ADVERTISEMENT

The Cost of Women's Basketball is Out of Control & Hurts Our other Athletes

Racpack

Senior
Jan 21, 2012
1,168
702
113
It has been reported that the Women's Basketball Program expenses are $2.6 million greater than revenue generated. That is over $173,000 per student athlete. Imagine how the student athletes on other teams could benefit if women's basketball did not have a $2.6 million deficit. Hopefully Hobbs can address this. It is not fair to the other 600 student athletes at Rutgers. Please do not try to justify this outrageous deficit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blitz8RUCrazy
You ahould probably include the link but glad you beat me to it. Good luck! Thread locked in 5....4....3....:popcorn:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUMcMahon
How does this loss compare to how much womens basketball earns or loses at other Big Ten schools?

Just my humble opinion, but I don't have much interest in cutting down any of our sports. I want to see us spend and be successful on par with the other members of our conference. If this loss is outsized, then I agree it should be brought into line. But it might just be a natural product of having an HOF coach at the end of her career. That is part of the price you pay to be very competitive, as we were for many years. It will fix itself once Stringer retires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LtCol144
How does this loss compare to how much womens basketball earns or loses at other Big Ten schools?

Just my humble opinion, but I don't have much interest in cutting down any of our sports. I want to see us spend and be successful on par with the other members of our conference. If this loss is outsized, then I agree it should be brought into line. But it might just be a natural product of having an HOF coach at the end of her career. That is part of the price you pay to be very competitive, as we were for many years. It will fix itself once Stringer retires.

Most of us have no desire to see ANY more sports "cut," that's for sure, but unfortunately (for some) the facts are now in black-and-white and should be discussed.
 
Last edited:
Ok - its disgraceful. No disagreement on that point. Um, what did Men's Basketball and Football lose at the same time? This is a college sports issue across the board.

Here are some figures from a couple of 2011 articles referring to 2010 WBB - Auburn lost over 3 million, Michigan State 2 million, Texas A&M 2.8 million, Texas 2.6 million, and in total, the 53 public schools in the 6 then "power conferences" or "BCS" as the term was, reported losses of 109.7 million in Women's Basketball for the year.

While things can change and fluctuate, I've always heard that only a couple of schools have ever really turned a WBB profit - Tennessee and UConn among them, although both were losing at the time of these articles.

In a more recent article I read on the UConn board, NCAA president Emmert said that the NCAA (as an entity) loses 14 million on producing the Women's Basketball Tournament. He also claimed that the number of schools that have profitable athletic departments is in the 20's. There are close to 350 schools in DI.

While all these numbers, and the Rutgers number as well, are slightly suspect - they vary widely based on the accounting used and it does vary, there is a lot of flexibility in how you allocate costs between sports (and income as well) and schools are cool with the accounting reflecting what they want it to. It is most accurate to say that simply that a lot of money is lost on college athletics and a lot of it is lost on WBB, most likely the biggest loser. Of course all of the "non-revenue" sports probably lose money as well.

In the current structure of sports, the P5 conference schools are best positioned (right now) because they tend to have much larger media revenue through the conference TV arrangement, which is a huge source of revenue for athletic programs.

For the Rutgers number, lets not get too carried away by the coach's salary in this respect - several articles (perhaps correctly) blame coaches salaries for a lot of the loss. But given what they are, the likely salary of at least $350,000 for a decent new coach would only reduce the RU loss to 2.2 million.

I don't have the answer because I have no idea how to reform college sports. But this is what it is "out there" and any serious reduction in Rutgers case would mean giving up even trying to be competitive in Women's Basketball, still the most prominent women's sport in the NCAA.
 
Note - I don't do the link thing well. Google articles on WBB losses, these figures are mostly from a Bloomberg article as carried in the Indianapolis Business Journal although an article on Forbes was similar.

For Mark Emmert, the article appeared in the Utah Statesman, I tried (reluctantly) to link the BY thread, but that didn't work.
 
How does this loss compare to how much womens basketball earns or loses at other Big Ten schools?

