When does the B1g money start to kick in?

[Steveriknight]

I posted this in another thread, but it IS legit way for schools and governments to raise money they don't currently have, but will have at a future date:

Float some bond anticipation notes (BANs) to fund a new coaching staff's salary expenses for a couple years.

With bond anticipation notes you can roll them over year after year and pay only interest on them, no principal payments. I believe it's after the fifth year you have to start making principal payments, but in five year's time we'll be just about ready for B1G cash flows, so that would be good timing. Schools and municipal government float bond anticipation notes all the time and you can be sure that RU already has a bunch on their Debt Service Fund balance sheet.

We could afford a top notch coaching staff starting next season, and avoid losing all the fan interest and monies that go along with that. It's a creative option, but it's probably too bold to use a strategy like this given the microscope RU's finances are always under. It's essentially investing in RU football today, collateralized by future cash flows 6 years from now. That's just smarter money management if you ask me. Planning to send RU football down the shitter until 2021 is not smart management on a number of levels.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I've posted these numbers here many times before. They were from some faculty report in Spring 2014 giving projections. They have since been confirmed in a Lesniak report which someone else posted here and they were the exact same figures except the last figure had been revised to take into account more recent projections on the tv contract. I think it might be on his website somewhere and you have to give your info, email to get the report. I didn't but someone here did and it matched what I had seen previously.

Basically the first few years will be in the 10-11.5M range, then 15M, 19M, 25M, 35M (since revised to 40M+ to reflect new projections on the tv contract)

 

[WhoRU?]

Any increases on the expenditure side of the ledger are going to have to be paid for with private donations. Because Flood doesn't currently make much, (comparatively) it makes it more expensive to make a change. Revenues will increase dramatically in 2012, until then Julie needs to line up donors to make ends meet.

 

[JPhoboken]

I've posted these numbers here many times before. They were from some faculty report in Spring 2014 giving projections. They have since been confirmed in a Lesniak report which someone else posted here and they were the exact same figures except the last figure had been revised to take into account more recent projections on the tv contract. I think it might be on his website somewhere and you have to give your info, email to get the report. I didn't but someone here did and it matched what I had seen previously.

Basically the first few years will be in the 10-11.5M range, then 15M, 19M, 25M, 35M (since revised to 40M+ to reflect new projections on the tv contract)

This is the info I remember, thank you.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I posted this in another thread, but it IS legit way for schools and governments to raise money they don't currently have, but will have at a future date:

Float some bond anticipation notes (BANs) to fund a new coaching staff's salary expenses for a couple years.

With bond anticipation notes you can roll them over year after year and pay only interest on them, no principal payments. I believe it's after the fifth year you have to start making principal payments, but in five year's time we'll be just about ready for B1G cash flows, so that would be good timing. Schools and municipal government float bond anticipation notes all the time and you can be sure that RU already has a bunch on their Debt Service Fund balance sheet.

We could afford a top notch coaching staff starting next season, and avoid losing all the fan interest and monies that go along with that. It's a creative option, but it's probably too bold to use a strategy like this given the microscope RU's finances are always under. It's essentially investing in RU football today, collateralized by future cash flows 6 years from now. That's just smarter money management if you ask me. Planning to send RU football down the shitter until 2021 is not smart management on a number of levels.

The only bonds I ever anticipate being floated will be athletic revenue bonds to be used in combination with private donations for facilities. That's usually how it's done in a lot places.

That is our biggest problem, we need a bigger donor base. Minnesota is building a 166M athletic complex and a Wisconsin poster here said they were having trouble funding it. I was like really, I remember it going well so I looked it up. They raised 76.5M for it so less than 50%. They wanted to raise 80% privately and float athletic revenue bonds for the rest. Instead they will have to float bonds for more than 50% of the projected costs but they still raised 76.5M in private money from donors and corporations. Think about that, raised 76.5M and that's considered having trouble.

They don't know the definition of having trouble raising funds until they take a look at us and our lack of fundraising prowess throughout our history. Our biggest issue is that more than anything and it's slowly showing some improvement but we have a long way to go. The AD who can raise 10s of millions of dollars here will be the first and as far as I'm concerned whomever does it will deserve high praise and a long leash on coaching failures.

 

[rurichdog]

Not sure I understand the logic. Do you count your mortgage as an expense? We are paying every month on the debt of the stadium. Isn't that an athletic department expense?

