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

[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.

 

[buggsy]

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 know-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.

 

[upstater]

Yes 40% of the tickets were given away. And you left out the $9 million in student fees in addition to the direct subsidy. The article even said you're in the hole $28+m a year.

You can't read and you have mental problems as well.

 

[RMoore1999]

Freescooter, she didn't say what you said she said.

She said the vast majority of Presidents involved with CR were not cognizant of how important football was. This is 100% the truth. That's entirely different than what you portrayed. Not only that but I found she put UConn football in a pretty good context to explain how far it's come. I can't imagine a single thing that you had a problem with.

What I found quite interesting is that in addressing the disappointment of the loss to Towson is that she didn't reinforce the idea that PP knows what he's doing, nor did she express confidence that he will right the ship, but instead she talked about Warde Manuel and what he's doing to improve UConn football, what his credentials are, what it takes to win in the bigtime.

You guys didn't find that interesting? I thought that was pretty damning.

"instead she talked about Warde Manuel and what he's doing to improve UConn football, what his credentials are, what it takes to win in the bigtime", and thereby proving your point that she is in fact clueless about athletics, and the administration thereof...

 

[RMoore1999]

You're right,upstater on the Pasqualoni non-comments. As for the rest, we disagree as per usual I guess. If you're going to tell me the President of Notre Dame and the President of Louisville didn't get that football was critical...Syracuse and Pitt got it too for that matter, I don't know what to tell you. And Mike, I've said over and over here and elsewhere, I think Herbst is doing a great job at building the university. But it is my sense that she neither understands nor care about athletics. Her public statements on the subject range from clueless to downright embarrassing and she should just avoid the topic except to cheer lead for one or another team when they win a title. Otherwise just change the subject to STEM and cutting edge medical research that will be taking place at the Medical School.

THIS times a TRILLION...

 

[CTMike]

I hate Rutgers as much as the next guy but we spend way too much time talking about them around here.

 

[RMoore1999]

Then maybe you should stop following UCONN all together since you already have the team and athletics downgraded.

I didn't have an issue with what she said. She trust Warde Manuel on football and athletics as she should.

Its shocking how much support warde has around here.

 

[upstater]

"instead she talked about Warde Manuel and what he's doing to improve UConn football, what his credentials are, what it takes to win in the bigtime", and thereby proving your point that she is in fact clueless about athletics, and the administration thereof...

That's exactly right. She's relying on someone (who by the way gets paid almost as much as she does) for his expertise.

 

[RMoore1999]

That's exactly right. She's relying on someone (who by the way gets paid almost as much as she does) for his expertise.

PP makes a lot of money, but more people than not have finally come to believe he was a bad choice.

Same applies to Warde. Once I realize someone I rely on isnt competent, I dont rely on them any longer.

Simple stuff.

 

[uconnbill]

PP makes a lot of money, but more people than not have finally come to believe he was a bad choice.

Same applies to Warde. Once I realize someone I rely on isnt competent, I dont rely on them any longer.

Simple stuff.

Your an expert on this how? I have talked to a number of people and they think Warde Manuel knows what he is doing as do I. Just because he didn't fire HCPP yet doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is doing.

 

[Adios]

"Athletics is the front porch of the University," says President Herbst. "It grabs the attention of the American people, then you can open the door and show them the great teaching, learning, and research inside." The new facility will help maintain high levels of academic success for basketball student-athletes and advance the entire university and the community, she adds.

Am I missing something? Some melodramatic posters here.

 

[J187Money]

Nitpicking aside, those who want Warde fired mostly cite 3 things:

1) CR - and most people would agree if he had been here long enough. But this can't be laid at his feet and made a firing offense because he didn't get it done.

2) How he handled Ollie - tough situation. We ended up in the right spot (unless you think we should have gone outside which is what he wanted to do anyway) so hard to fire him for that.

3) Not firing PP last year - I think the case was there to fire PP but most coaches get 3 years.

The rest of it is noise. To me, the single most important thing he can do is hire the right coach this December. And if he does he will have set us up to be successful. So to me it is an incomplete.

Defending Warde against things that he couldn't necessarily control (1 and 2) and a choice that was reasonable (if unpopular in 3) isn't blind loyalty. I, along with many others here, would have preferred a different candidate in retrospect. But I'm not ready to fire him. He is a football guy and I expect that he will hire the right coach and we can move forward.

 

[J187Money]

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).

She has been very clear and public about her goals for the university. If she brings in her own people and they don't meet goals she and her team will have to answer for that. I'm sure there are no shortage of people that will call her out at every turn.

 

[willie99]

Susie's office never responded to or even acknowledged my e-mail. A tad bit disappointing

I wasn't vulgar or obnoxious, I merely questioned why they are delaying the obvious. Pointed out that she has to "trust her eyes" and end the misery.

She's the one that stated the athletic department is "the front porch to the university". She knows the successful basketball programs made everything else possible.

 

[J187Money]

UConn moves up to 19th on USNWR rankings.

 

[junglehusky]

So I finally had a chance to listen and in regards to Dankosky's question about the football performance I have to say it was blindingly obvious that she went out of her way to avoid talking about Pasqualoni. By talking about Warde being a football guy from Michigan and then saying "we'll see" about this season, it should be very clear that Herbst is deliberately not defending P and the pressure is on. And I think her line about how far the program has come, mentioning beating Louisville last year - I have a feeling she has her elevator pitch for the ACC / B1G ready to go (my only note here would be to toss in Notre Dame and South Carolina as well). Notice also she did not go out of her way to mention the AAC in this interview (though she would have if asked about it directly).

 

[buggsy]

Yes 40% of the tickets were given away. And you left out the $9 million in student fees in addition to the direct subsidy. The article even said you're in the hole $28+m a year.

You can't read and you have mental problems as well.

Sorry, can't reply now. Still on my victory lap after destroying you.

 

[Excalibur]

PP makes a lot of money, but more people than not have finally come to believe he was a bad choice.

Same applies to Warde. Once I realize someone I rely on isnt competent, I dont rely on them any longer.

Simple stuff.

I make my decisions on complete information.

 

[J187Money]

Sorry, can't reply now. Still on my victory lap after destroying you.

I hate to give it to the Rutgers guy...but this cracked me up.

 

[RMoore1999]

I make my decisions on complete information.

Solid policy. If I was responsible for evaluating his employment, I'd prefer to act upon complete information.

Since I'm not on the inside, I have incomplete info. Maybe you know something from the inside I don't.

 

[RMoore1999]

Your an expert on this how? I have talked to a number of people and they think Warde Manuel knows what he is doing as do I. Just because he didn't fire HCPP yet doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is doing.

Your an expert on this how? I have talked to a number of people and they think Warde Manuel knows what he is doing as do I. Just because he didn't fire HCPP yet doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is doing.

Bill, Im certainly no expert. Where you get that? just a diehard fan/alum/state resident of the opinion that Warde hasn't impressed me with the expertise upstarter mentioned. You're happy with warde. That's fine. Sorry i dont agree with you and "the number of people" you've talked to who "think Warde knows what he's doing."