Just my humble opinion, but I don't have much interest in cutting down any of our sports. I want to see us spend and be successful on par with the other members of our conference. If this loss is outsized, then I agree it should be brought into line. But it might just be a natural product of having an HOF coach at the end of her career. That is part of the price you pay to be very competitive, as we were for many years. It will fix itself once Stringer retires.
This blog is from 2013 and shows College WBB is a losing proposition for most College Sports programs.
Those with a bone to pick with the RU WBB program have an easy target.
But just about any College Women's Basketball program would be easy to bash as a money loser.
Why women's college basketball might be stuck in the red - Swish Appeal
>The article focuses on Alabama women's basketball. The Crimson Tide has a brand new coach and Dosh's article looks at the state of the women's program. All in all, Alabama women's basketball ran a $2.4 million dollar deficit for fiscal year 2012.

As Dosh points out, Alabama is not an isolated instance of a sub-par women's program struggling. Even the large programs like Connecticut and Tennessee end up in the red for their universities. But the key to turning things around in women's basketball isn't just getting more butts in seats or even having a nice television contract - Tennessee has the best attendance in women's basketball and still ends up in the red. So why is that?<
http://www.swishappeal.com/2013/11/12/5090384/ncaa-womens-college-basketball-profits-donations
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Time Fan
Once again the agenda people are wetting their pants.

1) They have at least changed their tune from give the money to Men's BB (a losing approach) to give the money to other womens' sports.
2) Gee, it turns out that RU WBB losses are pretty much in line with all Power 5 WBB programs.
3) Based on #2, isn't their position then that all Power 5 schools (or at least most of them) should drop WBB?

As I have said many times, RU has professional people (now better than ever) to manage their sports expenditures. They are fully aware of these outdated statistics as much as anyone who reads a message board. Most people think they have done an incredible job with RU athletics in the last few months. You can't pick and choose, although you can complain and push your agenda as much as you want on a message board. Why don't you try an email to Hobbs or Barchi and see what kind of a response you get?

The simple fact is that the RU WBB situation is settled for at least one year, and probably two. Could you please give this agenda a rest and save your bullets for when the next change actually happens? Sheeesh! Get a friggin' life.
 
Once again the agenda people are wetting their pants.

1) They have at least changed their tune from give the money to Men's BB (a losing approach) to give the money to other womens' sports.
2) Gee, it turns out that RU WBB losses are pretty much in line with all Power 5 WBB programs.
3) Based on #2, isn't their position then that all Power 5 schools (or at least most of them) should drop WBB?

As I have said many times, RU has professional people (now better than ever) to manage their sports expenditures. They are fully aware of these outdated statistics as much as anyone who reads a message board. .

"outdated stats"? I stopped reading right there. This isn't about "outdated stats," this is about OUR costs, for last year (2014-15), for every sport. Maybe you should take the time to read the article, first, instead of spouting off as such? Holy freakin' defensive!

We all know the deal right now, and most of us get it, that doesn't mean we can't discuss THE FACTS when they're reported, right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Local Shill
"outdated stats"? I stopped reading right there. This isn't about "outdated stats," this is about OUR costs, for last year (2014-15), for every sport. Maybe you should take the time to read the article, first, instead of spouting off as such? Holy freakin' defensive!

We all know the deal right now, and most of us get it, that doesn't mean we can't discuss THE FACTS when they're reported, right?
Either drop all the sports that lose money or judge them by their peers, that would be a unique idea of judging if a program is worth keeping .
Going through that list I see plenty of programs costing more than they bring in .

Men 's Basketball and the RU FB program earned more than they cost, that's good news.
Wrestling , both Golf Programs , Lacrosse, both Track Programs and other RU sports programs drain the Athletic Department's budget as well, but that's part of having intercollegiate sports
that fans can enjoy .
Many of those programs aren't moneymakers and there are probably some RU that feel they should go the way men's crew programs did.
I believe there has been talk by some RU fans expressing that maybe RU should cut down the
amount of intercollegiate sports it has and I'm sure some wouldn't be mad if the RU WBB program was one of them.

The RU WBB program lost money, but if you check other college WBB programs you'll see the same expenses paid out being more than revenue earned by RU WBB peers.

