So I'm driving to a job site and hear the Suze on the radio...

[ctchamps]

That is the last time I take a freescooter post at face value.

I just listened to the interview.

It isn't anything remotely close to what he implied.

Listened as well. freescooter and bluedogs would be the last people I'd reference regarding SH. They are absolutely revisionists regarding her statements.

Her interview was terrific. Love the direction she is taking the university.

 

[J187Money]

Hey, I get what you're saying, but also recognize that football is a key component of the brand identity of many national institutions. It attracts students because students they want to identify and carry an allegiance that carries beyond four years. The closest you come to that after grad is the sports program. We are not Harvard, nor are we Boise State. We are a class state school with solid academics that is best served with a national sports reputation. Academics is the mission, but sports is the sizzle. You need both.

Yes. 100% right. Which is why I didn't want to go to UCONN to begin with. Because I grew up in Wisconsin and saw what Camp Randall was like. But I think the doomsday stuff is a little much. How many people decided to go (or not go) to UCONN over the past 5 years because of the success (or lack thereof) of the football team? And how has that really changed, even in the face of the recent on-field performance? Only for the better, with records being set re: applicants / enrollment / SAT scores / valedictorians / etc. This absolutely needs to be fixed, but if gets fixed in 2 weeks or 2 years or 5 years it probably makes little difference in the grand scheme of things. In reality, we've already been left out. A tragedy would be getting left out next time.

 

[06029]

If Cantor understood this, why did she allow Syracuse to suck at football?

You already answered this and it is because she is powerless to change the on the field outcome. Unless she pays players, how much money she puts into FB does not matter. What does matter is that she did not cutr their budget, did not veto the extensive travel costs that Cuse must have had for some of their OOC games and certainly did not put her head in the sand when the opportunity to change conferences showed up.

You do realize that the presidents of the various schools vote on membership and TV contracts, not the AD's. Your original statement that they are not cognizant just does not hold water. They may feel athletics plays too large a role, that the the whole CR mess is a giant pain in the ass, but they are certainly aware and most likely highly engaged. Way beyond what they will disclose in a conversation with someone that is not a big donor or not their peer. And I see no blame for Herbst in any of this. She came into a situation where she had no influence just by virtue of timing. The accountability goes to the BoT that never made CR a university priority. Like I posted earlier, maybe the lack of FB history and players on the BoT had a lot to do with this versus those schools that successfully jumped ship.

 

[noeynox]

Wow, you listened to that and you wonder how the OP, could come up with his summary of what she said.

 

[ctchamps]

Wow, you listened to that and you wonder how the OP, could come up with his summary of what she said.

He's agenda driven. I'm glad he made the op because I only listened on a hunch it was free being free. Great interview.

 

[upstater]

Upstater, you don't think that the CIC membership and B1G TV money allows RU to reverse this decline?

No, CIC total gain per year is sort of back office efficiency type of stuff. Here, read this: http://www.umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/umd-officially-joins-committee-institutional-cooperation. A research budget at an AAU school is like $500m per year. The CIC helps joint research projects but the total a drop in the bucket compared the budgets. Since RU was bleeding $30m a year from the academic side to prop up the athletic program, the athletic program is not going to be in the black at is current rate of expenditure. Increased attendance likely to be offset by increased travel.

 

[upstater]

yes, please post a link to an article stating that Rutgers cut funding to academic programs. I'm dying to read that.

How many links do you need? One, or maybe 15? I can provide them. Here's some to start:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rutgers-boosting-athletic_n_930167.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Rutgers-Cancels-Raises/65906/

Secondly, This isn't about other sports, this is about funding football.

In point of fact, the original discussion before you and your fat head jumped in was not about funding any sports at all. It was about the relationship of athletics to academic reputation. It doesn't surprise anyone that your reading capacity is so limited that you failed to grasp that.

