ADVERTISEMENT

Subsidies at RU by Sport

One more point, Rutgers does not have the highest subsidy in the nation anymore. Rutgers is now ranked 17th and it will keep going down (maybe not near year due to all the firings) but for sure after that and every year after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ole Cabbagehead
Rutgers donation problem is much, much greater than its revenue problem.

Rutgers has the 49th largest athletic department spend in the country (link below). Virginia Tech receives double the amount of donations annually than we do ($8MM/year more). Texas Tech receives 3x more in donations annually ($16MM/year more). Central Florida (CENTRAL FLORIDA!!) receives a $1MM/year more in donations than Rutgers. At the very top end Penn State receives $20MM/year more in donations and Texas receives $36MM/year more in donations.

Thats not a "revenue" problem in the way most folks think of "revenue".

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that the state most of the alums live in is so expensive to raise a family? Living in FL or TX on the same salary I would be king and have more $$ to donate.
 
One more point, Rutgers does not have the highest subsidy in the nation anymore. Rutgers is now ranked 17th and it will keep going down (maybe not near year due to all the firings) but for sure after that and every year after that.


We were talking about this at work the other day. That is the best part. The media is setting us up to be the biggest success story in college sports in 2021. It is going to happen. No one will ever refer to the Flutie effect again. It will be the Rutgers model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SF88
One more point, Rutgers does not have the highest subsidy in the nation anymore. Rutgers is now ranked 17th and it will keep going down (maybe not near year due to all the firings) but for sure after that and every year after that.
Well then there is our message.

This is the one that needs to get out there.
 
In 5 years the entire athletic department will be profitable and the media will have to find something else to write about. Nuff said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SF88 and T2Kplus10
I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that the state most of the alums live in is so expensive to raise a family? Living in FL or TX on the same salary I would be king and have more $$ to donate.


I think an even bigger part of it is that we are relatively new to all of this. We are something like the only P5 team that has not been playing major conference football for at least 40 years. The donation thing takes time, because we are not ingrained in the NJ culture as a major sports university. Our older alums went to Rutgers either as a small private school, or as a very young state school competing with Colgate and Lehigh.

The donations will be the last thing to come around, not matter what the school does. Thankfully, the insane TV revneues the Big Ten is going to be making will help bridge the generational gap.
 
That is 100% NOT the bottom line. That is true nearly everywhere. Football and basket ball are supposed to turn a profit, and that profit is supposed to be enough to support other sports. Whether people want to admit it or not, the Rutgers subsidy IS a football and basketball problem. It is also, a donor problem.
Not true. It may be true in most if not all of P5, but ask Eastern Michigan if football turns a profit.
 
I totally agree with you. The articles and media always misconstrue the issue, and I also hate it. They love trying to act like we are recklessly spending money. In reality, our spending is right where it should be, and right where it needs to be to be competitive. If we aren't competitive, the losses will grow, not shrink. You cannot run this thing on a shoestring budget, or the revenue will get even worse.

My issue is that a lot of people here also misconstrue the issue. You cannot just say that because football and basketball turn a profit, we are doing things the right way. That doesn't explain the highest subsidy in the nation. So while the newspapers and faculty are criticizing the wrong things, we are pointing to the wrong things in defense. We are pointing to things like tennis, and Title IX, which every other school seems to manage without the highest subsidy. So its a weak argument.

We have to acknowledge that their is a problem, it just isn't a spending problem. Cutting sports, or running the women's sports on a shoestring budget shouldn't be the solution. The solution is to become a better run AD, that is competitive, scandal-free and a source of pride for the alumni. We are churnign out an insane amount of alums every year. If we give them a reaosn to be proud, donations will improve. That takes decades, and we are knew to the game when it comes to big time fundraising.
Athletic donations have been increasing, They increased 18% from last year. That is a healthy increase. What we need are some big time donors to step forward. Hopefully winning will keep the donations coming and increasing.

The solution is not just a better run AD, I hope we are on the right track with Hobbs, but.............

Winning in FB and BB, this will bring the most donations.

It is clear that the traditional teams who win have the lowest or no subsidies.

