OT: Fiscal year 2023 audited financial statements for Rutgers athletics
- Thread starter Fat Koko
- Start date
Do the allocation however you want and break it down by sport.
How does the university allocate renovations to other university buildings?
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Yes, media rights revenue would favor football. Is that Football's fault?
Simple question - who should be funding Rutgers Athletics?
The sports themselves? What about sports that can't fund themselves?
Rutgers University via subsidies? If so, should there be a limit on annual funding?
Also wouldn't give you the "nerd" tag. I have the 2018 CSS Rutgers Athletics report downloaded on my phone for quick reference. I've repeatedly corrected people that said we had a delayed "Big Ten Conference buy in" which isn't true. We were paying for an equity stake in the Big Ten Network corporation (we've been a full member since the beginning and receiving a full share since the beginning - however part of the share was allocated towards that equity stake purchase).
Recruiting travel expenses, at least for football, are paid by donors. I know this for a fact.
Not busting your chops, but what exactly are you trying to prove or do?
I had no idea Stockton had lacrosse. Our son considered Stockton, among others, for physician assistant. They have a new health science building and we really liked the campus and proximity to Atlantic City. We also liked the price. He chose a small private college in Connecticut. But they won the Frozen Four last year, defeating Minnesota. So, it was worth the extra tuition.
Exactly.
Get rid of football tomorrow and the "subsidy" doesn't disappear. It increases as the non-revenue sports have to justify themselves.
The reason expenses (and revenues) are pooled by the Athletic Department isn't to save face for Football/Basketball.
It's the save face for the other non-revenue sports.
If it said "the volleyball team spent $X on travel and baseball spent $Y on travel" then it put an actual amount that Rutgers (and taxpayers) are paying.
No idea why the department keeps letting Football/Basketball be the "boogeyman" for spending on non-revenue sports.
Do the donor payments include hotels and meals? Rutgers spends millions on football recruitment including the rooms and food.
Last year, volleyball spent $323,310 on team travel and baseball spent $746,838 on team travel. These programs lose some money.
Volleyball and baseball do not explain the 8 digit losses the athletics department does each year.
Where are you getting this "millions" from? Do you have a link?
I don't have an exact number for the donations. I know what my exact number is, but that is irrelevant to the amount donated to the fund in total and the cost for recruiting travel.
We are no longer paying our buy-in, we are repaying loans.
Nothing to do with our attorneys, we just did not have as strong a bargaining position.
Hi Knight Shift, Rutgers athletics creates an audited financial report certified by Jonathan Holloway. The 2023 report shows Rutgers spent $2,477,389 on football recruiting. Ask Rutgers for it and they will send it to you. A link to the report does not exist.
Here is some quick math. Rutgers fields 27 sports teams that compete in NCAA division I. Going to guess that Women's Volleyball may be one of the least expensive to travel. But let's take your number and multiple by 27 for a conservative number. That's $8,729,370.
The only two sports that provide significant revenue in terms of media rights and ticket sales are football and men's basketball. That's a fact. That's not a knock on the non-revenue sports. 25 sports create expenses of over $8M.
Again, where are you going with this?
My modest proposal is that if we are going to go down this road:
1. Ban all non-revenue sports, and only keep sports that are revenue neutral.
2. Disband all clubs, glee club, arts, social events, intramural athletics.
3. Only offer classes, laboratories and libraries. That would be a fun college experience, wouldn't it?
What are AD losses? You mean AD expenses?
Who should be responsible for those expenses? The university, correct?
Are you proposing that football and basketball make up the majority of the Unviversity athletic expenses?
You said in a prior post that it’s foolish to try and allocate revenues/expenses to specific sports.
Seems that’s what you are implying now though.
OK. And Rutgers football is largely responsible for the $70-80 million in media rights. Let's be conservative. Six home games last year sold 30,000 tickets at $40/ticket. That's $7,200,000 in revenue right there. It takes spending money to make money.
The circular argument is laughable.
"Rutgers spends too much on atheltics. $28m!!"
"Ok, lets cut the sports that are costing money and bring in minimal revenue"
"Well....no.....keep those sports. Take the money away from the sports that are making money"
"If keeping those sports is important to the University, then give more money to pay for them."
"Well they aren't that important. Keep all the same expenses but do it on less revenue. We don't want to actually fund."
"So you want it but you don't want to pay for it? So who should pay for it?
"There are sports that generate revenue. Take that revenue and spread it out more."
"Punish the sports who are generating money? Take it from them? But they need that revenue to break even themselves and fund their sports. If you take away their money then they'll generated even less. Causing even more losses. Then we'll need more money from the University."
"No more money. Rutgers spends too much on athletics....."
Are you saying millions are spent on rooma and food? Or just insinuating cause it looks more provocative?
The problem with these "attacks" on the decifict is they obscure the real issues regarding AD spending.
The amount being spent by the AD isn't a problem. It's how they are spending that needs to be carefully monitored.
The AD needs to clean up their spending. We all agree that compared to peers in the Big Ten, we are at an overall deficit (combination of conference revenue, gameday revenue, dononations) that we are unlikely to ever overcome.
So we need to spend smarter than everyone else.
For example, $75k spent on DoorDash.
Contract extensions that turn into buyouts (Flood, Ash - luckily this seems to be over for now but it was still money wasted).
