Do we have too many teams? I gotta ask

[sugarkane2]

Rutgers fields 22 varsity teams in New Brunswick. It also fields 19 division 3 teams in Camden and 14 teams in Newark. Question 1 Are these Newark and Camden teams paid for from the subsidy that New Brunswick gets charged for. And Question 2 Are the 22 division1 teams in New Brunswick too many. It's an ugly question that nobody wants to hear , but I gotta ask. We field 22 teams. Of the 64 other schools in the P5 Conferences. 48 have fewer teams than Rutgers and only 12 schools have more. Only 4 schools, North Carolina St., Nebraska, Iowa and Indiana have the same number of teams as us (22) The average number of teams per school by conference are Big 12 16.6 Sec 16.7 Pac 12- 20.4 ACC 19.2 Big 23.0 All 65-, 19.3 We are near the top of the list with 22 teams and near the bottom of the list of schools with money to spend. Any and all thoughts.

 

[Blitz8RU]

too many teams for a big ten school? No

too many teams for us to support adequately right now? Yes

 

[Jim_from_RU]

Rutgers fields 27 varsity teams in New Brunswick. It also fields 18 division 3 teams in Camden and 14 teams in Newark. Question 1 Are these Newark and Camden teams paid for from the subsidy that New Brunswick gets charged for. And Question 2 Are the 27 division1 teams in New Brunswick too many. It's an ugly question that nobody wants to hear , but I gotta ask. We field 27 teams. Of the 64 other schools in the P5 Conferences. 57 have fewer teams than Rutgers and only 5 schools have more. Only 2 schools, North Carolina and Michigan have the same number of teams as us (27) The average number of teams per school by conference are Big 12 16.8 Sec 18.8 Pac 12- 21.4 ACC 21.4 Big 24.3 All 65-, 20.8 We are near the top of the list with 27 teams and near the bottom of the list of schools with money to spend. Any and all thoughts.

Yes.

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

Rutgers fields 27 varsity teams in New Brunswick. It also fields 18 division 3 teams in Camden and 14 teams in Newark. Question 1 Are these Newark and Camden teams paid for from the subsidy that New Brunswick gets charged for. And Question 2 Are the 27 division1 teams in New Brunswick too many. It's an ugly question that nobody wants to hear , but I gotta ask. We field 27 teams. Of the 64 other schools in the P5 Conferences. 57 have fewer teams than Rutgers and only 5 schools have more. Only 2 schools, North Carolina and Michigan have the same number of teams as us (27) The average number of teams per school by conference are Big 12 16.8 Sec 18.8 Pac 12- 21.4 ACC 21.4 Big 24.3 All 65-, 20.8 We are near the top of the list with 27 teams and near the bottom of the list of schools with money to spend. Any and all thoughts.

No. From my knowledge, they are completely separate athletic departments with completely different budgets.

 

[scarletrider]

Shouldn't field non revenue sports the fans and alumni are not willing to fund. FB and BB should not fund these sports. So, yes. Way too many. Need to get rid of some.

 

[knightfan7]

By my count RU fields 22, not 27 Varsity teams. What am I missing?

Football
Basketball (M&W)
Soccer (M&W)
Track (M&W)
Baseball
Softball
Wrestling
XC (M&W)
Lacrosse
Field Hockey - W
Gymnastics - W
Swimming and Diving - W
Volleyball - W
Tennis (M&W)
Golf (M&W)
Rowing - W

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Yes, we field too many sports.

No, RU-N and RU-C are not subsidized by RU-NB's athletics budget. Totally separate departments with their own administration and budgets.

Yes, eliminating sports would be problematic, both perception wise and Title IX wise.

 

[sugarkane2]

By my count RU fields 22, not 27 Varsity teams. What am I missing?

Football
Basketball (M&W)
Soccer (M&W)
Track (M&W)
Baseball
Softball
Wrestling
XC (M&W)
Lacrosse
Field Hockey - W
Gymnastics - W
Swimming and Diving - W
Volleyball - W
Tennis (M&W)
Golf (M&W)
Rowing - W

I got my data from wikipedia "Rutger Scarlet Knights. It says 27 varsity sports and lists all the teams you mentioned but does not say which sports have both mens and womens. your #s could be right I honestly don't know. I went with their data

 

[WhiteBus]

I got my data from wikipedia "Rutger Scarlet Knights. It says 27 varsity sports and lists all the teams you mentioned but does not say which sports have both mens and womens. your #s could be right I honestly don't know. I went with their data

Using Wikipedia for facts? Shame on you. It's 22 from SK.com

 

[sugarkane2]

By my count RU fields 22, not 27 Varsity teams. What am I missing?

