Pernetti might go down in the group of the 5 worst executives in RU history. Why his name is continued to be brought up in reverence or as a counterfactual to well, basically anything, confounds me.
We'll agree to disagree
One thing Bob Barchi doesn't seem to understand
- Thread starter knight82
- Start date
Pernetti might go down in the group of the 5 worst executives in RU history. Why his name is continued to be brought up in reverence or as a counterfactual to well, basically anything, confounds me.
We'll agree to disagree
I doubt firing Flood in September would have saved the season. I assume he did not atleast partially based on the advice of counsel. Norris Wilson is certainly not the answer.
Chances are there would have been many things run differently this year with another coach -- the starting QB is just one of them. Any of these could very well have changed the direction of the season. I still believe that the defense folded a lot this season because of the failure of the offense to do anything. If the offense had been able to put some points up and keep the defense off the field and believing the team could win, RU could very well have had a different result imo.
47M was the number when we had several one time costs (no BE revenue b/c of the lawsuit for leaving, TP's buyout, Rice's buyout, etc...). The number this year is about 35-36M, which includes the student fees of ~10M. Part of the cost of running RU athletics is the rec centers, including Werblin. I have no idea why we consider student fees a "subsidy". In return for the fees, students receive use of facilities like Werblin as well as free tickets to all sporting events. So the actual true amount the university gives to athletics is ~26M. Still a lot of money, but it's not subsidizing the football program or MBB (It does subsidize the stadium/Hall center expansion debt, which is utilized by football program but not exclusively).
So to answer your question, the 26M the university provides goes to Stadium/Hall center debt, Facilities (Werblin/Campus gyms, fields, etc...), Women's BB (2M), and olympic sports. Cancelling FB tomorrow would lead to an increase in the subsidy by about 2M. Football is not the problem with the subsidy.
If RU wants to shrink the subsidy tomorrow, they could just adopt the book keeping practices of our peers. This would also make it a more fair comparison when evaluating how our athletics program stacks up in both regards to revenue and expenditure.
I was talking about this with Mrs. Screw at the Nebraska game and I believe that the money will flow once it is politically popular in New Jersey for supporting football at Rutgers. Too many RU alumni are less enthusiastic compared to alumni of Big 10 schools to commit large donations to athletics. Considering how the state press, politicians and many within RU frequently use RU athletics as a whipping boy, it's understandable that without enduring political support the alumni will not donate in a big enough way to be able to go out and get a top tier coach. Bob Mulcahy perhaps said it best - "In New Jersey we eat our young".
So, we are essentially in a financial Mexican standoff. How to break it? We need a strong political leader willing to promote Rutgers athletics as New Jersey's pride. Nebraskans love Nebraska football. Ohioans love Ohio State football despite the presence of two professional football teams in the state. Shouldn't that be the model we should try to copy?
Until the political tide turns somehow, we're just pipe dreaming.
If there is any sense left on this board this post will set a Rivals record for "Likes"
Yes, many of our posters are ranting and raving lunatics, no doubt.
On the other hand, that does not mean that having a rational discussion with reasonable and intelligent people as to their observations of Barchi's record, his quotes, and leadership ability isn't valid.
Barchi is a nice man, and an experienced small research college administrator. By all accounts he has done a good job with the Merger.
But we accepted membership into a conference whose charter says members will strive for excellence in athletics and academics. We are not in a conference with Georgetown or Thomas Jefferson University.
We need a leader who understands what being a president of a BIG 10 university is, and the benefits of investing in and competing in and athletics.
I am sick and tired of excuses..........
Barchi's job is about academics, not sports.......Wrong, we are in the BIG 10 and agreed to compete both academically and athletically. He needs to champion both causes.
Barchi has no say in anything.........Then save the 750k salary and let the BOG run the school.
NJ sucks.......................yes, they don't support Rutgers like other schools, but lets get our big donors and administration and go down to Trenton and let them know we are not quitting and we need help. Lesniak and the tax bill with the Practice facility is a good start.
