"I think we can be competitive in the Big Ten" - Rutgers

[huskymedic]

I wonder if Delany has called him yet with the name of an AD to hire as soon as possible and to tell him to shut the pizza pie hole in the mean time.

>>... It does not, however, mean Rutgers has plans to join the arms race with its Big Ten foes. Michigan spends $129 million annually on athletics. Ohio State has guaranteed $4 million a year to football coach Urban Meyer. Rutgers will not try to keep up with its new neighbors.

"We’re not going to be spending what Ohio State spends. We’re not going to be spending what Michigan spends," he said. "But I think we can be competitive in the Big Ten with the business plan we’ve put together."

"I came to an institution that already had made a decision about D-1 athletics," he said. "My commitment to the institution is to take that and make sure we have a high-integrity program that focuses as much on academics as it does athletics."<<

http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball...hi_rutgers_athletic.html#incart_river_default

(And yes, I admit I'm jealous).

 

[CTMike]

Basing it on thier history of "winning", eh?

 

[GopherHawk]

Minny has a budget of over $80 million now. Rutgers had a 2011 budget of just $43.9. Rutgers better pack a lunch bucket if they think even an increase to $60M per year is going to get it done.

Here is an older link showing B1G athletic budgets.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/50049/big-ten-among-ncaas-biggest-spenders

 

[upstater]

Minny has a budget of over $80 million now. Rutgers had a 2011 budget of just $43.9. Rutgers better pack a lunch bucket if they think even an increase to $60M per year is going to get it done.

Here is an older link showing B1G athletic budgets.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/50049/big-ten-among-ncaas-biggest-spenders

The thing is, you're giving Rutgers $25m in TV money--when they were just earning $4m or something like that. So they are already increasing to $65m by doing nothing. And then when you add extra tix from good B1G games, they may make another $5m (won't really mean much for basketball tix).

 

[GopherHawk]

While they will be getting an increase Barchi has said they want to reduce the subsidy to the athletic department, which I agree with. That means the first $10m is to reduce the sub. $15m plus additional tickets is all they get to work with.

 

[Afroabe224]

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Ohio State

There are 4 quick reasons why Rutgers will never be "successful" on that kind of budget. For their football team, I think 2-2 vs that group would be a GREAT season in the B1G.

 

[upstater]

While they will be getting an increase Barchi has said they want to reduce the subsidy to the athletic department, which I agree with. That means the first $10m is to reduce the sub. $15m plus additional tickets is all they get to work with.

Excellent point. In fact, the Rutgers subsidy is around $25 million! Presumably, the TV money can sop all of it up.

 

[buggsy]

I have no idea where you're getting the 43mm budget info for Rutgers. It is just flat out incorrect.

In 2011, the overall athletic budget was $62 million, not 43.9. $62 million was the exact same as UCONN's. By the way, Minnesota is NOT over 80 million.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/22/In-Depth/Budgets.aspx

And that is without Big Ten TV money and the increase in ticket sales from playing the Big Ten schools.[/quote]

 

[upstater]

I have no idea where you're getting the 43mm budget info for Rutgers. It is just flat out incorrect.

In 2011, the overall athletic budget was $62 million, not 43.9. $62 million was the exact same as UCONN's. By the way, Minnesota is NOT over 80 million.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/22/In-Depth/Budgets.aspx

And that is without Big Ten TV money and the increase in ticket sales from playing the Big Ten schools.

[/quote]

Maybe he was subtracting the subsidy?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1

In 2011, RU was at $60m, with over $29m in subsidy. Or, $41m without subsidy.

 

[Rumrunner]

Rutgers has "revenue" of about $64 million. Its expenses match its revenue in the way the data is reported. To balance its books, Rutgers, as do most schools, includes in its revenue figure university subsidies. Rutgers needs a $27 million university subsidy, $8 million or so from student fees, and $19 million from the university's general fund.

This figure is twice as much as UConn's. UConn's is quite high, but Rutgers is crazy high. UConn's subsidy is $14 million.