Winning will always be part of the solution even with BIG money.
 
You guys wouldn't be down on Title IX if you had children who were girls. I remember when my oldest daughter first started playing softball. Boys program used 6 to 7 fields. Girls shared 1 field and could be bumped if a boys team "needed" it. Unfortunately, laws like Title IX are needed at times to enact change.
Title IX is like college admission quotas. It had a purpose and it served its purpose well, but its time has passed.
 
You guys wouldn't be down on Title IX if you had children who were girls. I remember when my oldest daughter first started playing softball. Boys program used 6 to 7 fields. Girls shared 1 field and could be bumped if a boys team "needed" it. Unfortunately, laws like Title IX are needed at times to enact change.
Where there a lot more boys playing baseball in relation to softball?
 
I'm naive and from the old school. Too much is lost, especially at the college level, in focusing on revenue and spending. To me its all about the perspective of the participant and giving them the best resources to take advantage of their skills and the opportunities that avail themselves because of thos skills. For some, it's participation at the highest levels of the sport, for others it's career opportunities, for all, it's part of the development of the individual that the university, with all of its resources , helps to engender. As such, athletics- way beyond intramurals, is a vital component of what the university offers to its students and full funding, for as those activities should be a no brainer . Consideration must be given of course as to the resources available to the university, and at Rutgers that continues to be the struggle.
 
Last edited:
Comparisons to UTexas are somewhat irrelevant. How does Rutgers compare to other Big 10 schools in terms of the number of sports offered ? How many more sports does Rutgers have compared to say, the average number in the Big 10?

In the Big Ten, only Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern offer fewer sports.

From the Rutgers 2014 Athletics Budget presentation:
6zlks4.jpg
 
All of those were in conferences earning much more than RU.

We need to drop sports. It's unfair to field teams with no chance of success.
 
In the Big Ten, only Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern offer fewer sports.

From the Rutgers 2014 Athletics Budget presentation:
6zlks4.jpg

All of those were in conferences earning much more than RU.

We need to drop sports. It's unfair to field teams with no chance of success.
@Caliknight
So, we're expected to get $40M-$60M/yr from the B1G in 2020-21, & you want to cut $1M in expenses by dropping men's & women's golf & women's tennis? Title IX issues aside for the moment, what other sport should we drop? Cutting any sports now is political suicide & an infinite amount of bad press. No thanks.

Our issues have always been making bad coaching hires & not investing in or spending to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blitz8RUCrazy
Title IX is like college admission quotas. It had a purpose and it served its purpose well, but its time has passed.
I don't disagree it is time to take a new look at it and modify for today's time. It was necessary at the time it was enacted.
 
That is 100% NOT the bottom line. That is true nearly everywhere. Football and basket ball are supposed to turn a profit, and that profit is supposed to be enough to support other sports. Whether people want to admit it or not, the Rutgers subsidy IS a football and basketball problem. It is also, a donor problem.

Disagree 100%. I don't have a problem with woman's sports being subsidized, but you can't say football is a problem if it doesn't make enough to subsidize the other sports. Rutgers is just beginning to see the $$ the Big 10 offers, how can RU football be accountable when they were stuck in a league that didn't pay. Every sport should be judged on its own merits.
 
Isn't it also the case that Rutgers sponsors more sports than most other schools? If I'm not mistaken, some stat came out a year or two ago illustrating that we have more varsity sports (not clubs) than a good number of other schools by a ratio of 2:1 or something. I don't have the exact stat in front of me. But, if that is indeed the case, then perhaps the numbers (including subsidy) should be represented as "Dollars Per Sport/Student Athlete" and then see how Rutgers stacks up.
Without doing all the number crunching, a cursory glance suggests that Rutgers offers an average to above average number of varsity sports for a P5 program. That being said...

In the Big Ten, only Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern offer fewer sports.

From the Rutgers 2014 Athletics Budget presentation:
6zlks4.jpg

...the Big Ten programs tend to offer more sports than say, the Big 12 or the SEC. Again, without doing the actually number crunching, the B1G looks to offer the most, followed by the Pac-12, ACC, SEC and Big 12
 
All of those were in conferences earning much more than RU.