UCONN has done next to nothing when it comes to expanding your stadium. You haven't spent anywhere near 200 million (if that is even an accurate number....probably not. You probably made that up as well) on football.

http://www.ecohusky.uconn.edu/VirtualTour/BurtonShenkman/DescriptionBurtonShenkman.htm

$48 million

The Rent

$114 million for 38,500 seats, much better than Rutgers' $110 million for 12,000

http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2013/04/groundbreaking-celebrates-new-basketball-development-center/

$35 million

Rent's new ribbon boards and state of the art scoreboards this year:

$2.8 million

Freitas Ice Forum

$3.8 million

Gampel Pavilion Renovation in 2002

Another $5million has been raised for new sports facilities for Soccer and Softball, etc.: http://articles.courant.com/2012-02...-20120220_1_locker-rooms-uconn-plan-press-box

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Connecticut

Improvement projects

UConn 2000 was a public-private partnership to rebuild, renew and enhance the University of Connecticut from 1995 to 2005, funded by the State of Connecticut. UConn 2000 was enacted by the Connecticut General Assembly in 1995 and signed into law by Governor John G. Rowland. The construction projects were overseen by President Philip E. Austin. The legislature renewed the construction investments through 21st Century UConn.
21st Century UConn is the continuation of UConn 2000 and is another billion dollar construction investment by the state of Connecticut to upgrade facilities at the University of Connecticut. It passed the Connecticut General Assembly and was signed into law by Governor Rowland in 2002. By the time of the project's completion, every building on campus will be either new or completely renovated. Money has also been put into the regional and satellite campuses, including the new School of Business facilities in downtown Hartford.
Next Generation Connecticut is a multi-faceted $1.5 billion plan to build the state's economic future through strategic investments in science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines (STEM). It passed the Connecticut General Assembly and was signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy in June 2013. The funds will be used over a ten-year period to hire 250+ new faculty, increase undergraduate enrollment by 6,580 students, and upgrade aging campus infrastructure. Money has also been allocated to build new STEM facilities, construct new STEM teaching laboratories and to create a premier STEM honors college. NextGenCT will also allow for the construction of student housing and a digital media center at the Stamford campus, and allow for the relocation of the Greater Hartford campus back to downtown Hartford.[50]

You're the idiot.

You are an expert in this area, so I guess I have to accept your assessment.

And there you go again with your persistent lies...that Rutgers cut funding to academic programs while spending "hundreds of millions" your words....on the football stadium upgrade.

Uh, no. I said that there were over a hundred million in cuts to ACADEMICS while the football stadium was upgraded with a 100+ million renovation, WHILE also receiving about $30m a year in subsidy.

Sad, that you have to lie to win an argument.

It's like the lie you LOVE to tell, that 40 percent of Rutgers tickets are handed out for free.

http://newbrunswicktoday.com/articl...-fistfuls-free-football-tickets-sales-dropped

The smoking gun indicating a miscalculation is the fact the University has been giving out free tickets to make the stadium look full. This year, less than six in ten fans had paid admission:

One of the more surprising findings shows that an increasingly smaller percentage of fans at home games now pay for tickets, because to offset declining attendance, the university hands out fistfuls of complimentary passes to fill seats. While the stadium may look more filled, there is still less revenue for the cash-strapped program.​

This year, roughly 59 percent of the fans bought a ticket, down from 76 percent in 2009. And despite a liberal use of complimentary tickets, the team still played in front of thousands of empty seats this year, even though it went into its final home game with a chance to win its first Big East title.​

Buggs, all these links just completely blew you out of the water.​

 

[upstater]

Listened as well. freescooter and bluedogs would be the last people I'd reference regarding SH. They are absolutely revisionists regarding her statements.

Her interview was terrific. Love the direction she is taking the university.

Whatever she said to the legislators and business people in Connecticut, hundreds of other U. presidents want to use the same template.

 

[buggsy]

Stop being stupid for stupid's sake

RU is going to see an increase of at least 12 million a year in TV money alone over what we are getting now, in the first year of the BIG....and once we get our full share in 5 years, we will be seeing an increase over 25 million a year in TV money over what we get now.