Football
Basketball (M&W)
Soccer (M&W)
Track (M&W)
Baseball
Softball
Wrestling
XC (M&W)
Lacrosse
Field Hockey - W
Gymnastics - W
Swimming and Diving - W
Volleyball - W
Tennis (M&W)
Golf (M&W)
Rowing - W

I just checked RU website 22 is Correct. Sorry, I got bad data now I have to check the other 64 school sites..my bad

 

[knightfan7]

I got my data from wikipedia "Rutger Scarlet Knights. It says 27 varsity sports and lists all the teams you mentioned but does not say which sports have both mens and womens. your #s could be right I honestly don't know. I went with their data

I wondered if they counted cheerleading and dance? That'd add 3? Can't imagine what the others are.

 

[JQRU91]

Big 24.3

I think that's the number in that list that matters. Maybe if we had too few, the B1G might not have thought RU was as good a fit. Yeah, I know it's mostly about the TV markets and money, but still...

 

[Upstream]

Rutgers isn't cutting any sports. Rutgers doesn't have a problem of spending too much money on athletics. It has a problem in not generating enough revenue. Cutting sports doesn't help raise revenue.

 

[RUich]

Considering how the school has traditionally been tight fisted about money, it is kind of surprising we have so many programs in place.

 

[PRJoey]

No men's tennis

 

[sugarkane2]

Rutgers fields 22 varsity teams in New Brunswick. It also fields 18 division 3 teams in Camden and 14 teams in Newark. Question 1 Are these Newark and Camden teams paid for from the subsidy that New Brunswick gets charged for. And Question 2 Are the 22 division1 teams in New Brunswick too many. It's an ugly question that nobody wants to hear , but I gotta ask. We field 22 teams. Of the 64 other schools in the P5 Conferences. 48 have fewer teams than Rutgers and only 12 schools have more. Only 4 schools, North Carolina St., Nebraska, Iowa and Indiana have the same number of teams as us (22) The average number of teams per school by conference are Big 12 16.6 Sec 16.7 Pac 12- 20.4 ACC 19.2 Big 23.0 All 65-, 19.3 We are near the top of the list with 27 teams and near the bottom of the list of schools with money to spend. Any and all thoughts.

Using Wikipedia for facts? Shame on you. It's 22 from SK.com

By my count RU fields 22, not 27 Varsity teams. What am I missing?

Football
Basketball (M&W)
Soccer (M&W)
Track (M&W)
Baseball
Softball
Wrestling
XC (M&W)
Lacrosse
Field Hockey - W
Gymnastics - W
Swimming and Diving - W
Volleyball - W
Tennis (M&W)
Golf (M&W)
Rowing - W

Sorry for the errors in the data , I went back to all 65 team websites and got the correct data and edited my original post . different numbers but pretty much the same picture.

 

[RUsSKii]

Rutgers isn't cutting any sports. Rutgers doesn't have a problem of spending too much money on athletics. It has a problem in not generating enough revenue. Cutting sports doesn't help raise revenue.

This. The last time that Rutgers cut several sports was approximately 10 years ago when I was in undergrad. It caused an uproar and alienated some well-to-do alumni who had been affiliated with those sports. I don't think that Rutgers is going to do so again, especially in the B1G where many schools maintain a large number of sports.

At this point, no women's team sports can be cut without Title IX forcing an equivalent cut in men's team sports. I'm in favor of continuing to encourage alumni of non-revenue-generating Olympic sports to donate in order to offset their costs and (if possible) endow permanent scholarships.

We have entered a critical period with football, where some increased investment in coaching is required in order to maintain and especially grow revenue from here on out..

 

[Upstream]

Sorry for the errors in the data , I went back to all 65 team websites and got the correct data and edited my original post . different numbers but pretty much the same picture.

According to the official Title IX reporting website ( http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ ), Rutgers sponsors 20 sports.

You need to look at a formal reporting site to compare schools, since some school websites may count sports differently (e.g., some may count fall and spring track as 1 or 2 sports).

 

[ruhudsonfan]

According to the official Title IX reporting website ( http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ ), Rutgers sponsors 20 sports.

You need to look at a formal reporting site to compare schools, since some school websites may count sports differently (e.g., some may count fall and spring track as 1 or 2 sports).

Fall track, otherwise known as cross country in the western hemisphere, is a different sport from Spring track--or Outdoor track, if you prefer.

Winter and Sping, Indoor and Outdoor, are the same roster and shouldn't be double counted.

But Cross Country is indeed its own program.

 

[srru86]

Rutgers isn't cutting any sports. Rutgers doesn't have a problem of spending too much money on athletics. It has a problem in not generating enough revenue. Cutting sports doesn't help raise revenue.

No it doesn't raise revenue but it would cut expenses without losing any revenue thereby closing, if not eliminating, the much ballyhooed subsidy.

This is a moot question. The revenue problem is solved, we just have to wait for the full B1G payout.