But don't let other college women's basketball program's lack of profit stop you from putting the RU WBB in its place.
It lost money and that's a fact you have every right to point out.

The cost of running a college women's basketball program usually is higher than what they bring in and that's a problem just about every College Athletic Department has, including Rutgers.
When discussing the facts, that fact must be part of the discussion if you want to have an honest one about the RU WBB program costing $2.6 million more than it earned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MidwestKnights
"outdated stats"? I stopped reading right there. This isn't about "outdated stats," this is about OUR costs, for last year (2014-15), for every sport. Maybe you should take the time to read the article, first, instead of spouting off as such? Holy freakin' defensive!

We all know the deal right now, and most of us get it, that doesn't mean we can't discuss THE FACTS when they're reported, right?

If you think that 14-15 stats are current then you don't know about the changes in the WBB coaching staff compensation for 15-16. How much will that reduction in compensation reduce the losses for 15-16? Will that make RU's WBB losses much less than the average for other Power 5 WBB programs?

Also, along with the many benefits of BIG membership, there are also obligations. Among them is fielding teams in all of the conference's major sports (including WBB) and being competitive in same. If all the other teams in the conference are spending large amounts on WBB (with concomitant losses) than it is incumbent on RU to do the same.

And why is the focus of cost reduction always on staff salaries. What about the cost of scholarships. After all WBB has more scholarships than MBB. Is that fair? Is life fair? How about restricting WBB players to NJ? That will save a lot of scholarship money. What about the costs of travel? Let's convince the BIG that we don't need to make all those trips to the Midwest. That would save a lot of money. The reasons why most Power 5 WBB programs have losses very similar to RU is these things like 15 full scholarships, including out of state students, and travel. In fact, why don't we apply all these potential savings to all non-revenue sports? Or maybe we could just apply them to the ones you don't like?

It is not the case that RU can spend less money on WBB (it has actually reduced costs below what is quoted in the original story), or any other non-revenue sport; what is the case is that RU should take steps to improve revenue in WBB and other non-revenue sports. One of the major steps in this regard is improved facilities. Others are better marketing and better experiences at games. One of the most important things you learn in either B-school or from mentors and practical experience is that reducing costs is only ONE solution to recurring losses. The other solution (especially after costs have been reduced as much as possible) is to increase revenue. As RU is locked into BIG membership obligations that include a competitive WBB program, the latter is the most likely choice.

Finally, if you support the proposition that RU can have a competitive WBB program for a lot less money, then please stop wasting the time of message board readers. Please pass this very critical information on to Hobbs and Barchi. Also, start a sports consulting business; you can sell this invaluable information to almost every other Power 5 school in the country.
 
"Reported where? I think it's unfair and irresponsible to come here to start a thread that is this inflammatory without identifying the source of your data."

DMD - This publicly available information was reported by NJ.Com today. Not trying to be inflammatory. Just reporting the facts. Women's Basketball losses more money than any other athletic program at Rutgers. The facts are not under dispute.

You know more about the program than most fans. Do you believe that it is fair/right to financially support a program to the tune of $2.6 million when no other team incurs a lost close to $2.6 million ? No matter what you feel, I respect your opinion.
 
"Reported where? I think it's unfair and irresponsible to come here to start a thread that is this inflammatory without identifying the source of your data."

DMD - This publicly available information was reported by NJ.Com today. Not trying to be inflammatory. Just reporting the facts. Women's Basketball losses more money than any other athletic program at Rutgers. The facts are not under dispute.

You know more about the program than most fans. Do you believe that it is fair/right to financially support a program to the tune of $2.6 million when no other team incurs a lost close to $2.6 million ? No matter what you feel, I respect your opinion.
I'm sorry, but I don't read nj.com. I'm very busy - If you post something like this, I shouldn't have to chase down the source of the story before I can respond to it. And seriously, re-read the subject you gave this thread, think about it for a minute, and then tell me again that it's not inflammatory.
 