The BOG will not fund anything and not raise the athletic budget one penny to invest in any infrastructure and only cares about lowering the subsidy...........Well get creative. Figure out a way to use some of the BIG money as it comes in for loan payments, how about a one for one match with donors. I give a dollar to the Build account, Rutgers puts in a dollar. Sick and tired of hearing RU will not spend $1 on infrastructure.
We have crappy fans who don't donate.........Love this one. Like the fans who have donated over a hundred million dollars in the last 5 years to athletics, and support a program that gives us little return are the problem.
Our fans suck, the school sucks, NJ sucks, the students suck, Barchi sucks, the BOG suck, Flood sucks, the chicken Fingers suck and we will never compete in the BIG 10..................Then lets switch places with UCONN, and go back to AAC. They sure as hell would do what is needed to compete, and we might have a chance to go to bowls with 7-5 records and Blow smoke up our asses while doing Pharell Williams Happy dances..................or...........Lets start taking steps to compete in the BIG10. Thats where I stand.
Last edited:
I believe this to be completely true. I think many don't understand the political component related to all things Rutgers. With the right NJ political support, Rutgers could do just about whatever they want. Without it, they can't FART without people having a problem with RU.
Awesome post.
You know how you make Rutgers politically popular? You win, at football. Fans in the northeast and especially New Jersey are frontrunners. How do you win? You invest in a head football coach the same way Duke did with Cutcliffe. When you have a respectable coach, you get the recruits. A good coach + good recruits = winning football games. When you start winning football games, you start getting the donors. When you get the donors, you get the money. When you get the money you get the facilities. And not just for football, for ALL sports. Pretty soon our subsidies are gone. It all starts with INVESTING AND SPENDING THE MONEY ON A HEAD FOOTBALL COACH.
Basketball is next and then the rest of the olympic sports but it all starts with football.
Thanks. We were on this track with Schiano and Mulcahy who understood the political aspect both within the university and the state. These guys had vision. And a lot of hurdles to remove. But, because of his slave driver work ethic, Schiano wasn't going to retain the successful coaches that he needed to get to the promised land of championships. Unfortunately, the Star Liar and other anti-Rutgers entities pounced on the football program and RU athletics at every opportunity after the shine of the 2006 season faded. The lies and misinformation spread by those actors was so bad I had to straighten out friends of mine at tailgates about how the stadium expansion was financed.
Tim Pernitti has been maligned, but in the aftermath of Schiano leaving he had but pocket change to make deals with and did not have the political pull of Bob Mulcahy. So, we got coach Flood because he fit the budget. And here we are.
Coach Flood is a good guy. He will not be a successful B1G head coach. Why? Mainly because he's a "player's coach". Very few "player's coaches" win championships. Dick Vermeil is the only one I can think of offhand who beat the odds. Players love "player's coaches" because they cut them a lot of slack. Like using cellphones at practices. Or listening to personal music during the Scarlet Walk. And young adults will naturally take advantage of that slack to explore their boundaries with less fear of reprisal. This season has demonstrated that. The player arrests (Carroo's aside) and the e-mail fiascoes are a consequence of that slack. No, Flood is not responsible for that stuff happening, but he likely would have prevented it by striking the fear of God in them over lesser transgressions. Coach Schiano did that. And it worked.
Or it would not have changed the starting QB. Norries took a time out at PSU so that Laviano would not have to miss a play after losing his helmet.
Good point. This is, more or less, the only current empirical data we have regarding Barchi and sports.
If the BOG are thinking about extending Barchi's contract as has been rumored, I would think they are satisfied with his work.
Can someone please list all of the causes that Barchi has done to make him this great President everyone claims he is? I keep reading this on this site but in vague detail. What has he actually done that wasn't already put in motion prior to his arrival? If this could be explained to everyone with some links perhaps, it might help somewhat.
First construction completed on College Ave since the Vietnam War for starters, with more to come over the next year.
Opening of an honors college.