No, we should not cut anymore programs. When the BTN money was only a pipe dream and we were looking at BE/AAC payouts it was something that really needed to be done. Now the agita is not worth the savings

But if Texas, as an example, were being considered for B1G membership would Delany, or anybody else at the table say "We'd love to have you but your 18 programs just are not going to cut it here"? The Longhorns certainly don't have a revenue problem. Lots of reasons you would not want them in the club, not sponsoring enough teams ain't one of them.

 

[mal359]

Shut down all non-football functions at Rutgers.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Considering how the school has traditionally been tight fisted about money, it is kind of surprising we have so many programs in place.

The State University of New Jersey... where people want every imaginable thing provided, but have no desire whatsoever to pay for it. Just look at what happened when Rutgers cut sports some years back....they people who enjoyed those sports cried bloody murder, even though they were completely unwilling to donate enough to keep them going.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

we do not have to many teams, in fact many want to add more.

I think we are fine at 22.

 

[Upstream]

Fall track, otherwise known as cross country in the western hemisphere, is a different sport from Spring track--or Outdoor track, if you prefer.

Winter and Sping, Indoor and Outdoor, are the same roster and shouldn't be double counted.

But Cross Country is indeed its own program.

The Equity in Athletics data doesn't differentiate between different track programs. Cross country, winter, spring, indoor, outdoor, is all combined in the category "all track combined". If you want to compare the size of the track programs among various schools, you could look at the number of participants. (And actually, looking at the number of participants may be a more meaningful way of comparing whether Rutgers "has too many programs".)

 

[ruhudsonfan]

The Equity in Athletics data doesn't differentiate between different track programs. Cross country, winter, spring, indoor, outdoor, is all combined in the category "all track combined". If you want to compare the size of the track programs among various schools, you could look at the number of participants. (And actually, looking at the number of participants may be a more meaningful way of comparing whether Rutgers "has too many programs".)

I was just breaking your stones about "Fall" track.

Taking a quick glance on the women's side, most of the cross country runners are distance runners on the indoor/outdoor teams. And the coaches are the same. That said, the athletics website lists the programs separately. I wonder if they have separate budgets.

 

[RUtom]

You missed Women's Lacrosse.

 

[srru86]

The Equity in Athletics data doesn't differentiate between different track programs.

Just going by the UT web site they list Men's and Women's Texas Relays as separate from M/W Track and Field. It think apples to apples UT sponsors something closer to a WVU level 15 teams. But unlike the Mountaineers the Longhorns don't have co-ed Rifle.

 

[eceres]

We spend in the top 40 and we produce an athletic department program in the 90-120 range. This is a bad return on our investment. So if it is not to many teams why is it?

Success takes investment - right now we do a lot of things poorly with a few we do on the well side. The Big Ten money will NOT make us substantially more competitive in spending it will only make our budget not heavily subsidized by general funds.

SO the choice is - have alot of ok sports or focus and really invest in a fewer programs. If someone honestly rates our programs we have no truely great programs - we have some good programs and many bottom tier.

Directors cup ratings (overall AD):
2014 - 91
2013 - 120
2012 - 111
2011 - 158

http://www.nacda.com/directorscup/nacda-directorscup-previous-scoring.html

 

[lighty]

Shouldn't field non revenue sports the fans and alumni are not willing to fund. FB and BB should not fund these sports. So, yes. Way too many. Need to get rid of some.

Ever stop and think that maybe one of the things (other than location) that attracted RU to the Big Ten was these Olympic sports? We're in a conference now where sports that may not be on your radar are rather important...

 

[derleider]

This. The last time that Rutgers cut several sports was approximately 10 years ago when I was in undergrad. It caused an uproar and alienated some well-to-do alumni who had been affiliated with those sports. I don't think that Rutgers is going to do so again, especially in the B1G where many schools maintain a large number of sports.

At this point, no women's team sports can be cut without Title IX forcing an equivalent cut in men's team sports. I'm in favor of continuing to encourage alumni of non-revenue-generating Olympic sports to donate in order to offset their costs and (if possible) endow permanent scholarships.

We have entered a critical period with football, where some increased investment in coaching is required in order to maintain and especially grow revenue from here on out..

One reason not to do it is that there is little savings. The sports we would cut are cheap, and usually the facilities would continue to exist without the team (i.e. if we cut golf, the gold course remains, the swimming pool isnt going to get shut down if we shut down swimming, etc).

Baiscally - in an athletic budget of $70 million we might save 10% by cutting a 5-6 sports. And in the end that money would just mean less subsidy. The answer is that we need more money coming in from FB and BB, not that we should cut sports that basically cost nothing any way.

ecers - we spend in the top 40 because we have a P5 FB program that we spend alot on. Im guessing if you took that out, we would be alot closer to our directors cup ranking in spending.