I will say what I always say about these things:

1. The stats presumably are from the NCAA reports that all schools file. Schools have enormous discretion in how they report expenses and revenues from every program. NJ.com notes, for instance, that the debt service on HPSS is excluded from football expenses because the stadium occasionally is used for something else. Similarly, I suspect that all of the contributions by football season ticket and parking pass holders are treated as football revenue even though they often are just general contributions to RU athletics.

2. Until you know how a school treats indirect revenue and expenses, you really have no idea what the numbers mean. It is very common to essentially treat sports other than football and men's basketball as having little or no share of the common revenue from things like radio contracts (which generally cover all sports) and sponsorship deals (ditto - you see mostly the same sponsor names at HPSS and the RAC). It's also common to allocate common costs equally across the board. (In such cases, WCBB has the same share of expenses of a strength and conditioning facility as football, even though it has 1/7 as many players on scholarship.)

3. I am curious as to how the B1G payment is allocated. I bet the majority, and maybe a very high majority, of it is allocated to football and nearly all of the rest to MCBB.

4. That said, RU WCBB no doubt runs a loss, and it's almost certainly 7 figures.
 
"Reported where? I think it's unfair and irresponsible to come here to start a thread that is this inflammatory without identifying the source of your data."

DMD - This publicly available information was reported by NJ.Com today. Not trying to be inflammatory. Just reporting the facts. Women's Basketball losses more money than any other athletic program at Rutgers. The facts are not under dispute.

You know more about the program than most fans. Do you believe that it is fair/right to financially support a program to the tune of $2.6 million when no other team incurs a lost close to $2.6 million ? No matter what you feel, I respect your opinion.
Is it fair to drop WBB and not some other money losing programs.
Wrestling lost around $400,000, tennis over $440,000, gymnastics close to losing $685,000 and Volleyball cost RU around $1.3 million
Want justification, ask every sport losing money to justify it's reason not to be dropped because it cost more than it makes.
Actually the Athletic Department isn't a moneymaker , maybe RU should drop all sports and not worry about RU spending more than it earns playing intercollegiate sports.

RU WBB has been a great ambassador for Rutgers University over the years and has earned its right to continue representing Rutgers as an intercollegiate sport .
All the programs I mentioned deserve to be part of Rutgers intercollegiate sports programs ,
even Volleyball despite it's 4-28 W-L record
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickyNewark51
I'm sorry, but I don't read nj.com. I'm very busy - If you post something like this, I shouldn't have to chase down the source of the story before I can respond to it. And seriously, re-read the subject you gave this thread, think about it for a minute, and then tell me again that it's not inflammatory.
Thankfully another poster posted the link or I wouldn't have seen the NJO.com's RU profit and loss article and been able to comment on it.

edit: according to that article only Football and Men's Basketball turned a profit, all the other RU sports programs lost money .
 
Last edited:
All the other schools listed above can afford to lose money on the other sports.

We still can't. That will change. For the right now though it is a fair question to ask...on what to do.

And to drop WBB is

1. Not the right answer.
2. A stupid idea.

But it is more than fair to ask a question on how to reign in the deficit.
 
"Reported where? I think it's unfair and irresponsible to come here to start a thread that is this inflammatory without identifying the source of your data."

DMD - This publicly available information was reported by NJ.Com today. Not trying to be inflammatory. Just reporting the facts. Women's Basketball losses more money than any other athletic program at Rutgers. The facts are not under dispute.

You know more about the program than most fans. Do you believe that it is fair/right to financially support a program to the tune of $2.6 million when no other team incurs a lost close to $2.6 million ? No matter what you feel, I respect your opinion.

I think the RU goal should be to reduce the subsidy for the WBB. Getting the subsidy cut in half would be a good start. WBB has to streamline to get its losses more in line with the non- revenue sports. If it weren't for the PC world we live in, This would be a big story in NJ. Com. It is unfair that the media picks on football and MBB, but gives a pass on WBB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Local Shill
I'm sorry, but I don't read nj.com. I'm very busy - If you post something like this, I shouldn't have to chase down the source of the story before I can respond to it. And seriously, re-read the subject you gave this thread, think about it for a minute, and then tell me again that it's not inflammatory.
This is a message board. It is not a requirement to document where you find information and data as if one was publishing a little paper.
 