While that figure is a very good starting point, one has to look further at the nature of the subsidy. At UConn, that subsidy includes support for intramurals, and recreation for students. Same as at Rutgers.

Rutgers' revenue problem is twofold:

It gave away 40% of tickets to its football home games. Hard to make money when you give something away. Now, I could be flippant and comment about the adage, "I wouldn't want it if you paid me". It has no IMG/Learfield media rights deal like UConn. It also has no major revenue apparel deal. UConn has both a media rights deal (with IMG College) and an apparel deal (Nike). The two pay about $14 million total ($10 million from IMG, $4 million from Nike) per year

My guess is that Rutgers will get a $6-8 million a year media rights deal. It just terminated their long-standing nepotism-infested media rights holder. It also will get a good NIke/Under Armour contract. That combined with the Big Ten revenue will allow Rutgers to make headway towards balancing its books.

Th e problem Rutgers will face is its new sources of revenue won't be realized for years. It won't get a full share of Big Ten money. It had to pay a terminating fee for its existing media rights deal that will have to be amortized with its new deal, etc. By the time it gets new revenues, its expenses will have increased at the same rate as its revenues (not likely because of the lack of success/support from students/faculty/politicians) or it will continue to be one of the worst athletic departments in the country.

My guess is that it takes the cheap way out and continues to be a mediocre athletic department.

 

[upstater]

Rutgers has "revenue" of about $64 million. Its expenses match its revenue in the way the data is reported. To balance its books, Rutgers, as do most schools, includes in its revenue figure university subsidies. Rutgers needs a $27 million university subsidy, $8 million or so from student fees, and $19 million from the university's general fund.

This figure is twice as much as UConn's. UConn's is quite high, but Rutgers is crazy high. UConn's subsidy is $14 million.

While that figure is a very good starting point, one has to look further at the nature of the subsidy. At UConn, that subsidy includes support for intramurals, and recreation for students. Same as at Rutgers.

Rutgers' revenue problem is twofold:

It gave away 40% of tickets to its football home games. Hard to make money when you give something away. Now, I could be flippant and comment about the adage, "I wouldn't want it if you paid me". It has no IMG/Learfield media rights deal like UConn. It also has no major revenue apparel deal. UConn has both a media rights deal (with IMG College) and an apparel deal (Nike). The two pay about $14 million total ($10 million from IMG, $4 million from Nike) per year

My guess is that Rutgers will get a $6-8 million a year media rights deal. It just terminated their long-standing nepotism-infested media rights holder. It also will get a good NIke/Under Armour contract. That combined with the Big Ten revenue will allow Rutgers to make headway towards balancing its books.

Th e problem Rutgers will face is its new sources of revenue won't be realized for years. It won't get a full share of Big Ten money. It had to pay a terminating fee for its existing media rights deal that will have to be amortized with its new deal, etc. By the time it gets new revenues, its expenses will have increased or it will continue to be one of the worst athletic departments in the country.

At some level, we should all give up on figuring out the finances, since so much is hidden. The bond service on facilities (stadium, rink) at even a place like Michigan is handled by the school and not the AD. The AD's budget at U Michigan includes, however, a $2 million a year payment for that, but the amount borrowed is well over $275 million. So--it's a lost cause looking at this stuff.

 

[GopherHawk]

Here is the link to the Rutgers Scroll down a ways and you will see. I think it is from 2010 even though there is no date.

http://www.alumni.rutgers.edu/s/896/index.aspx?sid=896&gid=1&pgid=651

The Fact: It is true that Rutgers spent approximately $15.6 million on football in FY2007. However, that was approximately 35 percent of the athletic department’s total budget of $43.9 million, not half.

Budget at UofMn

AD said $80m in an interview at alumni event.
http://stillwatergazette.com/2013/04/17/teague-talks-gophers-big-ten-at-alumni-event/

 

[Rumrunner]

Looking at Rutgers' "revenue" as a top line figure, and its expenses, is definitely a case of garbage in/garbage out.

However, you can look at the athletic revenue "success" of a school by cobbling together hard data. Ticket revenue, sponsorship revenue, and media revenue and make a somewhat accurate assessment of an athletic department's fiscal health. This is where Rutgers becomes a failed athletic department.

(Donor support/in kind support/allocation of capital improvements, etc. are another whole can of worms)

At some level, we should all give up on figuring out the finances, since so much is hidden. The bond service on facilities (stadium, rink) at even a place like Michigan is handled by the school and not the AD. The AD's budget at U Michigan includes, however, a $2 million a year payment for that, but the amount borrowed is well over $275 million. So--it's a lost cause looking at this stuff.

 

[buggsy]

Here is the link to the Rutgers Scroll down a ways and you will see. I think it is from 2010 even though there is no date.

http://www.alumni.rutgers.edu/s/896/index.aspx?sid=896&gid=1&pgid=651

The Fact: It is true that Rutgers spent approximately $15.6 million on football in FY2007. However, that was approximately 35 percent of the athletic department’s total budget of $43.9 million, not half.


That $43.9 mm number you quoted is from FY 2007 (just as the 15.6 mm spent on football was from FY2007.) In FY 2011, the athletic budget was $62 million. In 2010 the budget was actually 64 million...more than in 2011.

 

[The Funster]

As upstater pointed out in another thread, it is kind of futile to discuss finances. Businesses record revenue and expense differently and will report those figures to others in whatever way suits them at any given point in time.

 

[buggsy]

Rutgers has "revenue" of about $64 million. Its expenses match its revenue in the way the data is reported. To balance its books, Rutgers, as do most schools, includes in its revenue figure university subsidies. Rutgers needs a $27 million university subsidy, $8 million or so from student fees, and $19 million from the university's general fund.

This figure is twice as much as UConn's. UConn's is quite high, but Rutgers is crazy high. UConn's subsidy is $14 million.

While that figure is a very good starting point, one has to look further at the nature of the subsidy. At UConn, that subsidy includes support for intramurals, and recreation for students. Same as at Rutgers.

Rutgers' revenue problem is twofold:

It gave away 40% of tickets to its football home games. Hard to make money when you give something away. Now, I could be flippant and comment about the adage, "I wouldn't want it if you paid me". It has no IMG/Learfield media rights deal like UConn. It also has no major revenue apparel deal. UConn has both a media rights deal (with IMG College) and an apparel deal (Nike). The two pay about $14 million total ($10 million from IMG, $4 million from Nike) per year

My guess is that Rutgers will get a $6-8 million a year media rights deal. It just terminated their long-standing nepotism-infested media rights holder. It also will get a good NIke/Under Armour contract. That combined with the Big Ten revenue will allow Rutgers to make headway towards balancing its books.

Th e problem Rutgers will face is its new sources of revenue won't be realized for years. It won't get a full share of Big Ten money. It had to pay a terminating fee for its existing media rights deal that will have to be amortized with its new deal, etc. By the time it gets new revenues, its expenses will have increased at the same rate as its revenues (not likely because of the lack of success/support from students/faculty/politicians) or it will continue to be one of the worst athletic departments in the country.

My guess is that it takes the cheap way out and continues to be a mediocre athletic department.

First off, the writer who wrote that Rutgers gives away 40 percent of their tickets was proven wrong, and actually retracted that. The number is less than 20 percent of tickets. Not far out of line with what many schools do. UCONN gives lots of tickets away for free as well, by the way. Do you really think Rutgers is going to need to do that (20 percent of tickets given out for free) now that we will be playing two of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan State every single year....not to mention home games with nearby Maryland and BIG West teams Nebraska and Wisconsin every 4-5 years?


Secondly, Rutgers DOES have a full apparel deal. It's with Nike. That came about in 2011.