We need to drop sports. It's unfair to field teams with no chance of success.
That was then (independent, BE, AAC) this is now.

Too late for that. But what we should be doing is telling the alums from those sports to help out more like what is done at every other school for non-revenue sports.

As the B1G money comes in and FB and MBB get better and have a better revenue stream maybe some can filter down the line. But until then, they should be doing on their own as much as fiscally possible.
 
It was my experience (admittedly decades ago) that crew chicks were pretty much down for whatever.

So... that's one reason to keep them.
As a former rower, I concur. Though I don't miss the very callused hands. Unless, of course, you're one that likes it "rough...."

After the full payouts kick in along with hopefully much more revenue coming in from men's basketball, I would assume that there won't be much clamor for dropping sports. As we are able to improve and separate from other leagues with our increased revenue and spending it will become more of a source of pride for the University.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree it is time to take a new look at it and modify for today's time. It was necessary at the time it was enacted.
Absolutely. Anyone who thinks it was not necessary at the time it was enacted is either ignorant, a misogynist or both.
 
I don't disagree it is time to take a new look at it and modify for today's time. It was necessary at the time it was enacted.
Absolutely. Anyone who thinks it was not necessary at the time it was enacted is either ignorant, a misogynist or both.
Agree.

It was important and it worked. But it does need some tweaking.

FB and Wrestling should be removed for starters.
 
In the Big Ten, only Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern offer fewer sports.

From the Rutgers 2014 Athletics Budget presentation:
6zlks4.jpg

You can also say that we offer the same number as Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska and only one less than MSU, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eceres
You can also say that we offer the same number as Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska and only one less than MSU, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
[winking]

As I posted that, I was wondering if anyone would note that only Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan offer greater than 2 sports more than Rutgers. What that chart shows it that Rutgers is pretty much right in the middle for the number of sports offered by a Big Ten institution.

Since Rutgers intends to remain in the Big Ten moving forward, there really isn't a meaningful argument on dropping sports based on BE/AAC norms. The challenge for Rutgers isn't to drop sports to cut expenses. The challenge for Rutgers is to take advantage of our admission to the Big Ten to improve in the quality of our athletics.
 
[winking]

As I posted that, I was wondering if anyone would note that only Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan offer greater than 2 sports more than Rutgers. What that chart shows it that Rutgers is pretty much right in the middle for the number of sports offered by a Big Ten institution.

Since Rutgers intends to remain in the Big Ten moving forward, there really isn't a meaningful argument on dropping sports based on BE/AAC norms. The challenge for Rutgers isn't to drop sports to cut expenses. The challenge for Rutgers is to take advantage of our admission to the Big Ten to improve in the quality of our athletics.
Yes, and adding back the dropped sports would not get us past middle of the pack, we'd still be behind the top three. So I say we stop talking about dropping anything else, and do not bring up bringing old programs back. We are where we should be on this front.
 
Last edited:
Since Rutgers intends to remain in the Big Ten moving forward, there really isn't a meaningful argument on dropping sports based on BE/AAC norms. The challenge for Rutgers isn't to drop sports to cut expenses. The challenge for Rutgers is to take advantage of our admission to the Big Ten to improve in the quality of our athletics.
Exactly.

In the meantime as I have said previously the idea should be the non-revenue sports to try and raise as much cash as they can.
 
Yes, and adding back the dropped sports would not get us past middle of the pack, we'd still be behind the top three. So I say we stop talking about dropping anything else, and do not bring up bringing old programs back. We are were we should be on this front.
I am for that if those involved (athletes, families, alums of the sport) want to pay for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rags
Exactly.

In the meantime as I have said previously the idea should be the non-revenue sports to try and raise as much cash as they can.

Realistically, non-revenue sports aren't going to raise a lot of cash, that is why they are called "non-revenue".