Some of the spin here is making me dizzy. The program lost $2.6M in 14-15 because attendance has fallen off a cliff in the past few years and the coach is still being overcompensated for the same old, albeit noteworthy accomplishments.

It's not hard to figure out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vkj91
The simple answer is there's no simple answer.

Colleges have put themselves in the position where women's basketball loses millions. That's not likely to change. There's no big TV contract to pull them out of the red. The fan interest at many schools is minimal. It holds little or no interest to the average sports fan. Syracuse, who made the Woman's Final this year, average attendance was under 1,000.

Cut the program? Of course not and I doubt anyone can say otherwise. The best you can do is spend wisely and bite the bullet on losses.
 
listen the football only fans will stop at nothing until ALL MONEY is allocated to them. Thats why most hated Julie and her support of Olympic sports, they hate basketball even mens and until this year didnt support any spending on any kind of facility for mens hoops. Some may say this post is not fair and is a generalization and yes its over the top but there is truth to it
 
Why is it absolutely impossible to have a discussion, based on facts, on this board? We're all fans of the program, right? Shit I used to follow the team to A10 playoff games (still have the white "00" Caroline DeRoose T-shirt we all wore to the game @ St. Joe's IIRC), I promote the program on my RU sports distro, and watch all of their TV games, but facts and facts my friends and this program is bleeding money (luckily, as pointed out, Hobbs and company are very familiar with the situation...). I think we all hope that can and will change, to the benefit of the program both on and off the court, down the road.
 
Last edited:
listen the football only fans will stop at nothing until ALL MONEY is allocated to them. Thats why most hated Julie and her support of Olympic sports, they hate basketball even mens and until this year didnt support any spending on any kind of facility for mens hoops. Some may say this post is not fair and is a generalization and yes its over the top but there is truth to it

Oh Lord please stop there are about 10 people out there who feel this way.
 
listen the football only fans will stop at nothing until ALL MONEY is allocated to them. Thats why most hated Julie and her support of Olympic sports, they hate basketball even mens and until this year didnt support any spending on any kind of facility for mens hoops. Some may say this post is not fair and is a generalization and yes its over the top but there is truth to it

The subsidy has been a huge topic over the years inside and outside the Rutgers community in case you haven't noticed. It is a black eye on the school that the administration is trying to correct. Women's basketball is the biggest drain on the subsidy. It's a more than fair topic to discuss.
 
This is a message board. It is not a requirement to document where you find information and data as if one was publishing a little paper.
But it would be nice to do so, in order so others could see all the information in the article instead of only part of it.
To often only a part of all the information in an article is posted to make a point, but if you see all the information there might be other facts that deserved to be considered before making a decision on the issue raised..
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmd78
Why is it absolutely impossible to have a discussion, based on facts, on this board? We're all fans of the program, right? Shit I used to follow the team to A10 playoff games (still have the white "00" Caroline DeRoose T-shirt we all wore to the game @ St. Joe's IIRC), I promote the program on my RU sports distro, and watch all of their TV games, but facts and facts my friends and this program is bleeding money (luckily, as pointed out, Hobbs and company are very familiar with the situation...). I think we all hope that can and will change, to the benefit of the program both on and off the court, down the road.

NUTS: This is a very fair point, however, any discussion of the FACTS should not be limited to financial statistics. For instance, there are very legitimate reasons why RU spends what it does on WBB. These reasons are FACTS as well. In any legitimate discussion, all of the pertinent FACTS should be discussed, not just monetary ones. Other FACTS that are important, but ignored by those with the anti-WBB perspective, include what is happening with WBB with our peer schools (important for perspective), what are our obligations to the conference, and what is being done to correct ALL the problems with the WBB program, not just staff compensation (which has already been addressed), but facilities, marketing, fan experience, etc.

Finally, I will reiterate what I previously posted, there are two solutions to losses in a business/athletic program. One is reducing costs (always the focus here) and the other is increasing revenue. Usually an approach utilizing both methods is best. RU has already addressed the cost issue to some extent, but has done little to address the revenue issue.