Where the hell do you think we are travelling to....that is going to cost us an additional 20 million a year? The moon?

We are already travelling to Florida (twice), Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas (twice) and Ohio. It's not like we are playing a bunch of teams within driving distance.

Yet our travel is going to go up 25 million a year and we are going to still break even?

Nice try...but wrong once again.

Do you ever get tired of being 100 percent wrong?

 

[upstater]

You already answered this and it is because she is powerless to change the on the field outcome. Unless she pays players, how much money she puts into FB does not matter. What does matter is that she did not cutr their budget, did not veto the extensive travel costs that Cuse must have had for some of their OOC games and certainly did not put her head in the sand when the opportunity to change conferences showed up.

You do realize that the presidents of the various schools vote on membership and TV contracts, not the AD's. Your original statement that they are not cognizant just does not hold water. They may feel athletics plays too large a role, that the the whole CR mess is a giant pain in the ass, but they are certainly aware and most likely highly engaged. Way beyond what they will disclose in a conversation with someone that is not a big donor or not their peer. And I see no blame for Herbst in any of this. She came into a situation where she had no influence just by virtue of timing. The accountability goes to the BoT that never made CR a university priority. Like I posted earlier, maybe the lack of FB history and players on the BoT had a lot to do with this versus those schools that successfully jumped ship.

If Cantor realized what was at stake, she should have been a lot more motivated, given Syracuse's situation. I single her out because she was there a lot longer than Herbst. I already pointed out that those very same presidents were all too willing to add UConn until theeir ADs pointed out that Louisville was supposedly good at football.

 

[upstater]

Stop being stupid for stupid's sake

RU is going to see an increase of at least 12 million a year in TV money alone over what we are getting now, in the first year of the BIG....and once we get our full share in 5 years, we will be seeing an increase over 25 million a year in TV money over what we get now.

Where the hell do you think we are travelling to....that is going to cost us an additional 20 million a year? The moon?

We are already travelling to Florida (twice), Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas (twice) and Ohio. It's not like we are playing a bunch of teams within driving distance.

Yet our travel is going to go up 25 million a year and we are going to still break even?

Nice try...but wrong once again.

Do you ever get tired of being 100 percent wrong?

Your posts would make more sense if you began with reading comprehension skills. I wrote that Rutgers is $28.6 million in the black when it comes to athletics (not even counting the debt service on the upgrade in facilities). Any money from the B1G (Rutgers won't see its full share for at least 5 more years) will simply offset the subsidy. Your athletic program is saved. Bravo. Your academic reputation has suffered over the last several years.

 

[freescooter]

I think she gets it, but with 20 things on her plate, focuses on the 19 things she can actually improve and leaves sports to the AD. She clearly EXPECTS him to do a great job. And given her track record if she feels he isn't, he will be shown the door (as she has done in a number of other areas in her 2+ years on the job). The definition of what constitutes a good job is really what is at issue here. And most of THIS constituency seems to care pretty much ONLY about the football program and NOT about the school (half of the football regulars don't even care about MBB). Which is fair, because this is a football board. I know you'd all be happier if she acted like Jerry Jones, but look at how that generally works out for the Cowboys.

I'm not sure that is clear at all. Like lots of new CEOs she replaced a number of managers with her people. Not all of them were necessarily doing a poor job and at least a couple of those changes have lead to some pretty bitter feelings among some faculty members at some UConn schools located away from Storrs. Whether she evaluates "her team" quite the same way remains to be seen. Not saying she won't be equally demanding. She might. But it is a lot easier to find fault with the other guy's appointees than one's own, I have found (as both an appointee and an appointer, I confess).

 

[06029]

If Cantor realized what was at stake, she should have been a lot more motivated, given Syracuse's situation. I single her out because she was there a lot longer than Herbst. I already pointed out that those very same presidents were all too willing to add UConn until theeir ADs pointed out that Louisville was supposedly good at football.