RU also had a 2.3 mm/year media rights deal with Nelligan Sports, but they terminated the deal for 7 million last month, because it didn't pay enough. The frontrunner to replace them? IMG College. The signing bonus alone with their new media rights partner is expected to be approx. 10 million, which more than offsets the 7 m to end the agreement with Nelligan Sports Marketing. Rutgers is expected to more than double, possibly even triple its annual fee of 2.3 mill once it signs on with IMG College or Leerfield Sports.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/index.ssf/2013/04/rutgers_to_pay_7_million_to_ex.html

 

[Thirdelement]

Regardless of Rutger's budget, this statement from their President or Chancellor or whoever screams, "I don't care about athletics and we aren't going to put much effort into athletic success." That is a piss poor and ungrateful attitude for the leader of a school that just won the expansion lottery. I really hope their trustees, alumni, and students feel differently.

 

[upstater]

Regardless of Rutger's budget, this statement from their President or Chancellor or whoever screams, "I don't care about athletics and we aren't going to put much effort into athletic success." That is a piss poor and ungrateful attitude for the leader of a school that just won the expansion lottery. I really hope their trustees, alumni, and students feel differently.

Can't agree with this. Schools like Iowa competed in football for a while without a monstrous budget. Why would you expect Rutgers to continue bleeding huge amounts of $$ when no other school in America does that. This is a school that shut down programs and lost academic reputation as it shelled out $30 million a year (and more, if you count bonds on stadium) for sports. Other schools in the B10 have done OK with Rutgers' exact set-up. The school can't continue bleeding that way. It is smart for them to stop subsidizing by at least $10 million. Really, they should move to the B1G average and cut that subsidy by $20 million.

 

[Thirdelement]

Can't agree with this. Schools like Iowa competed in football for a while without a monstrous budget. Why would you expect Rutgers to continue bleeding huge amounts of when no other school in America does that. This is a school that shut down programs and lost academic reputation as it shelled out $30 million a year (and more, if you count bonds on stadium) for sports. Other schools in the B10 have done OK with Rutgers' exact set-up. The school can't continue bleeding that way. It is smart for them to stop subsidizing by at least $10 million. Really, they should move to the B1G average and cut that subsidy by $20 million.

To clarify, I thought the tone of the message implied that the President was only interested in athletics because it was part of the University's mission, and not his. Whether he feels that way or not, I think he needs to present a more positive outlook in any public comments.

I completely agree with you concerning athletic budgets. No school should spend more than they responsibly can. I also think there are many examples both of schools with small budgets that produce excellent athletic outcomes and schools with large budgets than underperform.

 

[upstater]

To clarify, I thought the tone of the message implied that the President was only interested in athletics because it was part of the University's mission, and not his. Whether he feels that way or not, I think he needs to present a more positive outlook in any public comments.

I completely agree with you concerning athletic budgets. No school should spend more than they responsibly can. I also think there are many examples both of schools with small budgets that produce excellent athletic outcomes and schools with large budgets than underperform.

Agreed

 

[FAIRTIDES]

I wonder if Delany has called him yet with the name of an AD to hire as soon as possible and to tell him to shut the pizza pie hole in the mean time.

>>... It does not, however, mean Rutgers has plans to join the arms race with its Big Ten foes. Michigan spends $129 million annually on athletics. Ohio State has guaranteed $4 million a year to football coach Urban Meyer. Rutgers will not try to keep up with its new neighbors.

"We’re not going to be spending what Ohio State spends. We’re not going to be spending what Michigan spends," he said. "But I think we can be competitive in the Big Ten with the business plan we’ve put together."

"I came to an institution that already had made a decision about D-1 athletics," he said. "My commitment to the institution is to take that and make sure we have a high-integrity program that focuses as much on academics as it does athletics."<<

http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball...hi_rutgers_athletic.html#incart_river_default

(And yes, I admit I'm jealous).

You expected him to say, "oy, we're f#@$%d."

 

[Durks07]

You expected him to say, "oy, we're f#@$%d."

At least it would have been honest.

 

[Antiobserver]

Rutgers only won the BE this season because the team that beat them for 17 straight seasons left the conference.