BTW: Those of you advocating cutting the WBB head coach salary in half are in for a rude awakening with the next hire. First of all that hardly makes a dent in the losses for WBB. What other costs are you going to cut, scholarships? Travel? Also, based on what has happened thus far with FB and MBB, I expect another major hire for what is the third most important sport at most P5 schools. And yes I know that at some schools you can argue for one sport or another, but across the board, WBB is clearly number 3.
 
In 2010, Rutgers University’s football program was one of the biggest money losers in the country, spending $2.86 million more than it got from ticket sales, sponsorships and other revenue, according to school and NCAA records.
Bet those upset with the RU WBB program's $2.6 loss found ways to excuse the FB losses back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
Anyone thinking about cutting costs for RU WBB should take a look how the MBB was when it was being run on the cheap.
Rutgers should look for ways to make their WBB program one that draws attention from WBB fans and try to entice them to buy season tickets and go to home games.
 
In 2010, Rutgers University’s football program was one of the biggest money losers in the country, spending $2.86 million more than it got from ticket sales, sponsorships and other revenue, according to school and NCAA records.
Bet those upset with the RU WBB program's $2.6 loss found ways to excuse the FB losses back then.

No, that sucked, but it was 6 YEARS AGO. We're talking about the here-and-now, right? Eh...I'm not gonna argue...I love basketball, I love Rutgers, I love women, so I love the sport, but the constant deflecting is funny.

Bottom line: this is the most costly sport at Rutgers, right now, period.
 
NUTS: This is a very fair point, however, any discussion of the FACTS should not be limited to financial statistics. For instance, there are very legitimate reasons why RU spends what it does on WBB. These reasons are FACTS as well. In any legitimate discussion, all of the pertinent FACTS should be discussed, not just monetary ones. Other FACTS that are important, but ignored by those with the anti-WBB perspective, include what is happening with WBB with our peer schools (important for perspective), what are our obligations to the conference, and what is being done to correct ALL the problems with the WBB program, not just staff compensation (which has already been addressed), but facilities, marketing, fan experience, etc.

Finally, I will reiterate what I previously posted, there are two solutions to losses in a business/athletic program. One is reducing costs (always the focus here) and the other is increasing revenue. Usually an approach utilizing both methods is best. RU has already addressed the cost issue to some extent, but has done little to address the revenue issue.

BTW: Those of you advocating cutting the WBB head coach salary in half are in for a rude awakening with the next hire. First of all that hardly makes a dent in the losses for WBB. What other costs are you going to cut, scholarships? Travel? Also, based on what has happened thus far with FB and MBB, I expect another major hire for what is the third most important sport at most P5 schools. And yes I know that at some schools you can argue for one sport or another, but across the board, WBB is clearly number 3.

The prom is how you increase revenue
NUTS: This is a very fair point, however, any discussion of the FACTS should not be limited to financial statistics. For instance, there are very legitimate reasons why RU spends what it does on WBB. These reasons are FACTS as well. In any legitimate discussion, all of the pertinent FACTS should be discussed, not just monetary ones. Other FACTS that are important, but ignored by those with the anti-WBB perspective, include what is happening with WBB with our peer schools (important for perspective), what are our obligations to the conference, and what is being done to correct ALL the problems with the WBB program, not just staff compensation (which has already been addressed), but facilities, marketing, fan experience, etc.

Finally, I will reiterate what I previously posted, there are two solutions to losses in a business/athletic program. One is reducing costs (always the focus here) and the other is increasing revenue. Usually an approach utilizing both methods is best. RU has already addressed the cost issue to some extent, but has done little to address the revenue issue.

BTW: Those of you advocating cutting the WBB head coach salary in half are in for a rude awakening with the next hire. First of all that hardly makes a dent in the losses for WBB. What other costs are you going to cut, scholarships? Travel? Also, based on what has happened thus far with FB and MBB, I expect another major hire for what is the third most important sport at most P5 schools. And yes I know that at some schools you can argue for one sport or another, but across the board, WBB is clearly number 3.

The revenue issue would be tough to resolve. The sports entertainment dollar in NJ is spread out so far already I don't know where a significant increase can come from.