That's where the accounting gimmicks begin. At Rutgers, the stadium debt is an Athletics debt, and pinned to football. At other schools, it is a University debt, pinned to facilities (like any other on-campus building).

 

[JPhoboken]

Rutgers isn't making a secret of it. They will tell you if you ask. IIRC, the Big Ten money kicks in 2021.

I am aware of the 21 full share, was talking about the yearly numbers up unti then.

But, Rutgersguy1, in this thread, posted the numbers I was referring to.

 

[Steveriknight]

The only bonds I ever anticipate being floated will be athletic revenue bonds to be used in combination with private donations for facilities. That's usually how it's done in a lot places.

That is our biggest problem, we need a bigger donor base. Minnesota is building a 166M athletic complex and a Wisconsin poster here said they were having trouble funding it. I was like really, I remember it going well so I looked it up. They raised 76.5M for it so less than 50%. They wanted to raise 80% privately and float athletic revenue bonds for the rest. Instead they will have to float bonds for more than 50% of the projected costs but they still raised 76.5M in private money from donors and corporations. Think about that, raised 76.5M and that's considered having trouble.

They don't know the definition of having trouble raising funds until they take a look at us and our lack of fundraising prowess throughout our history. Our biggest issue is that more than anything and it's slowly showing some improvement but we have a long way to go. The AD who can raise 10s of millions of dollars here will be the first and as far as I'm concerned whomever does it will deserve high praise and a long leash on coaching failures.

BAN's are not bonds. They are one-year notes that are less formal and you don't have pay down principal until you've renewed them for the 5th time/year. Governments/schools use them if they don't plan on needing the money for more than 5ish years, bonds are generally for a longer term and it's a more involved process.

 

[RutgHoops]

That's where the accounting gimmicks begin. At Rutgers, the stadium debt is an Athletics debt, and pinned to football. At other schools, it is a University debt, pinned to facilities (like any other on-campus building).

So Rutgers seems to account for it properly and other schools (do you have any examples?) don't. How is that an "accounting gimmick" as it pertains to Rutgers as it seems we account for stadium debt properly? You agree it is an athletics expense, right? Or do you think it is a building, like a dorm or a classroom building, that should be accounted for as part of an overall budget? And if you think it should be part of an "overall budget" rather than athletics should a football stadium upgrade or basketball practice facility have to get in line with other capital projects like dorms and classrooms? Or should it be treated differently? Not sure I want our athletic buildings to be proposed to our BOT/BOG/State of NJ as a choice between a new classroom building or a basketball practice facility. Unlike OSU or Michigan or Indiana we are a school where we likely won't like the answer.

 

[koleszar]

Well its not a cure all. But it will be a huge boost to at least be getting the same conference revenue (actually slightly more because we have a smaller stadium) than the rest - and MUCH more than our local ACC and AAC competitors (which should help in securing a good coach.)

Sorry I am confused here. If we're getting say $9 mil. now from the B1G, still run a deficient of $36 mil. . Our goal is to be budget neutral in athletics stated by Barchi. We get full share in 2021 say an additional $31 mil. if B1G hits projected TV numbers. That still leaves us $5 mil. short. So how does this help us secure a better coach? We have not met our goal of being budget neutral as all moneys received will not cover all athletics cost. Thus we can't raise our athletic budget and are forever stuck with a $1.25 mil. dollar a year nobody. Unless my math's wrong we're basically doomed forever.

 

[Steveriknight]

That's where the accounting gimmicks begin. At Rutgers, the stadium debt is an Athletics debt, and pinned to football. At other schools, it is a University debt, pinned to facilities (like any other on-campus building).

This is all a matter of presentation. If they are both considered GAAP and/or GAGAS methods of presentation, then RU should move it's stadium debt to where it's co-mingled with the rest of the university's debt. Especially if that's what all the other universities do; if RU is doing otherwise, then it's probably on purpose to make Football look like it's incurring a greater loss than it needs to.

 

[rutgersnyc]

Out of our league. Rutgers is poor to start with and full B1G money does not kick into 2021 - 6 years from now. Even the other poor bottom feeder Maryland has UnderArmour money. We have nothing and are still paying off lousy contracts for disgraced personnel. It really is hopeless. Shows me what a dope Julie was to take this job. But maybe there is some hot non 5 coach out there who will give us a shot during this long probation. Flood earned his ticket out with poor team character and the academic meddling.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Sorry I am confused here. If we're getting say $9 mil. now from the B1G, still run a deficient of $36 mil. . Our goal is to be budget neutral in athletics stated by Barchi. We get full share in 2021 say an additional $31 mil. if B1G hits projected TV numbers. That still leaves us $5 mil. short. So how does this help us secure a better coach? We have not met our goal of being budget neutral as all moneys received will not cover all athletics cost. Thus we can't raise our athletic budget and are forever stuck with a $1.25 mil. dollar a year nobody. Unless my math's wrong we're basically doomed forever.

