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.
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/
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.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.
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.
Not true. It may be true in most if not all of P5, but ask Eastern Michigan if football turns a profit.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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?
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:
@CaliknightAll 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.
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.Title IX is like college admission quotas. It had a purpose and it served its purpose well, but its time has passed.
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.
Roughly 600 boys and 300 girls so boys did need more fields.Where there a lot more boys playing baseball in relation to softball?
Who decides who has a chance of success? If that was the criteria, we should have dropped men's basketball years ago.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.
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...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.
In the Big Ten, only Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern offer fewer sports.
From the Rutgers 2014 Athletics Budget presentation:
That was then (independent, BE, AAC) this is now.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.
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...."It was my experience (admittedly decades ago) that crew chicks were pretty much down for whatever.
So... that's one reason to keep them.
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.
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.
Agree.Absolutely. Anyone who thinks it was not necessary at the time it was enacted is either ignorant, a misogynist or both.
In the Big Ten, only Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern offer fewer sports.
From the Rutgers 2014 Athletics Budget presentation:
[winking]You can also say that we offer the same number as Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska and only one less than MSU, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
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.[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.
Exactly.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.
I am for that if those involved (athletes, families, alums of the sport) want to pay for them.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.
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.
Well realistically they don't cost as much either. But as we know those are and can be your most generous.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).
Not a bad idea.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.
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.
Wow. How very Jersey of you.If they are so weathly and important then they can fund these teams. Otherwise they are not actually wealthy and important.
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.Women's Basketball....SMH.
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.
She certainly bears some of the blame in losing a large part of that Rutgers community which used to feed at her hand.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.