As I said there's no simple answer or at least none that I've ever heard.
 
No, that sucked, but it was 6 YEARS AGO. We're talking about the here-and-now, right? Eh...I'm not gonna argue...I love basketball, I love Rutgers, I love women, so I love the sport, but the constant deflecting is funny.

Bottom line: this is the most costly sport at Rutgers, right now, period.
Yes. But in context, I'd be shocked if it isn't the biggest money loser at many universities.

I'm not sure I understand (completely) why it is so expensive ( and I don't mean just at Rutgers) as compared to some other sports. I wonder how much facility costs figure into it.

I think the football "break even" involves at least some creative accounting OR the media has been lying about how many universities are losing money on football. And the men's basketball obviously (to me) benefits from television revenue that the women do not benefit from.

Volleyball loses 1.27 million - yikes.
 
Yes. But in context, I'd be shocked if it isn't the biggest money loser at many universities.

I'm not sure I understand (completely) why it is so expensive ( and I don't mean just at Rutgers) as compared to some other sports. I wonder how much facility costs figure into it.

I think the football "break even" involves at least some creative accounting OR the media has been lying about how many universities are losing money on football. And the men's basketball obviously (to me) benefits from television revenue that the women do not benefit from.

Volleyball loses 1.27 million - yikes.

Football is profitable. Please stop spewing inaccuracies.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/i...s_football_had_8_million_reasons_to_be_p.html
 
You don't understand me. Football is the main money gainer and the sport that drives the bus at every university. It should be profitable, but there have been numerous articles - over the years and written for many different purposes - that show there is variability in how universities report their earnings and expenses. For example, if RU gets a certain amount of money because of football, those funds may be allocated to football even though those funds are technically used to benefit (and intended to benefit) other sports as well. On the expense side, BeK's example will do - the cost of a strength department might be divided between all sports that use it evenly - even though sports like football and other "large team" sports might use it much more than men's or women's basketball.

If every fan doesn't want football to be profitable for real, then they are not a Rutgers fan or they don't understand college sports. Since I live in Tucson, my football fandom is to U of A, we have season tickets, pay our seat fee quite willingly and support RichRod as our head coach.

Women's basketball is the big loser at Rutgers and probably most schools. Based on the numbers of what other sports cost to run in the article, I can't believe that Women's basketball isn't the loss leader at many universities - even RU's income for women's basketball was higher than the expenses for every other sport except MBB and football. It appears that most sports can be run in the one to 1.5 million range, and I admit I am at a loss why women's basketball costs north of $4 million and men's basketball north of $5 million. Both numbers - and the cost of football as well - are revolting, and according to the article on football, not really due to salaries or scholarships. I want to watch my college football, women's basketball, volleyball and softball and I want Rutgers and UofA to do well in every other sport as well. So I tolerate the situation.

But I am not bad-mouthing football, per se. It really doesn't matter that much if it is profitable, considering that the NCAA president pointed out that only 22 schools have athletics in the black.

I wouldn't feel bad for folks in the other sports, I feel bad for the students paying this price.
 
football was 8.2 million dollars in the black last year,taking no money fron subsidies. this will improve exponentially from here on out. football is funding all the other sports at this moment. get the facts straight.
 
football was 8.2 million dollars in the black last year,taking no money fron subsidies. this will improve exponentially from here on out. football is funding all the other sports at this moment. get the facts straight.
The fact is ( according to that NJO.com piece) only two Rutgers Sports programs turned a profit,
the rest lost money.
That fact needs to be stressed as well.

Also I can't find out of any college has a WBB program turning a profit
>Data that UConn submitted to the U.S. Department of Education shows that for the 2014-2015 academic year, the school incurred $6.7 million in expenses for its women's basketball team while earning $4 million in revenue.<
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-financial-impact-of-championship-basketball/

That's the best College WBB program there is and that program lost $2.7 million while going undefeated along with winning the National Championship.
Makes you think Rutgers WBB's financial losses are being made into just a Rutgers problem when it's the whole sport of College WBB that needs more support from fans and boosters .
 
ADVERTISEMENT