Well 10M of that 36M is student fees so you can knock that off right there. Student fees aren't going anywhere nor do I think Barchi/BOG have a problem with them. Before we had all these one time and short term payments the subsidy was 28M. 10M in student fees and 18M actual subsidy. It ballooned to 47M last year and came down to 36M this past year as these short term payments come off.

So by my estimation it's really it's the 18M pre-AAC separation that needs to be wiped out.

 

[RutgHoops]

Sorry I am confused here. If we're getting say $9 mil. now from the B1G, still run a deficient of $36 mil. . Our goal is to be budget neutral in athletics stated by Barchi. We get full share in 2021 say an additional $31 mil. if B1G hits projected TV numbers. That still leaves us $5 mil. short. So how does this help us secure a better coach? We have not met our goal of being budget neutral as all moneys received will not cover all athletics cost. Thus we can't raise our athletic budget and are forever stuck with a $1.25 mil. dollar a year nobody. Unless my math's wrong we're basically doomed forever.

I could be wrong but I have not seen anyone, not Barchi nor Hermann nor the State, claim we HAVE to be budget neutral. Rather I have seen "budget neutrality" stated as an overall goal of the AD. As it should be (imo). I can certainly see where for every $1.00 increase $0.66 is allocated toward reducing the subsidy and a corresponding $0.33 is used to increase our AD spend.

That may not be accurate, but I think that is likely where our increase in B1G revenue winds up. So in that example if we get an additional $26MM in 2021 ( from $9MM to $35MM for example) our AD budget would increase $8MM (form $76MM to $84MM) while the subsidy goes from $35MM to $17MM.

 

[rurichdog]

This is all a matter of presentation. If they are both considered GAAP and/or GAGAS methods of presentation, then RU should move it's stadium debt to where it's co-mingled with the rest of the university's debt. Especially if that's what all the other universities do; if RU is doing otherwise, then it's probably on purpose to make Football look like it's incurring a greater loss than it needs to.

Bingo. Just my opinion, but it boils down to, "you wanted this, it's yours, you eat it!".

 

[RutgHoops]

Well 10M of that 36M is student fees so you can knock that off right there. Student fees aren't going anywhere nor do I think Barchi/BOG have a problem with them. Before we had all these one time and short term payments the subsidy was 28M. 10M in student fees and 18M actual subsidy. It ballooned to 47M last year and came down to 36M this past year as these short term payments come off.

So by my estimation it's really it's the 18M pre-AAC separation that needs to be removed.

Student fees of $10MM are in addition to our $36MM subsidy not a part of the $36MM subsidy. And you are correct they will not be going anywhere.

http://www.chicagofootball.com/2015...artments-rank-in-spending-profit-pay/a2quusm/

 

[rurichdog]

So Rutgers seems to account for it properly and other schools (do you have any examples?) don't. How is that an "accounting gimmick" as it pertains to Rutgers as it seems we account for stadium debt properly? You agree it is an athletics expense, right? Or do you think it is a building, like a dorm or a classroom building, that should be accounted for as part of an overall budget? And if you think it should be part of an "overall budget" rather than athletics should a football stadium upgrade or basketball practice facility have to get in line with other capital projects like dorms and classrooms? Or should it be treated differently? Not sure I want our athletic buildings to be proposed to our BOT/BOG/State of NJ as a choice between a new classroom building or a basketball practice facility. Unlike OSU or Michigan or Indiana we are a school where we likely won't like the answer.

All I've pointed out is that if the RU Admin wanted to get the stadium off of Athletics and treat it as any other campus building, they could...they just choose not to. Why? Because there are plenty more of folks like you in the Admin than folks like me. There are ways around these obstacles, Rutgers prefers to sit & cry after tripping over the first hurdle.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Student fees of $10MM are in addition to our $36MM subsidy not a part of the $36MM subsidy. And you are correct they will not be going anywhere.

http://www.chicagofootball.com/2015...artments-rank-in-spending-profit-pay/a2quusm/

Are you sure? I did a quick read through of your link and I didn't see that, plus that info is from 2013-2014 season when the total subsidy was 47M. What you say would actually jive with that 47M number. 36M subsidy +10M student fees equals 46M but close enough ballpark to jive

Last year the subsidy in total with student fees was 36M in total.