You might get fans of some of the sports to donate money. And former student-athletes from non-revenue sports can be among your most generous donors (which is why there was so much fallout when Rutgers cut a bunch of sports several years ago). But from Rutgers' perspective, they probably would be happier if 3 former golfers each donated $250,000 in unrestricted funds, and Rutgers spent $350K on the golf team and $400K elsewhere, versus the donations being restricted to golf, and Rutgers sitting on $750K in donations that have to be spent on a program that only costs $350K to run. But if Rutgers encourages the former golfers to make unrestricted donations, the financial reports won't show these as donations related to the golf team.
 
Realistically, non-revenue sports aren't going to raise a lot of cash, that is why they are called "non-revenue".

You might get fans of some of the sports to donate money. And former student-athletes from non-revenue sports can be among your most generous donors (which is why there was so much fallout when Rutgers cut a bunch of sports several years ago). But from Rutgers' perspective, they probably would be happier if 3 former golfers each donated $250,000 in unrestricted funds, and Rutgers spent $350K on the golf team and $400K elsewhere, versus the donations being restricted to golf, and Rutgers sitting on $750K in donations that have to be spent on a program that only costs $350K to run. But if Rutgers encourages the former golfers to make unrestricted donations, the financial reports won't show these as donations related to the golf team.

In that scenario you could start a permanent endowment for the golf team. Other schools do that with significant donations of that nature as you won't get large donations like that every year.
 
Realistically, non-revenue sports aren't going to raise a lot of cash, that is why they are called "non-revenue".

You might get fans of some of the sports to donate money. And former student-athletes from non-revenue sports can be among your most generous donors (which is why there was so much fallout when Rutgers cut a bunch of sports several years ago).
Well realistically they don't cost as much either. But as we know those are and can be your most generous.

In that scenario you could start a permanent endowment for the golf team. Other schools do that with significant donations of that nature as you won't get large donations like that every year.
Not a bad idea.

But I am saying every man for themselves for now....if you want it, you pay for it.
 
Disagree 100%. I don't have a problem with woman's sports being subsidized, but you can't say football is a problem if it doesn't make enough to subsidize the other sports. Rutgers is just beginning to see the $$ the Big 10 offers, how can RU football be accountable when they were stuck in a league that didn't pay. Every sport should be judged on its own merits.

Well, our football and basketball program are less meritorious then our peers. You are correct that Rutgers is just beginning to see the increased conference revenue, but that is only art of it. The other parts are that our peers make more than we do off "revenue sports" and even more importantly, our peers make more off donations. There is no mystery here. The numbers are all available.

The papers want to act like we spend too much on athletics. An honest look tells you that isn't true. We spend in line with our peers. So why did we have the largest subisdy in the nation? If we aren't spending too much, it must be that we aren't making enough. Money only comes from three places:

Conference revenue/TV money - ours sucks but will be getting better
Donors - we are way, way worse than our peers
Revenue Sports - our revenue sports bring in less than our peers.

You cannot isolate one. All are a problem. Not admitting it is whitewashing the subject. Obviously there has to be a reason our subsidy is so large, especially when we were paying on the low end of the scale at every single AD position (coaches and administrative), and haven't built any new facilities since the Hale Center update.
 
Women's Basketball....SMH.
Don't go there. That subject is off limits for discussion, analysis, criticism or evaluation until you know who is gone. There once was a great opportunity to build on her success. Poof. Here's hoping for a speedy return to elite status.
 
It's amazing how much money the women's b-ball team loses.

Actually, it's less than I thought. I think that they are fudging the numbers to make it look better. What a joke. You could bridge the gap for multiple other sports by just right-sizing the spending there. Stringer should be gone tomorrow.
 
Actually, it's less than I thought. I think that they are fudging the numbers to make it look better. What a joke. You could bridge the gap for multiple other sports by just right-sizing the spending there. Stringer should be gone tomorrow.

Can you blame Stringer for what looks to me like an extremely low revenue number? Perhaps there should be some discussion of lack of support from the RU community.
 
Can you blame Stringer for what looks to me like an extremely low revenue number? Perhaps there should be some discussion of lack of support from the RU community.
She certainly bears some of the blame in losing a large part of that Rutgers community which used to feed at her hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blitz8RUCrazy
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT