal4]

This is why the athletic department needs to be self sufficient and in the black. When there is a subsidy from the University then that is partially state funding going to the school. That is when the avg NJ resident taxpayer has a say.

While some say the state is not giving any money directly to athletics there is a trickle down process where money is given to Rutgers and Rutgers gives money to athletics. Even though it may all be from student activity fees that means the state money may cover items those fees may cover if the athletic dept was fully profitable.

If you look at other hot political funding topics you have NJ Transit as well. NJ Transit is in a deficit and wants to raise fares. The state can give them money to balance their books but is not which will lead to fare hikes.

To some people they think for every million given to Rutgers that is a million less given to the transportation system or other causes they care about more than Rutgers.

We need to make it a few more years until we get our full share from the B10. Then athletics spending will not be as big a deal.

 

[PhilaPhans]

Originally posted by RUfinal4:
This is why the athletic department needs to be self sufficient and in the black. When there is a subsidy from the University then that is partially state funding going to the school. That is when the avg NJ resident taxpayer has a say.

You're kidding yourself if you believe the attacks will stop once we're in the black. Five years from now (or whenever the B1G $ kicks in), they'll still be spewing the same 2010 crap about RU. Facts don't matter to ignorant people.

 

[RUtimes5]

Jim Gerhart brought it up during this morning's commute time as well. Said she made 1.5 million and that she felt underpaid. Sarted playing some teary woe is me music inthe background. Implied that this extra bonus was for beating UConn without the proper perspective of it being the sweet 16 that mattered. Of course failed to note there are many coaches, if not most, that have bonus clauses. Also didn't mention she took a cut in base pay. Also stated our three top coaches are the highest paid state employees. Wasn't this recently revised as some of the old UMDNJ surgeons made upwards of 3 million?

 

[RutgersRaRa]

This too shall pass. We are in the news, and that means we're relevant. As an up-and-comer in big time athletics and the B1G, the newby is always challenged. We are still building the athletics infrastructure at RU, and we will make news along the way for whatever they can find.

Sinatra should have had a Side B to "New York" titled "Rutgers," without changing another thing about the song, because it is abundantly clear that if we can make it here we can make it anywhere else.

 

[ClassOf02]

Can't someone just show them that other thread outlining what we pay our coaches compared to our "peer" schools in the Big Ten?

There's no winning this battle. It's just pissing into the wind. NJ (whether it's the governor, the legislature, the whiny nature of our residents, or just stupidity in general) decided long ago that supporting RU athletics was not the thing to do. The herd goes in the other direction and it's damn near impossible to change that. Unfortunately RU has compounded the issue in the past with piss poor PR and has never been able to control the narrative. Going forward, the only thing we can do is just put our heads down and hope that winning in the future will reverse some of the anti-RU momentum.

 

[Dr. Potato]

This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

What did they say that isn't true?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Originally posted by Dr. Potato:

This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

What did they say that isn't true?

They said Dr. Potato is a douche.. oh wait..

Meanwhile.. who paid for the State Loans and Bonds. It was projected at roughly $45M.. cost $53M and that would be something over $70M today.

CVS's bold ask of a new arena and practice facility for the flagship STATE UNIVERSITY of NEW JERSEY is prefectly reasonable.

It is the politicians and media whores desire to pretend that are fiscally responsible while kicking Rutgers to the curb.. that is the unreasonable position here.

This post was edited on 3/23 12:13 PM by GoodOl'Rutgers

 

[ScarletKid2008]

Originally posted by Dr. Potato:

This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

What did they say that isn't true?

More often it is what is not being said to provide proper and relevant context and reference.

For example - how RU ranks in coach's salary compared to other B1G peers in all sports.
Or how CVS contract was re-structured as such that rather than getting a larger base salary her contract is now more incentive loaded.
Or the benefits/ROI of investing in athletics

Too often a one sided or narrow viewpoint is presented. Not just RU athletics but media in general.

 

[MADHAT1]

Originally posted by Dr. Potato:

This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

What did they say that isn't true?

You can point out part of a picture to make that picture look ugly,.
Just show Mona Lisa's smile and make it look like she has a facial problem.
Show the whole picture and you have a portrait that is considered a masterpiece because of that smile.