The amount being spent by the AD isn't a problem. It's how they are spending that needs to be carefully monitored.
The AD needs to clean up their spending. We all agree that compared to peers in the Big Ten, we are at an overall deficit (combination of conference revenue, gameday revenue, dononations) that we are unlikely to ever overcome.
So we need to spend smarter than everyone else.
For example, $75k spent on DoorDash.
Contract extensions that turn into buyouts (Flood, Ash - luckily this seems to be over for now but it was still money wasted).
BS. How many teams are there? Add in cost of scholarships, equipment, facilities, coaching salaries, recruiting, insurance etc. for each team and it feels in the range of 28 mil give or take.
And again with the misleading budget numbers telling half the story. You are a really egregious fact/data cherry picker.
Seems like Rutgers 1000 is now disguised as fat koko.
The president of this university understands that the athletic department is going to run a deficit. And he is not only ok with it but has a complete understanding of the benefits of big time college sports and our membership in the B1G provides us. That $28M is money well spent when you consider all of the pluses that the athletics department provides this university.
Rutgers way behind it's peers.
Going to up my donation and mention to Greg we need to spend more on recruiting travel so we don't fall behind further.
Here's the key takeaway from this thread: when someone claims to have read financial disclosure documents, its completely unrelated to their ability to (a) understand the content, or (b) make sound logical arguments.
Hahah. I had a great time at Stockton and as a bio major really enjoyed being in the woods and by the shore.I had no idea Stockton had lacrosse. Our son considered Stockton, among others, for physician assistant. They have a new health science building and we really liked the campus and proximity to Atlantic City. We also liked the price. He chose a small private college in Connecticut. But they won the Frozen Four last year, defeating Minnesota. So, it was worth the extra tuition.
Rutgers way behind it's peers.
Going to up my donation and mention to Greg we need to spend more on recruiting travel so we don't fall behind further.
Chump change…in 5 years…these numbers will be average…with many top programs reaching $10M on recruiting. Either you keep up (like fully employing the portal) or get left behind. This was A&Ms big problem…recruited very well, but portaled poorly, because of an old and resistant to change relic. To Sabans credit in Bama, for example, he adapted well as did many other successful coaches.
I would have to look for the thread but the OP thought we played Michigan State at MSG because we were kicked out of the RAC for a high school tourney.
The reason for the revenue is Football and men’s Basketball. If u want to cut the deficit u would have to weed out the non revenue sports which would be all the woman’s sports with the exception of basketball. Would that make u happy ?
Almost every Rutgers sports excluding Rutgers football and basketball, cost average about $1.5 million with female basketball costing $5 million. Take out men BB and football, the 26 other sports X 1.5 million equals $39 million.
oh, get rid of all sports teams at Camden and Newark and you probably save another 7-10 million. We should also get rid of all majors that are not profitable like West Virginia. All colleges will eventually move in this direction. Capitalism at its best.
Why isn’t there any analysis of the cost of high school sports and eliminating them to reduce property taxes? Add the school band in there.
Last edited:
You have totally convinced me that RUTGERS should walk away from the B1G and join the Colonial Conference.
This is why donors, boosters and NIL is so important moving forward
It will literally be the lifeblood of our program
See below re. Texas's recruiting weekend
If we hope to be elite, this is what we're competiting against
Inside the Texas spending blitz that hooked Arch Manning and a No. 2 recruiting class
Tomahawk steaks, Four Seasons and Lady Bird Lake tour part of the Longhorns' 48-hour, nearly $280,000 whirlwind weekend.
theathletic.com
Sorry even worse it was a children's gymnastics meet that we got kicked out for!!
fyi, your 2022 operating loss is understated per Northjersey.com. Their analysis published feb 2023 shows a MAJOR reduction in Athletic Operating loss and back to 2015/2016 levels! MINUS 47% !! (ASSUMING YOUR 2023 numbers are correct)
Losses = Revenue - Expenses.
-$28.0 = $125.5 - $153.5
My point of view is Rutgers athletics should live within its means, $125.5 million of revenue last year.
Thank you for posting this. I do not know how northjersey.com calculates the losses. I use the #s Rutgers athletics provides to the NCAA that are audited by KPMG and certified by Jonathan Holloway.fyi, your 2022 operating loss is understated per Northjersey.com. Their analysis published feb 2023 shows a MAJOR reduction in Athletic Operating loss and back to 2015/2016 levels! MINUS 47% !! (ASSUMING YOUR 2023 numbers are correct)
On northjersey.com's figures, Rutgers athletics lost nearly half a billion over the past 9 years.
Your position is that Rutgers University should not spend any money on intercollegiate athletics at all. That would make Rutgers the only NJ college or university that does not spend any money on intercollegiate athletics.
You mean it spent the money, right? You wouldn’t describe the English department, or the human resources department, which both cost money, as having been responsible for “losses”.
Which other departments and functions at Rutgers would you say should also live within their means? Should we cut all of them? Of course, you realize that’s ridiculous, and the university would cease to function because that’s not a reasonable stance to take.
Rutgers University shouldn't fund athletics? Okay. Thats a bold proposal.
Should the Athletic DDepartment feel free to cut non-revenue sports to "live within its means"?
It only makes sense to prioritize revenue generating activities and deprioritize non-revenue activities.