RU1000

bbran33

Redshirt
Sep 5, 2004
539
34
28
When I was at Rutgers in the late ’90s and early 2000s, there was this group called RU1000. They were against Rutgers going “big time.” They didn’t want the school chasing TV money or trying to be a major football program. They thought Rutgers should focus on academics and stay out of big-time athletics altogether.

Back then, I thought they were out of touch and thought they were lame . I loved the energy of big-time college sports and was thrilled when we eventually joined the Big Ten.

But now, looking at where we are , year after year struggling, I can’t help but wonder if they saw something the rest of us didn’t.

Were they right?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: -RUFAN4LIFE-

Anon1753438667

Sophomore
Jul 25, 2025
262
161
43
When I was at Rutgers in the late ’90s and early 2000s, there was this group called RU1000. They were against Rutgers going “big time.” They didn’t want the school chasing TV money or trying to be a major football program. They thought Rutgers should focus on academics and stay out of big-time athletics altogether.

Back then, I thought they were out of touch and thought they were lame . I loved the energy of big-time college sports and was thrilled when we eventually joined the Big Ten.

But now, looking at where we are , year after year struggling, I can’t help but wonder if they saw something the rest of us didn’t.

Were they right?

No…but what they did achieve was to divide the community and give rags like the Star ledger fodder to feed negative tabloid headlines about the program at a critical juncture in its growth.I still feel like the brand is trying to recover - can see this in NIL and the general apathy of the fan base (which should be way more engaged for a BIG school).
 

Shelby65

All-Conference
Apr 1, 2008
8,342
4,644
66
Adventure, get your facts straight.

No medical school ? First, there are two. Second, the merger was in the works long before the conference invite and had nothing to do with it. And free advertising? Do you know the Athletics budget ?

That group felt athletics drains resources from academics. It does, especially here where the subsidy for athletics is among the highest in the country.

For fans, Shelby included, it’s great that we’re in big time athletics. But that group wasn’t wrong. The university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports. The correct response is, ”yes, but so what”.

Many of the top universities (the AAU cohort) don’t have big time sports. AAU (RU admitted in 1989), cable TV market and the commitment to spend disproportionally on football at the expense of academics is what got us in the Big 10, and also at the expense of non-revenue sports.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Smols

Shelby65

All-Conference
Apr 1, 2008
8,342
4,644
66
Adventure, get your facts straight.

No medical school ? First, there are two. Second, the merger was in the works long before the conference invite and had nothing to do with it. And free advertising ? Do you know the Athletics budget ?

That group felt athletics drains resources from academics. It does, especially here where the subsidy for athletics is among the highest in the country.

For fans, Shelby included, it’s great that we’re in big time athletics. But that group wasn’t wrong. The university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports. The correct response is, ”yes, but so what”.

Many of the top universities (the AAU cohort) don’t have big time sports. AAU (RU admitted in 1989), cable TV market and the commitment to spend disproportionally on football at the expense of academics is what got us in the Big 10, and also at the expense of non-revenue sports.
 

-RUFAN4LIFE-

Heisman
Feb 28, 2015
32,300
50,467
113
When I was at Rutgers in the late ’90s and early 2000s, there was this group called RU1000. They were against Rutgers going “big time.” They didn’t want the school chasing TV money or trying to be a major football program. They thought Rutgers should focus on academics and stay out of big-time athletics altogether.

Back then, I thought they were out of touch and thought they were lame . I loved the energy of big-time college sports and was thrilled when we eventually joined the Big Ten.

But now, looking at where we are , year after year struggling, I can’t help but wonder if they saw something the rest of us didn’t.

Were they right?
Alumni/fan indifference towards athletics is a big reason why you are writing this.

The move to the B1G required large investments in facilities, better coaches, etc. for RU to catch up. Unfortunately, no big donors have stepped up with large donations since RU made the move.

The B1G Build Fund was a success by RU "standards" but pathetic by B1G standards. The minimum acceptable goal should have been $500m. Instead it topped out at $100m and that was with the state providing $25m. Many schools in the conference receive gifts from alumni, fans or former players in the $25-50m range. That's how State Penn started it's hockey program.

This indifference continued on into that current era with that dirty three letter word (NIL). A huge opportunity was missed here to cut the gap in football and other sports. Unfortunately the damage is done here as schools like Indiana, for example, had large money alums step up and they went to the CFP last year and are ranked again this season.

Unless large money donors step up, RU will not compete very well in a number of sports in this conference. Without those types of donors, RU will also run large deficits even with the TV money which is funding operations.

So while the RU1000's premise was old and outdated, the lack of support can lead people to feel like maybe they were right. The current AD and President have a monumental task ahead of them to get people to crack up their rusted wallets and get RU on an acceptable level of donations with the rest of the conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smols

Doctor Worm

Heisman
Feb 7, 2002
30,318
22,279
113
Adventure, get your facts straight.

No medical school ? First, there are two. Second, the merger was in the works long before the conference invite and had nothing to do with it. And free advertising? Do you know the Athletics budget ?

That group felt athletics drains resources from academics. It does, especially here where the subsidy for athletics is among the highest in the country.

For fans, Shelby included, it’s great that we’re in big time athletics. But that group wasn’t wrong. The university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports. The correct response is, ”yes, but so what”.

Many of the top universities (the AAU cohort) don’t have big time sports. AAU (RU admitted in 1989), cable TV market and the commitment to spend disproportionally on football at the expense of academics is what got us in the Big 10, and also at the expense of non-revenue sports.
Your premise that the university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports is highly debatable.

However, if true, how can "Yes, but so what?" possibly be the correct response?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdk02

-RUFAN4LIFE-

Heisman
Feb 28, 2015
32,300
50,467
113
Your premise that the university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports is highly debatable.

However, if true, how can "Yes, but so what?" possibly be the correct response?
If it's weaker than they should fire the underperforming academics and replace them or shutdown those departments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdventureHasAName

yesrutgers01

Heisman
Nov 9, 2008
122,347
38,102
113
Football got Rutgers into the B1G which is an elite educational conference.
sure, Rutgers could have stayed out of big time sports, but what would that have accomplished?
I swear- some of these idiots really don’t get it. 1) Our debt is always blamed on sports spend. - I would love to know that without sports and the B1G, how it would be any less while still being an elite school.
2) do they f-ing realize what being a part of the B1G really means to this school?

some of these posters just sound ignorant as F…
 
  • Love
Reactions: -RUFAN4LIFE-

mdk02

Heisman
Aug 18, 2011
26,672
18,961
113
If it's weaker than they should fire the underperforming academics and replace them or shutdown those departments.

Big no vote on any dept shutdown.

I wonder how Rutgers' annual giving matches up against the other Big 10 universities. Maybe the problem is the alums and the Development Office (current or historical).
 

-RUFAN4LIFE-

Heisman
Feb 28, 2015
32,300
50,467
113
I swear- some of these idiots really don’t get it. 1) Our debt is always blamed on sports spend. - I would love to know that without sports and the B1G, how it would be any less while still being an elite school.
2) do they f-ing realize what being a part of the B1G really means to this school?

some of these posters just sound ignorant as F…
Consider the forum you're posting on, some of these guys, like Shelby, are not even RU fans.
 

Shelby65

All-Conference
Apr 1, 2008
8,342
4,644
66
Your premise that the university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports is highly debatable.

However, if true, how can "Yes, but so what?" possibly be the correct response?

Your premise that the university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports is highly debatable.

However, if true, how can "Yes, but so what?" possibly be the correct

Your premise that the university is weaker in its primary objective (education) due to sports is highly debatable.

However, if true, how can "Yes, but so what?" possibly be the correct response?
Because the university chose to emphasize athletics more than in the past (which re-directs resources), and because more fans and alums care more about sports than academics.

Nothing wrong with it, but it is true. The Rutgers 1000 hoped for different priorities/balance.
 

yesrutgers01

Heisman
Nov 9, 2008
122,347
38,102
113
Big no vote on any dept shutdown.

I wonder how Rutgers' annual giving matches up against the other Big 10 universities. Maybe the problem is the alums and the Development Office (current or historical).
Rutgers has never figured out how to make Alumni a part of a long term family. That is tge real issue and it is groups like that and their shills that are a big part of the problem.
 

yesrutgers01

Heisman
Nov 9, 2008
122,347
38,102
113
Because the university chose to emphasize athletics more than in the past (which re-directs resources), and because more fans and alums care more about sports than academics.

Nothing wrong with it, but it is true. The Rutgers 1000 hoped for different priorities/balance.
The good thing is that our Rutgers education is proven superior daily when we hear crap from Cuse guys like yourself…
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdk02

mdk02

Heisman
Aug 18, 2011
26,672
18,961
113
Rutgers has never figured out how to make Alumni a part of a long term family. That is tge real issue and it is groups like that and their shills that are a big part of the problem.

Those groups are clearly part of the problem, but the roots go back 60-70 years.
 

Shelby65

All-Conference
Apr 1, 2008
8,342
4,644
66
The good thing is that our Rutgers education is proven superior daily when we hear crap from Cuse guys like yourself…
Didn’t say it’s not a good education. Said pressing the thumb on the athletics side of the scale more than before does weaken it. Not recognizing that shows ignorance.

Subsidy.