Now when people are speaking out that RU needs money from its boosters and State support to upgrade its basketball facilities
the media starts showing part of a picture that makes RU look like it's wasting money.
Even though if you looked at the whole picture , you'd see that money was part of a contract that Vivian gave back a lot and
gave up having the last two years of her (4 year) contract guaranteed. and took a huge base salary cut .
When RU starts asking for good things, some media outlets try to make the public against RU getting those good things.

 

[derleider]

The worst part is that its not even really for making the sweet 16. I mean it is - but its paid out AFTER her current contract ends.

Basically its a - if you meet this minimum standard (just one Sweet 16 in the length of the contract), you get a little retirement fund as a show of appreciation.

 

[PaKnight]

Originally posted by Dr. Potato:

This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

What did they say that isn't true?

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Originally posted by GoodOl'Rutgers:

Originally posted by Dr. Potato:

This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

What did they say that isn't true?

They said Dr. Potato is a douche.. oh wait..

Meanwhile.. who paid for the State Loans and Bonds. It was projected at roughly $45M.. cost $53M and that would be something over $70M today.

CVS's bold ask of a new arena and practice facility for the flagship STATE UNIVERSITY of NEW JERSEY is prefectly reasonable.

It is the politicians and media whores desire to pretend that are fiscally responsible while kicking Rutgers to the curb.. that is the unreasonable position here.

This post was edited on 3/23 12:13 PM by GoodOl'Rutgers

I am sure that was under the premise of economic development for the city of Trenton. A practice facility is for the benefit of 24 college students getting a free education.

 

[RUJohnny99]

I'd rather they talk about Stringer potentially earning a hefty payday with a win over a national power than Jordan collecting a hefty payday for his performance.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[JoeRU0304]

...the blowhards bemoaning 'Rutgers sports draining our tax funds' are probably the same people who love programs from out-of-state schools that receive 6000X the state funding that Rutgers does...and if people are going to complain about their taxes supporting anything they're not a fan of or dont directly benefit from, well, Ive been to the Trenton arena, NJ PAC and Camden aquarium the same amount of times I've been to the moon...but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile.


Joe P.

This post was edited on 3/23 1:00 PM by JoeRU0304

 

[beaced]

Hey Masochists.Just a quiet word of advice. DON'T LISTEN TO THAT STATION!!

 

[MCY]

Originally posted by beaced:
Hey Masochists.Just a quiet word of advice. DON'T LISTEN TO THAT STATION!!

So your advice is to continue to let media outlets provide "facts" as they see fit and go unopposed ? This is one of the fundamental failures of RU for many many years and now we are left with a huge portion of the public who have been trained to think every dollar spent at RU is their tax dollar. You should see the look at people's faces when I tell them that RU only receives ~20% of it's budget from the state.

 

[knightfan7]

Originally posted by beaced:
Hey Masochists.Just a quiet word of advice. DON'T LISTEN TO THAT STATION!!

Unfortunately for RU other than the small group of dedicated WBB fans, most people agree with them.

I applaud CVS for always speaking her mind. It's takes a powerful personality to do that when you're in the public eye. Sad to say it's things like this that will potentially derail any attempt to get $ to upgrade facilities. Not that there was a very good chance anyway but this is the kind of thing opponents will hang their hat on.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Originally posted by knightfan7:

Sad to say it's things like this that will potentially derail any attempt to get $ to upgrade facilities. Not that there was a very good chance anyway but this is the kind of thing opponents will hang their hat on.

Her rant may have killed any momentum a facility movement there was.

 

[mal359]

If CVS can't get it done with decades of experience and teams stacked with All-Americans, what makes anyone think that she can with a fancy new practice facility?

 

[knightfan7]

Originally posted by Greene Rice FIG:

Originally posted by knightfan7:

Sad to say it's things like this that will potentially derail any attempt to get $ to upgrade facilities. Not that there was a very good chance anyway but this is the kind of thing opponents will hang their hat on.

Her rant may have killed any momentum a facility movement there was.

I don't know about that. I bet she could have been a powerful force IF she could stay on topic (which is a big IF when talking about CVS lol).

One of the major problems I see is there's no Greg Schiano or even Bob Mulcahy anymore to rally behind. Flood is too green still and Julie has too much media imposed baggage right now. Barchi isn't going to do it and there are no "friends" that have the, for loss of a better word....stain.

 

[RuRoman]

It really pisses me off when even RU folks are misinformed.

The so called subsidy, which is overinflated by RU's unfavorable accounting treatment of RU's athletics, is not funded directly by state appropriations, and it is extremely doubtful that it is indirectly funded. You see RU's athletic budget represent less than 4% of RU's total budget (one of the most meager in the nation), and this includes the subsidy. NJ's State appropriations represent less than 19% of RU's total revenue (21% if Fringes are considered), but most of it is pre-determined and pre-allocated.
(incidentally, NJ ranks as one of the lowest when it comes to funding higher education and such contribution is the lowest it has been in 20 years)

So please stop repeating the utterly wrong misconception that the State of NJ and ergo its taxpayers are directly paying for RU's athletics because IT IS NOT. And there is much doubt that even indirectly the State has any role in RU's athletic expenses (which is in itself embarrassing).

Please note that while there are some schools that report no or hardly any subsidy from the university to its athletic department, the large majority of these schools are just playing accounting games.

Note this,,,it is going to be hard to for RU's athletics to ever end black and without subsidy-but this is actually not a problem.

 

[Roughshodboy]

Stacked with All-Americans?!?

 

[bac2therac]

good post Roman...problem is RU does not do a good job in PR in getting this message out about what exactly the state pays for and doesn't. The NJ public always rallies around that SOOOOOO much of their money is going to Rutgers all the while much more is wasted elsewhere. I find it disappointing that the state pride in Rutgers is so low that the media feels RU is easy pickings and its very easy to inflame the average stupid jerseyan who will lash out at Rutgers for spending.

as for the accounting stuff...RU simply needs to change, I don't know why the do things like they do, who does it benefit

 

[kaji_siva]

FWIW if they beat UCONN she'd deserve every penny of that $500k... it's worth it in publicity resulting from the win alone...

 

[knightfan7]

Roman and Bac,

Why are you surprised by this? In this age people seldom take the time to think past the headline. It's true with more than just RU, it's with most things. People in this area have long been predisposed to think that they're being "screwed" by big institutions and the media plays to that thought.

 

[Abro1975]

Get satellite radio and never have to listen to 101.5/ Fan/Fracesca again. It's like going from Black & White non cable TV to a big screen HD smart TV. AM/FM is the dark ages of radio.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Originally posted by RuRoman:

It really pisses me off when even RU folks are misinformed.

The so called subsidy, which is overinflated by RU's unfavorable accounting treatment of RU's athletics, is not funded directly by state appropriations, and it is extremely doubtful that it is indirectly funded. You see RU's athletic budget represent less than 4% of RU's total budget (one of the most meager in the nation), and this includes the subsidy. NJ's State appropriations represent less than 19% of RU's total revenue (21% if Fringes are considered), but most of it is pre-determined and pre-allocated.
(incidentally, NJ ranks as one of the lowest when it comes to funding higher education and such contribution is the lowest it has been in 20 years)

So please stop repeating the utterly wrong misconception that the State of NJ and ergo its taxpayers are directly paying for RU's athletics because IT IS NOT. And there is much doubt that even indirectly the State has any role in RU's athletic expenses (which is in itself embarrassing).

Please note that while there are some schools that report no or hardly any subsidy from the university to its athletic department, the large majority of these schools are just playing accounting games.

Note this,,,it is going to be hard to for RU's athletics to ever end black and without subsidy-but this is actually not a problem.

You can use all the mental accounting that you want. The state of NJ gives money to cover the difference between what is brought in minus what is paid out. $20+ million of that is from athletics. You can say the state doesn't indirectly pay if it makes you feel good.

The arguement that could/should be made is the overall positive economic benefits from a successful men's football or basketball team. It is a very debateable one though.

 

[MADHAT1]

Originally posted by Greene Rice FIG:

Originally posted by knightfan7:

Sad to say it's things like this that will potentially derail any attempt to get $ to upgrade facilities. Not that there was a very good chance anyway but this is the kind of thing opponents will hang their hat on.

Her rant may have killed any momentum a facility movement there was.

Considering since the days of Mulcahy there hasn't been much success in getting support for the RU MBB program, doubt her "rant" did any harm at all. Maybe it made more people aware of the problem and think it might be a good idea.

 

[jerzey devil]

what really irks me is that most uninformed people associate the subsidy with football.. as if the football program is siphoning off vital funds...the subsidy mainly covers the NON-REVENUE sports!!!! so if they are NON-REVENUE sports, the funding for them has to come from somewhere right? and the fact that people act like that is wrong really bugs me!!

 

[ru66]

Actually carino had an article about her about a month ago and its facts were wrong but didn t stop him either

 

[RuRoman]

Originally posted by Greene Rice FIG:


You can use all the mental accounting that you want. The state of NJ gives money to cover the difference between what is brought in minus what is paid out. $20+ million of that is from athletics. You can say the state doesn't indirectly pay if it makes you feel good.

Green Rice, your reply above makes no sense to me....can you please elaborate.... The State of NJ does not allocate funds to cover athletic budget deficits or even budgets....and perhaps the only indirect link between the State of NJ allocations and RU athletic is that it gives the general administrative ledger some "cushion"...however, this is questionable, for NJ allocations come in and out they go when it comes to revenue and liabilities.... In other words, with or without NJ's allocation, RU's budget would be the same (and its athletic expenditure-and in fact some may argue that without Trenton's oversight we would be much better off financially and administrative.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Greene Rice FIG:

Originally posted by GoodOl'Rutgers:

Originally posted by Dr. Potato:

This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

What did they say that isn't true?

They said Dr. Potato is a douche.. oh wait..

Meanwhile.. who paid for the State Loans and Bonds. It was projected at roughly $45M.. cost $53M and that would be something over $70M today.

CVS's bold ask of a new arena and practice facility for the flagship STATE UNIVERSITY of NEW JERSEY is prefectly reasonable.

It is the politicians and media whores desire to pretend that are fiscally responsible while kicking Rutgers to the curb.. that is the unreasonable position here.

This post was edited on 3/23 12:13 PM by GoodOl'Rutgers

I am sure that was under the premise of economic development for the city of Trenton. A practice facility is for the benefit of 24 college students getting a free education.

The bigger point is that Rutgers can't move. If Rutgers doesn't get new facilities, it will still run out a team. I don't think thats true for Trenton. Those minor league teams could move almost anywhere in the US, and the concerts and shows it hosts could take place in Philly or NY or Easton or whatever.

Now we could argue about whether building an arena is ever worth it (if its truly worthwhile let the private market handle it - maybe with an assist for building infrastructure to handle the crowds, or with land acquisition.). But that's not the argument here.

 

[RuRoman]

Originally posted by jerzey devil:
what really irks me is that most uninformed people associate the subsidy with football.. as if the football program is siphoning off vital funds...the subsidy mainly covers the NON-REVENUE sports!!!! so if they are NON-REVENUE sports, the funding for them has to come from somewhere right? and the fact that people act like that is wrong really bugs me!!

Jerzey, and let me add the following two points to your correct post:

Football program at worst breaks even (its expenses have not increased in four years); in truth, it makes money...but this is a topic for a different discussion.

From what I gather, the subsidy MOSTLY covers the operational and administrative expenses of the non-revenue sports...however, a large portion of the coaches salaries, including Flood and Stringer's, are direct endowment earmarks....and yet they fall under the so called athletic expenditure without the revenue side recognition.

Anyway, as Bac stated, RU does a deplorable job in PRing its expenses and budget.

 

[newell138]

Originally posted by bac2therac:

That ahole Eric Scott (I think that's his name) just led the news with the headline of "a lot of money at stake tonight as CVS can earn a $500K bonus for beating UConn". He then when on to say that CVS demanded last week that NJ taxpayers pony up $50 million for a practice facilty

what the f what a freakin creep and slimeball...RU should pull any and all advertisement from this station. This is not the first time that they have twisted their news headlines to make a story fit a negative narrative towards Rutgers

He gets all fired up anytime he gets the chance to talk negative RU stuff