The proof that she knew is that they moved. They were not an afterthought. Louisville was not an afterthought. Pitt, maybe an afterthought.

And are you still going to say the presidents are not cognizant of the importance of football and CR?

 

[upstater]

The proof that she knew is that they moved. They were not an afterthought. Louisville was not an afterthought. Pitt, maybe an afterthought.

And are you still going to say the presidents are not cognizant of the importance of football and CR?

How is that the proof?

 

[CL82]

Upstater, that doesn't include increased admissions, better hires, etc. which I would expect would came with admission to the B1G.

 

[06029]

How is that the proof?

I keep forgetting that you never admit that you maybe incorrect. You are always right even when you either were wrong or phrased your point incorrectly.

Are they not cognizant or are they powerless? I still maintain that presidents are fully aware of the influence of FB and they certainly are not powerless. If vast majority were not cognizant (your words), there would be threads like this on the Pitt, Cuse, Ville, UWV, Rutgers boards because they would have been the one left behind. That they landed in good situations might not be proof to you, but it is the reality of the moment and reality always seems like sufficient proof of many things to me.

 

[buggsy]

Your posts would make more sense if you began with reading comprehension skills. I wrote that Rutgers is $28.6 million in the black when it comes to athletics (not even counting the debt service on the upgrade in facilities). Any money from the B1G (Rutgers won't see its full share for at least 5 more years) will simply offset the subsidy. Your athletic program is saved. Bravo. Your academic reputation has suffered over the last several years.

He asked if the Big Ten's CIC partnership and TV money will change things. You said no.
You said travel will offset new money.

http://newbrunswicktoday.com/articl...-fistfuls-free-football-tickets-sales-dropped

​

Buggs, all these links just completely blew you out of the water.​

Neither of those articles mentions RU cutting academic spending. Both articles talk about salary freezes and increased student fees, but neither mentions RU cutting its academic budget. They talk about RU doing more with less...because, as the links clearly spell out...the state of NJ cut its funding to Rutgers by $29 million over a three year fiscal period.

Did you even read the articles? If you're going to use them against me, don't you think you should read them?

And regarding the money you've spent on ice hockey? Really? I'll tell you what that means to the ACC and to the BIG.

It means dick.

Let me help you understand what conference realignment is all about. It's not about ice hockey, or a new soccer field. It's not about lacrosse or basketball. CR is all about football and football only.

The money you spent on Shenkman and on the original build of your stadium does not constitute expansion. They didn't even exist previously. Plus, they are nearly a decade old.

So you claim you spent over 200 mm on athletics, and in the eyes of CR all you have to show for it is a new scoreboard?

Yeesh, that sucks for you.

Rutgers spend $112 million two years ago to add 12,000 new seats, and 30 new private boxes.

UCONN spent $3 million on a scoreboard (which isn't even close to as nice or big as the $5 MM scoreboard we added when we expanded the stadium.)

So do I feel like I was blown out of the water by your links? No, but I do feel that you make a profession out of being wrong.

 

[buggsy]

I keep forgetting that you never admit that you maybe incorrect. You are always right even when you either were wrong or phrased your point incorrectly.

Are they not cognizant or are they powerless? I still maintain that presidents are fully aware of the influence of FB and they certainly are not powerless. If vast majority were not cognizant (your words), there would be threads like this on the Pitt, Cuse, Ville, UWV, Rutgers boards because they would have been the one left behind. That they landed in good situations might not be proof to you, but it is the reality of the moment and reality always seems like sufficient proof of many things to me.

It is the thing that makes me laugh at this clown. He simply cannot ever admit that he is wrong. Ever.

And he is wrong far more than he is right.

He should be good at it.

 

[upstater]

I keep forgetting that you never admit that you maybe incorrect. You are always right even when you either were wrong or phrased your point incorrectly.