Fiscal year 2014 article:
http://www.app.com/story/sports/col...0/rutgers-athletics-subsidy-million/22607923/

Rutgers used more than $36.3 million in student fees, direct state or other government support and direct institutional support to balance a budget of more than $76.6 million,

Fiscal year 2013 article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...s-university-athletics-subsidy-jumps/5761371/

The $46,996,697 total subsidy, which includes $9,877,989 in student fees,

 

[koleszar]

So Rutgers seems to account for it properly and other schools (do you have any examples?) don't. How is that an "accounting gimmick" as it pertains to Rutgers as it seems we account for stadium debt properly? You agree it is an athletics expense, right? Or do you think it is a building, like a dorm or a classroom building, that should be accounted for as part of an overall budget? And if you think it should be part of an "overall budget" rather than athletics should a football stadium upgrade or basketball practice facility have to get in line with other capital projects like dorms and classrooms? Or should it be treated differently? Not sure I want our athletic buildings to be proposed to our BOT/BOG/State of NJ as a choice between a new classroom building or a basketball practice facility. Unlike OSU or Michigan or Indiana we are a school where we likely won't like the answer.

Why would athletic facilities have to get in line with other capital projects such as dorms and classrooms when they are funded from different sources. The State of NJ only earmarks $12,601 for athletics the rest of the 275 mil. goes to academia. That probably buys you a toilet. The stadium and arena are a facility like any other building on campus and serve the Rutgers community. Funny you don't mention maintenance buildings they are a facility as well and serve the Rutgers community. I get it only Dorm rooms and classrooms are facilities that serve the Rutgers community. So where do we put those maintenance buildings they don't teach or house students there. I know let's make athletics pay for that as well to the tune of $3.8 million a year.

 

[koleszar]

I could be wrong but I have not seen anyone, not Barchi nor Hermann nor the State, claim we HAVE to be budget neutral. Rather I have seen "budget neutrality" stated as an overall goal of the AD. As it should be (imo). .

"Rutgers President Robert L Barchi said earlier this month he expects the Athletic department to be financially independent within the next 6 years, shedding the need for institutional support once it begins receiving the full share of the Big Ten's per school distribution in 2020." From the USA today article in 2014. To me it sounds like he wants Athletics to be fully self sufficient.

 

[rutgersguy1]

"Rutgers President Robert L Barchi said earlier this month he expects the Athletic department to be financially independent within the next 6 years, shedding the need for institutional support once it begins receiving the full share of the Big Ten's per school distribution in 2020." From the USA today article in 2014. To me it sounds like he wants Athletics to be fully self sufficient.

He does as far I know but that excludes student fees which is about 10M. Like I said take it to the pre-AAC separation days. At that time the subsidy was 28M, 10M from student fees and 18M actual subsidy/university support. So it's really the 18M that needs to be wiped out. I expect it will be pretty easily once we start receiving a full share.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

That's where the accounting gimmicks begin. At Rutgers, the stadium debt is an Athletics debt, and pinned to football. At other schools, it is a University debt, pinned to facilities (like any other on-campus building).

The stadium debt is indeed an Athletics Dept debt but it is no longer pinned to football. In the 2009-10 academic year the stadium debt was reported as a football specific expense. Rutgers Athletics decided, effective 2010-11, to treat upkeep and debt service for the football stadium as "non-program specific" rather than as pertaining to football, in contravention of NCAA reporting guidelines. Clearly a move to cast football in a more favorable light.

As far as other programs, most adhere to the NCAA's reporting guidelines.

 

[RutgHoops]

Are you sure? I did a quick read through of your link and I didn't see that, plus that info is from 2013-2014 season when the total subsidy was 47M. What you say would actually jive with that 47M number. 36M subsidy +10M student fees equals 46M but close enough ballpark to jive

Last year the subsidy in total with student fees was 36M in total.

Fiscal year 2014 article:
http://www.app.com/story/sports/col...0/rutgers-athletics-subsidy-million/22607923/

Rutgers used more than $36.3 million in student fees, direct state or other government support and direct institutional support to balance a budget of more than $76.6 million,

Fiscal year 2013 article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...s-university-athletics-subsidy-jumps/5761371/

The $46,996,697 total subsidy, which includes $9,877,989 in student fees,

If you say $46MM then yes athletic student fees count towards the subsidy. But most schools, including Rutgers, don't count it like that. Athletic Students fees are $10MM in revenue. The athletic student fees are not money contributed by the University, but rather money collected from students for free admission to athletic events, use of athletic facilities, etc.

I believe it is calculated (roughly) as follows:

$76MM (Operating budget) -$8.7MM (football tickets )-$1.3MM (basketball tickets) -$9.3MM (conference distribution) -8.1MM (athletic donations) -$10MM (student fees) = $38.6MM subsidy...it likely is about $3-$4MM less than that as we don't have numbers for IMG fees, merchandise, women's basketball tickets, etc...which likely knock down my $38.6MM figure by somewhere between $2-$4MM

 

[rutgersguy1]

If you say $46MM then yes athletic student fees count towards the subsidy. But most schools, including Rutgers, don't count it like that. Athletic Students fees are $10MM in revenue. The athletic student fees are not money contributed by the University, but rather money collected from students for free admission to athletic events, use of athletic facilities, etc.

I believe it is calculated (roughly) as follows:

$76MM (Operating budget) -$8.7MM (football tickets )-$1.3MM (basketball tickets) -$9.3MM (conference distribution) -8.1MM (athletic donations) -$10MM (student fees) = $38.6MM subsidy...it likely is about $3-$4MM less than that as we don't have numbers for IMG fees, merchandise, women's basketball tickets, etc...which likely knock down my $38.6MM figure by somewhere between $2-$4MM

That's my point. To me the student fees shouldn't be part of the subsidy but that's how it's classified in the media so I just use the same terminology.

In 2013 fiscal year the subsidy was 47M including student fees. In 2014 fiscal year the subsidy was 36M including student fees. To me, the main thing is to look at what the subsidy including student fees were before we incurred a bunch of one time/short term expenditures when we departed the AAC/bought out Nelligan contract, etc.. That figure was 28M including student fees. So subtract out those student fees of 10M and you're left with an 18M subsidy that needs to be wiped out and should be pretty easily when we got our full share of revenue.

But regardless of that I've always said the B10 revenue is great but it's not a bottomless pit of gold and isn't enough on its own to get done all the things we need and want to get done. We still need a lot of donor support and to expand the donor base.

 

[Steveriknight]

You guys will find this report to be extremely informative and interesting.

There was apparently a Rutgers Senate Budget and Finance Committee meeting a few months ago discussing many of these questions we are asking to do with the athletics deficit. It's definitely worth a look:

http://senate.rutgers.edu/BFConS1408AthleticsProgramDeficitsMarch2015.pdf

 

[Best7Years]

RutgersGuy1 is correct, the 36M number for 2014 counts student fees as part of the subsidy.
Click on Rutger's name in this list to see proof.

2013 was a fluke and isn't really relevant. We had several one time costs (no AAC $$$ due to leaving, Pernetti's buy out, basketball coach buy out, etc....).

I wish RU did a better job breaking out costs/revenue by sport so people understood FB and MBB are investments and just about every other sport will always be a cost to the university.

A really quick calculation from some of the numbers we know about are:
8M+ in FB ticket sales
1-2M in parking passes
1M in concessions
a significant portion (5M) of the 8M in donation should be recognized as football donations
The majority of the B1G money (say 6 of the 9M?) should be allocated to football

If you look at it like that, you realize FB is approximately revenue neutral (~20M expenses) or even possibly generating revenue. Yet Football isn't allowed to run a loss for a single year, even if it means long term revenue growth, while many other sports run millions in the red year over year.

 

[wcfan10]

The below link should help. I'll summarize for you:

12th (Last) in the B1G in athletic donations
10th of 12 reporting schools in football ticket sales
Last in basketball ticket sales


$76MM athletic budget - $9.2MM conference distribution -$8.1MM athletic donations -$8.8MM football ticket sales -1.3MM basketball ticket sales - $10MM in athletic student fees collected* = $38.6MM annual athletic shortfall funded by the University.

*I believe we are the only P5 University where student fees exceed athletic donations (let that sad fact sink in for a moment)

http://www.chicagofootball.com/2015...artments-rank-in-spending-profit-pay/a2quusm/

Good info...

But we're missing some revenues here, such as that IMG contract? Wasn't that worth about $7MM/year? What about advertising revenue? Nike contract? Stadium naming revenue. Plus others that i'm forgetting..
I think these revenues are at least 12MM /year...

So the athletic shortfall of $38MM is vastly overstated.

 

[koleszar]

You guys will find this report to be extremely informative and interesting.

There was apparently a Rutgers Senate Budget and Finance Committee meeting a few months ago discussing many of these questions we are asking to do with the athletics deficit. It's definitely worth a look:

http://senate.rutgers.edu/BFConS1408AthleticsProgramDeficitsMarch2015.pdf

Isn't this that board of elected students. I just read this and what rubbish, can't believe I read this. So they want the AD to answer to a bunch of college students. Yea that's a great Idea. Hey AD you need a course correction mid term we are over budget cancel all spring sports. This report is a joke calling for Athletics to be budget neutral in 5 years. Hey asshats we don't get a full share for 7.

 

[RUJohnny99]

So Rutgers seems to account for it properly and other schools (do you have any examples?) don't. How is that an "accounting gimmick" as it pertains to Rutgers as it seems we account for stadium debt properly? You agree it is an athletics expense, right? Or do you think it is a building, like a dorm or a classroom building, that should be accounted for as part of an overall budget? And if you think it should be part of an "overall budget" rather than athletics should a football stadium upgrade or basketball practice facility have to get in line with other capital projects like dorms and classrooms? Or should it be treated differently? Not sure I want our athletic buildings to be proposed to our BOT/BOG/State of NJ as a choice between a new classroom building or a basketball practice facility. Unlike OSU or Michigan or Indiana we are a school where we likely won't like the answer.

Do you feel the maintenance on the Werblin Center should be an Athletics obligation or a University obligation? How about the Livingston Gym where the gymnastics team has their meets?

The university is off loading millions of dollars of university property onto the athletics budget so that they can defer ongoing operating expenses. Athletics is performing the ongoing operations, to the tune of $25 million/year. It's not "accounting for it properly". It's the university performing off balance sheet financing.

 

[RU-ROCS]

RU football and basketball are at or close to break even and have been for a couple years. The huge deficit results from those revenue sports' inability to generate a profit to pay for RU's huge Olympic sports budget, along with the other strange way RU counts for athletic costs. That's why I never understood the constant harping by many anti- football professors, the media and other detractors of revenue sports at RU. If RU eliminated men's football and basketball tomorrow, their deficit spending on athletics would essentially be the same, unless they made huge cuts to olympic sports. But, no one wants to rail against the women's tennis team or the men's golf team, so men's hoops and football are the whipping boy. Ironically, if RU threw more support into the revenue sports to grow their revenues, they could help solve the deficit problem. Instead, they refuse to spend money to make basketball and football competitive and then lament the fact that they have to subsidize the athletic department, when the vast majority of that subsidy goes to Olympic sports that no one is advocating to eliminate.

 

[NickyNewark51]

Well, to that I would say that once the press and the rest of NJ become aware of the subsidy required to fund our football program, including Schiano's contract, that budget became untenable.

Barchi won't sign off on a new coach contract that will increase the subsidy required by the RU general fund, and that's a complicated debate. He wants to get revenue neutral, which is understandable from his position, but it also is complicated because going cheap will cost the university money in other indirect ways.

It would be ideal if we could leverage the future earnings from the B1G into the next coach's contract, otherwise it'll be another cheap contract that will attract less desirable candidates.

They won't because bankrolling their future makes too much cents..''sense''..lol... of which our admin's are infamous for lacking..

 

[NickyNewark51]

RU football and basketball are at or close to break even and have been for a couple years. The huge deficit results from those revenue sports' inability to generate a profit to pay for RU's huge Olympic sports budget, along with the other strange way RU counts for athletic costs. That's why I never understood the constant harping by many anti- football professors, the media and other detractors of revenue sports at RU. If RU eliminated men's football and basketball tomorrow, their deficit spending on athletics would essentially be the same, unless they made huge cuts to olympic sports. But, no one wants to rail against the women's tennis team or the men's golf team, so men's hoops and football are the whipping boy. Ironically, if RU threw more support into the revenue sports to grow their revenues, they could help solve the deficit problem. Instead, they refuse to spend money to make basketball and football competitive and then lament the fact that they have to subsidize the athletic department, when the vast majority of that subsidy goes to Olympic sports that no one is advocating to eliminate.