Successful management of the mess that is the medical school merger
Successful reorientation of RU/Corporate and other research partnerships
I appreciate that, but again that is vague.
Was the Honors College planned before he got here? Where did the money come from?
Med School merger sounds like it was successful based on our credit rating not being horrific. But he was hired specifically for that.
What did he do with these partnerships that was grand?
Your questions would take a lot of time and effort to answer. I can put it this way.Since he as been here.
SAT admittance scores are the highest ever
Rankings have started to go back up instead of the steady decline.
Most new buildings and development since the 50's and 60's.
New master plan to reshape CA campus
New Med school successfully merged
Higher research funding, just put out today is this link, http://www.dailytargum.com/article/2015/11/rutgers-sees-increase-in-research-funding
highest fund raising in history
He was given a 10 year contract when he was hired. Those rumors are based on the assumption that he is leaving at the end of the 16-17 academic year as he has eluded to if the major goals he has are completed by then. His contract doesn't need to be extended.
Based on my (slender) experience with Barchi, you should not assume that he is dumb or otherwise not capable. He is not saying anything now because there's nothing appropriate to say now.
I'm not sure how you expect anything other than vague on an internet message board.
What kind of detail are you looking for? Perhaps you can give some examples from previous Rutgers' presidents, or from presidents of other universities.
I think it's great that the med school merger has gone well but that's why we hired him. Fundraising being up is great if it's from him, but is it from him? Didn't we just finish a gigantic fundraising initative that was launched when McCormick was here? Why are we now getting a better caliber student? What caused it?
I guess my whole point is that I keep reading posts saying he is a great President and IMO it's more of him getting credit for being the sitting President while things are developing (College Ave development, Honors College) that were set in motion prior to his arrival.
Maybe he is a great President compared to other RU Presidents. I wouldn't know, but he doesn't seem like this grand guy that people make him out to be when excusing his embarassing behavior when it comes to athletics.
I guess my whole point is that I keep reading posts saying he is a great President and IMO it's more of him getting credit for being the sitting President while things are developing (College Ave development, Honors College) that were set in motion prior to his arrival.
Maybe he is a great President compared to other RU Presidents. I wouldn't know, but he doesn't seem like this grand guy that people make him out to be when excusing his embarassing behavior when it comes to athletics.
Can I ask where you are getting these numbers? For the reporting year ended 6/30/15, Rutgers reported a total athletic budget of $65,125,833. Expenses broke down to $20mm for football, $9.25mm for basketball (m&w comb), just under $16mm for all other teams, plus another $20mm of "not allocated by gender/sport" expenses. Revenues broke out to $27mm for football, $10mm for hoops, both showing a profit, all other sports reporting revenue exactly matching expenses (which means they're subsidized) and another "not allocated" $12.3mm in revenue. These figures are from the DOE's Equiy in Athletics site. Now, obviously, numbers can be fudged but I've watched these reports for years, and typically when a line item on this report is losing money, the Athletic Department boosts the revenue figure with a direct subsidy so revenue and expense pair off. That's what I've observed Rutgers doing over the last seven or eight years in any event. Football never showed a $7mm profit in any past year that I recall.
My point is this- although the numbers Rutgers reports to the Federal Government for Title IX compliance won't show exactly how much and where the subsidies are, if they're reporting a $7mm profit for the football team, it's not because they're subsidizing football. I would also expect on the other hand that construction related debt servicing would be in the "not allocated" section if it's in this report at all and not treated as a capital expenditure or general debt obligation of the university itself.
So....if we spend an "acceptable" amount of $$$ on a new HC and staff, will everybody who has been bashing Barchi, et al, with the non-stop "he doesn't get it" and "all he wants is to be "revenue neutral" stuff, PLEASE, finally, shut up?
I don't know what's going to happen - I have my ideas - but man some of you have been BEYOND OUTSPOKEN about this topic.
I don't know what's going to happen - I have my ideas - but man some of you have been BEYOND OUTSPOKEN about this topic.