Are they not cognizant or are they powerless? I still maintain that presidents are fully aware of the influence of FB and they certainly are not powerless. If vast majority were not cognizant (your words), there would be threads like this on the Pitt, Cuse, Ville, UWV, Rutgers boards because they would have been the one left behind. That they landed in good situations might not be proof to you, but it is the reality of the moment and reality always seems like sufficient proof of many things to me.

That's not proof.

What in the world do you want me to do when you call something proof and it isn't? You want me to say I'm wrong about something that's just conjecture. It's bizarre. Why don't you say you're wrong?

After Pitt and Cuse got in with losing records against UConn and crumbling football programs, it would have been perfectly reasonable t assume football prowess is NOT absolutely necessary. Same with Rutgers for that matter AND Maryland who also lost to UConn last year. In fact, given those 4 examples, you would be crazy to make the case that being good at football was absolutely necessary. You have examples of schools struggling at football who were added. And then the initial move by the likes of the Presidents of Tobacco Road is to try to shoehorn a 5th school that is bad at football into a P5 conference. What more evidence do you need?

 

[upstater]

Upstater, that doesn't include increased admissions, better hires, etc. which I would expect would came with admission to the B1G.

Why would you expect that? Unless the state restores funding, why would better hires go there? We're talking about massive cuts here. When $10m was cut from my university, we bled profusely. Faculty in my department dropped from 45 to 28. Can't even imagine what a $100m+ cut would do. They have to restore that funding to restore their rep. It is pretty simple.

 

[upstater]

It is the thing that makes me laugh at this clown. He simply cannot ever admit that he is wrong. Ever.

And he is wrong far more than he is right.

He should be good at it.

And I gave you all the links and proof you needed. You've got nothing.

 

[upstater]

He asked if the Big Ten's CIC partnership and TV money will change things. You said no.

You are pretty dimwitted. He asked if it would change their academic reputation. Not the solvency of their athletic department.

You said travel will offset new money.

Nope. Didn't say that. Never said that at all. A 3,000 rise in attendance from last year over 6 or 7 games and $50 a ticket = $1 million. WV spent $8 million additional travel money this season. I was being generous when I said your travel budget was likely to increase $1 million. The bottom line is that your deficit is larger than the extra TV money. And that's not even counting the debt service on the stadium.

Neither of those articles mentions RU cutting academic spending. Both articles talk about salary freezes and increased student fees, but neither mentions RU cutting its academic budget. They talk about RU doing more with less...because, as the links clearly spell out...the state of NJ cut its funding to Rutgers by $29 million over a three year fiscal period.

Ripping out phones and ending copying is but a small example of cuts. The big example is the fact the state cut $100m+ to the university, as it said in those articles. Those are CUTS. Not increases. The article clearly stated that in 2007, the cut was $50m+ in that year alone.

Did you even read the articles? If you're going to use them against me, don't you think you should read them?

And regarding the money you've spent on ice hockey? Really? I'll tell you what that means to the ACC and to the BIG.

You asked what UConn spent on sports facilities, I gave it to you. As UConn enters the top hockey conference in America, it may help you to realize that they actually play top hockey in the B1G, and that plenty of people care. In fact, there are B1G schools that have played hockey in front of a bigger crowd than has ever watched football in ANY stadium in New Jersey.

It means .

Let me help you understand what conference realignment is all about. It's not about ice hockey, or a new soccer field. It's not about lacrosse or basketball. CR is all about football and football only.

If that's true, then why was the worst football school of all time, Rutgers, invited to the B1G?

The money you spent on Shenkman and on the original build of your stadium does not constitute expansion. They didn't even exist previously. Plus, they are nearly a decade old.

Shenkman and Burton are not a decade old. And they are the best facilities of all the old BE schools. Rutgers has nothing like that.

So you claim you spent over 200 mm on athletics, and in the eyes of CR all you have to show for it is a new scoreboard?

That, and the best facilities of all the old BE schools.

Yeesh, that sucks for you.

Rutgers spend $112 million two years ago to add 12,000 new seats, and 30 new private boxes.