 

[srru86]

One reason not to do it is that there is little savings. The sports we would cut are cheap, and usually the facilities would continue to exist without the team (i.e. if we cut golf, the gold course remains, the swimming pool isnt going to get shut down if we shut down swimming, etc).

The expensive part of those programs is not the balls and bats, its the scholarships for the players. Unlike capital expenses those come due every year.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

The expensive part of those programs is not the balls and bats, its the scholarships for the players. Unlike capital expenses those come due every year.

Not everyone on those teams have scholarships and the ones that do, don't have full scholarships.

 

[ru8081]

The answer is Yes we have too many teams for what the RU admin allocates to athletics. It is time the discussion comes up. Trenton should pony up!

 

[eceres]

ecers - we spend in the top 40 because we have a P5 FB program that we spend alot on. Im guessing if you took that out, we would be alot closer to our directors cup ranking in spending.

I have long felt that since Schiano came here we have heavily focused on football and let most other sports do what they can with near nothing. Our facilities (until recently - baseball and mixed use basketball training area would change that). I don't know where to find the numbers on that though. This is not a bad plan - football drives the bus perception wise for a sports program.

Do you not think cutting 2-3 sports would allow us to give more scholarships and better coaches in 2-3 other sports making them competitive? Besides Stringer do we have any competively paid and experienced coaches hired at Rutgers?

 

[derleider]

The expensive part of those programs is not the balls and bats, its the scholarships for the players. Unlike capital expenses those come due every year.

This is true - but at the same time you can look up the costs - and they just arent thta much.

lets say we decided to get down to 14 sports - from 24 - we could cut both golfs, all track (both genders, three seasons) - well thats about it. We arent cutting baseball,wrestling, football, soccer, lacrosse or basketball - and those would be the only remaining men's sports - and we cant cut womens without cutting mens. Those total up to about $2.5 million a year. Maybe you could get up to $3 million by cutting a more expensive womens sport in place of track or golf - but that would only go so far, again because of title IX.

So yes - it would give us a little extra money to spend on other sports - but it would also bring about alot of bad PR. Not worth it considering the relatively small amount.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

We put all of our money in football because that was the best way to get us out of the living hell that was the Big East and into a real conference.... AND IT WORKED!!!

Now we can start building up the other sports. Soon Baseball and Softball will have a brand new indoor $3 million training faculty. That will be huge for them. In the future both will get real stadiums to play in not just fields like they have now. This is a LONG TERM project, nothing will happen over night but it will happen. If you want it to happen faster than donate more and it will happen faster.

You want to reduce the money spend on Olympic Sports? Donate to them, sponsor scholarships and that will free up that money to use for something else.

 

[mdk02]

1. Have all of you forgotten about Title IX? Most of the women's teams are sacrosanct and cutting non-revenue men's team will do little to help.

2. Some of these non-revenue sports could probably be maintained through the establishment and alumni contributions to an endowment dedicated to them. Hell, but for Title IX, men's crew could have been easily saved by that method. Rather than too many sports, I would contend that Rutgers has too weak a support structure.

 

[derleider]

1. Have all of you forgotten about Title IX? Most of the women's teams are sacrosanct and cutting non-revenue men's team will do little to help.

2. Some of these non-revenue sports could probably be maintained through the establishment and alumni contributions to an endowment dedicated to them. Hell, but for Title IX, men's crew could have been easily saved by that method. Rather than too many sports, I would contend that Rutgers has too weak a support structure.

No it couldn't. Assume it costs roughly 20 times the annual cost of the program to endow it - thats $15-20 million for men's rowing (based on how much womens Rowing costs a year), plus an equal amount to add a women's sport. You think RU alums are going to give that amount and if they do, that they are going to give it to ROWING instead of either a bigger name sport, or academics?

 

[eceres]

If you want it to happen faster than donate more and it will happen faster.

You want to reduce the money spend on Olympic Sports? Donate to them, sponsor scholarships and that will free up that money to use for something else.

This is a serious question - how do I do this as a non-rich person? Lets say I can donate $500-$1,000 today - how do I help achieve any of these goals?

Checking support.rutgers.edu & scarletknights.com I see the following choices:
- Endowed scholarship requires $100,000 commitment ($20k a year)
- named scholarhsip requires $30,000 ($6k a year)
- R Scholarship Fund - goes towards scholarships - will this make a substantial difference or just offset the deficit slightly?
- RAC Renovation Fund - I have given here before when Perneti was talking about a new RAC facing, looks like funds are used for sound system upgrades
- Big Ten Build Fund - Do we know where this will go?

I lack trust in the university with Barchi's statements and reading that AD was fund raising for operational expenditures. I would happily give money tomorrow if someone could tell me how it is going somewhere not to lower the subsidy (no real improvement to our athletics department).

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

$20 Million for Men's crew is nothing, those donors have deep pockets, but you can't have it without adding another women's sport and we can't afford that. Plus, what the heck would we even add?