Again what you advocate makes too much sense so forget about it..

 

[nyctarheel23]

OP's question:
When does the B1G money start to kick in?

Answer: Perhaps Never. Stay tuned.

 

[B0ski]

I could be way off base and hope I am but I think everybody hitching their wagons to full payout is going to be let down. Unless the powers that be shift gears dramatically, there will be other reasons why money can't be spent on coaches, facilities etc. We all keep the faith thinking the future will be different but it is starting to become a futile effort I'm afraid.

 

[RoxboroughKnight]

Do you feel the maintenance on the Werblin Center should be an Athletics obligation or a University obligation? How about the Livingston Gym where the gymnastics team has their meets?

The university is off loading millions of dollars of university property onto the athletics budget so that they can defer ongoing operating expenses. Athletics is performing the ongoing operations, to the tune of $25 million/year. It's not "accounting for it properly". It's the university performing off balance sheet financing.

I was looking for this in the links but couldn't find it. To me, this is the single biggest problem I have with the way Rutgers does their accounting. The campus gyms/rec centers should NOT be included in the athletic budget. That inflates the deficit number considerably and makes it look a lot worse than it is.

On top of that we then have articles pointing out that student fees are subsidizing athletics. If Rutgers is going to have operating costs for Werblin, etc. charged back to athletics, then of course student fees should go towards athletics. Students are the primary users of those facilities.

 

[rutgersguy1]

On top of that we then have articles pointing out that student fees are subsidizing athletics. If Rutgers is going to have operating costs for Werblin, etc. charged back to athletics, then of course student fees should go towards athletics. Students are the primary users of those facilities.

I agree with this. If the students have free access to all the sporting events and the maintenance for the rec centers/gyms etc..all fall under the athletic department budget I'm not sure why student fees should be considered a subsidy. Mind you the admin isn't going to get rid of student fees but I don't get the classification of it in the media as such.

 

[ArminRU]

We don't need to be budget neutral. That's the goal obviously but everyone knows that will never happen and is unrealistic. As already said, I think wiping out the $18m subsidy will be good enough and we're probably half way there already.

If we are already getting $10-11mil from B1G, what were we getting from the AAC? Wasn't it like $5mil or something?

Also, didn't we get extra from all the B1G bowl tie ins, including the national championship game?

 

[ru8081]

You know this State/Admin is going to look at any excuse not to spend money. Can't we come up with a few options that can fund a "Correct" hire, and publish it and make the state and admin explain why not. Some of you have suggested borrowing against the future B1G contract. That is great but we need to be very specific on how that will pay off. We need a financial analysis, developed by financial experts, showing the the risk is low and the probability of making money on the option is high.

 

[rutgersguy1]

We don't need to be budget neutral. That's the goal obviously but everyone knows that will never happen and is unrealistic. As already said, I think whiping out the $18m subsidy will be good enough and we're probably half way there already.

If we are already getting $10-11mil from B1G, what were we getting from the AAC? Wasn't it like $5mil or something?

Also, didn't we get extra from all the B1G bowl tie ins, including the national championship game?

No we basically got about around 9-10M in our last year in the AAC. So it's not really much of a bump until we get 15M in the 2018-2019 fiscal year. The few years before that it's going to be in that 10-11.5M range, at least as projected.

The B10 as a conference is going to get more money from those new bowl contracts and the playoff contract but it's not going to trickle to us until we get a full share of the B10 revenue.

 

[patk89]

I agree with this. If the students have free access to all the sporting events and the maintenance for the rec centers/gyms etc..all fall under the athletic department budget I'm not sure why student fees should be considered a subsidy. Mind you the admin isn't going to get rid of student fees but I don't get the classification of it in the media as such.

Exactly. The media, with support from many powerful academics at RU, have their cake and eat it by assigning the costs of the gyms to athletics and then shouting about the unfair $10 million student fee subsidy. Logically, why would RU have the largest deficit in college athletics? It makes zero sense.

Loved back when Corzine stated that he would call around to his Wall Street "friends" and quickly raise large sums for the RU Stadium expansion. For several reasons (conflict of interest) this was a dry hole. I wonder what the current principal balance on that expansion is currently? Anyone know? I have to assume that we are doing some sort of mortgage style amortization on this debt. It didn't help that the cost to expand in NJ is far more expensive than anywhere else in the B1G. We get less and pay more.