You got ripped off. Who built your stadium, Tony Soprano?

UCONN spent $3 million on a scoreboard (which isn't even close to as nice or big as the $5 MM scoreboard we added when we expanded the stadium.)

So do I feel like I was blown out of the water by your links? No, but I do feel that you make a profession out of being wrong.

I see you avoided addressing the 41% free tickets link. You called me a liar about that one. Pretty funny stuff.

 

[upstater]

It's pretty clear, buggsy, that you have poor reading comprehension and you blame your inability to read on me. When I say the money from increased attendance is offset by increased travel, you twist that into a comment about total revenue increase. You can argue with yourself if you like but it's pretty clear you don't comprehend the English language well and that leads you to imagine things that were never ever said.

 

[OHusky]

Ban Freescooter, he's worse than HFD.

Free HFD

 

[buggsy]

It's pretty clear, buggsy, that you have poor reading comprehension and you blame your inability to read on me. When I say the money from increased attendance is offset by increased travel, you twist that into a comment about total revenue increase. You can argue with yourself if you like but it's pretty clear you don't comprehend the English language well and that leads you to imagine things that were never ever said.

I'm too tired from the last ass-whooping I laid on you to do it all over again.

You're like PP. You just like to lose.

You keep changing the game when I beat you at the game we are playing.

Like you always do, you just try to deflect the argument to fit your needs.

When CL82 asks about the BIG and how the CIC and the increased revenue from TV money will help the decline..

you say no, by saying this...


"No, CIC total gain per year is sort of back office efficiency type of stuff. Here, read this: http://www.umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/umd-officially-joins-committee-institutional-cooperation. A research budget at an AAU school is like $500m per year. The CIC helps joint research projects but the total a drop in the bucket compared the budgets. Since RU was bleeding $30m a year from the academic side to prop up the athletic program, the athletic program is not going to be in the black at is current rate of expenditure. Increased attendance likely to be offset by increased travel."


So when I prove how idiotic your statement is, because RU spends 18 million a year, not 30 million a year on athletics (from the link you so generously provided) and that we will instantly see a 12 million dollar increase in the very first year, and that will shoot up to over $25 million more than currently by year 5, which means more money to go towards academic spending, ....and your response is that increased attendance will be offset by travel...even though we travel just as far currently going to Texas, Tennessee, Florida, California this year, Kentucky and the like....there will only be a negligible increase in travel costs going to Big Ten schools, while their will be a HUGE increase in TV money and a significant increase in attendance and alumni donations. That means we can put more money towards correcting the errors our state government has made in cutting spending to Rutgers.


The problem is....that makes you jealous as hell, so of course you won't admit that we will be able to close the gap academically.

And if you don't think going to the Big Ten will be a huge boost leading to an uptick in academic rankings, you're either just being your usual self....or your lying (again) or you're a dimwit. Or maybe all of the above.

Especially when Penn State even admitted the Big Ten elevated them to higher academic rankings. The proof is in the pudding. Their academic ranking skyrocketed right after they joined the Big Ten.

Sorry buddy, I know it's going to kill you....but the same thing is going to happen to Rutgers.


Stop changing the argument just because you are losing. It just makes you look like an even bigger no-it-all loser.

You are the sorest loser I have ever seen, and it appears many hear on these boards feel the same way.

You have never once admitted you are wrong, and others have called you out on it.

It's laughable how stupid you appear when you try to sound smart.

Still think we give out 40 percent of our tickets each year?

Stil think RU pays 30 million a year to offset spending?

Still think RU has slashed academic budgets to fund football?

All mis-truths you tell over and over again....with the hopes that people will just take you for your word. You go on thinking that ALL presidents have no idea how important college football is to CR even though many of them know damn well that their schools have 50-100+ million dollar annual budgets. You just sound like a really dumb know-it-all when you say that.

You want to come off as ignorant, go ahead. I'm tired of trying to educate you.