You are reading the numbers wrong. You can't use the DOE numbers to determine whether a sport is making a profit or not, because the numbers aren't reported that way. The football revenues (even if they are higher than expenses) can certainly include direct institutional support. Or not. There is absolutely no way to know from the DOE numbers.
Some may shut up. But there will be plenty who won't. There are still people out there pissed that Pernetti was fired. There are others who are connected to the university and bash Barchi because he is making changes elsewhere that might be great for the university but bad for them. And there are others who don't like the fact that he hired Hermann. And there are a whole bunch who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Neither. There is no term on his appointment. He serves indefinitely until he resigns or is fired. That is why he always says that he serves at the pleasure of the BOG.
Gotcha, thanks, I knew it wasn't 10, but I do remember him saying, when he was tired, something about "5 years and no longer," right?
I don't know if he said those exact words. But when he arrived at Rutgers he said things that implied he'd be here for 5 years.
But the BOG is very happy with him. And recently he has said things that imply that he plans to be here 5 years from now.
Y'all think Rutgers is unique and somehow dumb regarding the value of athletics ? What is Purdue spending ? NC State ? Colorado? Who's the Iowa State coach ? Increased expense doesn't increase winning. Look at Charlie Strong and Al Golden.
And no, football success wasn't responsible for increased applications. Applications were up at most NJ universities that year, and at greater rate increases than RU. It was the economy, stupid.
Frankly, it's stupid to accuse RU of not realizing sports value or spending enough. And what good would spending an additional 3-5 million a year do ? We'd still be a 5-7th place East division team almost every year. Barchi isn't wasting money on an arms race or football fantasy he will never win. Waste your own money, don't ***** about how he spends his money.
Sure, we needed to join the big ten for athletics relevance and bigger payouts but we did not join to compete for league titles. We're here to pad the records of the big time programs, as are half of the other schools in this conference and the other P5s. It is what it is.
Better to be us than Uconn or Utah state.
And no, football success wasn't responsible for increased applications. Applications were up at most NJ universities that year, and at greater rate increases than RU. It was the economy, stupid.
Frankly, it's stupid to accuse RU of not realizing sports value or spending enough. And what good would spending an additional 3-5 million a year do ? We'd still be a 5-7th place East division team almost every year. Barchi isn't wasting money on an arms race or football fantasy he will never win. Waste your own money, don't ***** about how he spends his money.
Sure, we needed to join the big ten for athletics relevance and bigger payouts but we did not join to compete for league titles. We're here to pad the records of the big time programs, as are half of the other schools in this conference and the other P5s. It is what it is.
Better to be us than Uconn or Utah state.
Yeah. I get that. But 20 mm is not a huge budget, and you don't want to be reporting a profit on a high profile team that you're giving direct subsidies to. In prior years, football revenue matched expenses to the dollar just like Olympic sports do in this reporting year.
In any event, my question is why this 47mm subsidy is being put forward on a 65mm budget?
- Rutgers' subsidy of athletics (roughly $26 million) might be the largest in the nation. That's money that could be used for other purposes. So I don't blame Barchi for wanting to end the subsidy over time. The question is whether increased investment would do that. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Rutgers to usually be much more than .500 in the B1G, but possibly there would be a revenue gain if we were.
When I get a chance I'll look for the details. But I think the $47 MM was from a few years ago when Rutgers had a lot of one-time costs related to exiting the BE and the Mike Rice affair. I think it dropped to $36 the following year.
From my recollection, FB and MBB turn a small profit. But there is a huge amount spent on non-sport-specific expenses. But a good argument can be made that some of those expenses should rightfully be allocated to MBB or FB. Or not. These are just accounting decisions in which there are a variety of acceptable answers.
But at the end of the day, at other P5 schools, FB and MBB generate much more revenue than they do at Rutgers. So regardless of accounting decisions, those other schools have athletic subsidies that are a fraction of Rutgers'.
Here is Rutgers' accounting of how Direct Institutional Support is allocated to each sport:
Here is Rutgers' accounting of how Student Fees are allocated to each sport.
This is from FY2014.