Rutgers University has seen a 262.55 (percent change in dollars) from 2015-2023 for total compensation for their football staff
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
OKā¦now do the % increase in revenue from conference payout for that same period.
How can there be an attendance increase when every game has been a sellout since 1994 ?
And where do they stand in total salary for Football against all of Big Ten? Isn't that increase a product of being so f-ing cheap going back to the day I walked onto the campus as a student in 1979.
Weren't we paying Flood a bargain basement salary in 2015?
I mean that, the inflow of B1G $$$, 10 years time elapse, post Covid inflation? 262% doesn't sound cazy.
I mean that, the inflow of B1G $$$, 10 years time elapse, post Covid inflation? 262% doesn't sound cazy.
Exactly. He was paid $750k as head coach of Rutgers. His salary as a Offensive Line Coach today is $1.4 million.
This was a really dumb thread.
Yup. When Pernetti went to replace Schiano, the BOG basically shackled him by keeping what he could pay a HC under $1 mil. And the assistant coaches salary pool was minuscule.
Here are actual football coach and football staff compensation figures for fiscal 2023 for all 16 public B1G schools. Figures for 2024 are are available for Rutgers. In 2024, Rutgers coaches and football staff hauled in $28,133,212. While numbers for all B1G schools are not available yet, I don't expect Rutgers to move up the rankings. Football program hyperinflation is happening across the power conferences.
Of course data going back to 1979 is not available. The fact is 2.0 football salaries cannot objectively called, "so f-in cheap." Greg 2.0 has all the $$ he needs for his staff and then some.
1 Ohio State $28,267,940
2 Michigan $26,658,364
3 Penn State $24,047,741
4 Rutgers $22,257,746
5 Michigan State $22,150,696
6 Iowa $21,443,220
7 Oregon $19,326,956
8 Wisconsin $18,847,243
9 Minnesota $17,799,387
10 Washington $16,922,430
11 Nebraska $16,684,289
12 UCLA $15,755,289
13 Illinois $15,549,228
14 Indiana $13,467,899
15 Maryland $13,380,006
16 Purdue $13,310,659
I donāt think anyone says we are so f-ing cheap anymore. $$$ for coaches is no longer an issue.
And it is a big part of our improvement.
Now, some may question the choice of coaches now that we have $$$ but that is something different
Data is available since Schiano 1.0. Certainly since joining the Big Ten. What was the teams coaching/support staff comparison back then. Funny how you skipped it. Too lazy? Or just an agenda against Schiano?
Please point to the data going back to 2001, the debut of 1.0. I will very upset with myself if coach and support staff compensation data exists going back 24 years and I missed it.
Not lazy and no agenda against Greg. He is the logical head coach for Rutgers football.
I will follow up with you on the 1.0 data.
Separately, how is Rutgers football staff compensation in the early 2000s relevant today?
Seriously, you don't know? Simple math. If you start at the bottom and finally invest it's easy to have 262% increase. A totally misleading stat.
What is it that I don't know?
Please understand I am not defending the tweet contained in the original post. The tweet reads like AI wrote it. No context is given to explain why 2015 was chosen as the starting point. I suspect the reason is the earliest Rutgers athletics department financial report available on the internet is 2015.
Anyway, my request is, "Please point to the data going back to 2001, the debut of 1.0."
You're the one requesting data. I already know we entered the Big Ten with one of the lowest paid HC in the Big Ten if not the lowest. That came from Rutgers administration back then.
My point from the start is the stupid headline of 262.55%. It looks like many people fell for that.
It was suggested I was lazy so I am requesting the data you insist exists. If the data does not exist - and you simply imagined its existence or lied - just come clean and retract your statement. I do not appreciate being slurred and will continue to press for a response to your assertions.
To be clear, I agree the headline was lousy. Tango Two must do better.
Of course 1.0's comp was less than 2.0's. Back then, Greg was a Big East coach. Today, Greg is a B1G coach.
Yeah, but we don't have a field house with gold plated toilets. Al says that's necessary for us to be successful!
@Fat Koko posted it above (and got jumped all over for no reason.
We were #4 in 2023 football coach salary pool It seems.
Just go back yourself and start at 2015 as the article suggested. Obviously the data is there if you really need the data.
Imagine it's existence?? Most Rutgers fans have lived through that existence until recently. I don't need any numbers. We all know that the Flood hiring was to save money! That was imagined??
I'm glad you agree with the issue of the % as it was my main point all along. Terrible article as it comes off as a knock to Rutgers spending, when in fact we are finally catching up.
I have to question the veracity of the numbers. From a quick search Iowa's site posted $14.42 mil. base salary for on the field coaches in 2023. Rutgers site posted $11.71 million for on the field coaches. Yet his numbers don't account for the $10.54 mil in Rutgers case nor the $7 mil. discrepancy for Iowa.
Where is this extra money he's reporting going and how is it being reported? It's not for on the field coaches, I highly doubt we pay a support staff almost the same as on the field coaches. Is all the reporting the same? Have we had any coaches in football we're paying for that were fired? I thought the last one to be paid off was Gleason and his contract was complete. There has to be more to the story than the numbers he's posting (reporting discrepancies). It's either that, someone's embezzling money or it's straight from a USA Today article.
Last edited:
Sadly it is something that EVERY other P4 school already has & also most mid majors have, yet Rutgers does not.
Thank you for asking about the veracity of my numbers.
The NCAA in its "agreed upon procedures" requires each athletics department to create and submit audited financial statements certified by the university's leader. The procedures are meant to ensure uniform accounting of athletic department revenues and expenses, along with other non-financial data.
In the numbers I posted above, let's use the top spender, Ohio State, as an example. Ohio State produced a 2023 athletics department financial statement in line with the NCAA's agreed upon procedures. Here it is.
Go to page 97.
In the football column, one will observe football coaches compensation of $21,812,341 and football staff compensation of $6,455,599. The total is $28,267,940. This is the amount shown in post #9 of this thread.
Could you point me to the source of your numbers?
Sure, look up Iowa football coaching salaries for 2023, add them up for all the on field coaches and head coach ($14.42 mil.), then do the same for Rutgers ($11.71 mil). It was a simple task. So, by whoever's accounting we spend more than OSU $6.5 mil, compared to Rutgers at $10.5 mil. in off the field staff. I find this highly suspicious.
No just one Throne....
btw they article..so accurate, says we have $100mm from the state for the fieldhouse. WRONG. It was split between that and the yet and counting RAC upgrade, no?
My view is the $100 million many got excited about never actually existed. I explained why here.
Where did you get the idea there was $100 million and it would be split between the fieldhouse and RAC upgrade?
First, where did you get the $14.42m and $11.71m figures?
Please note I explained with precision where I got my numbers. Plus, I provided a link to the source.
On the next point, Rutgers and Ohio State both list their coaches and support staff on their football websites.
To be clear, in the accounting the schools use, the football head coach and top 10 football assistants are counted as coaches. The dozens of other coaches and support staff are all counted as support staff.
Rutgers support staff headcount = 79.
Ohio State support staff headcount = 50.
Nothing is suspicious if one looks at the details. Greg just has a massive amount of people working for him.
Let's see if the next athletic director takes a look at this.
I actually commented on the size of the football staff awhile ago. It seemed very large. I never compared it to any other school but it being 1.5x what OSU has suggests there could be a trimming if funds are needed elsewhere. Of course he will never stand for it. This is not a Rutgers specific problem but a college athletics general spending problem. Particularly in revenue generating sports. Now with players wanting an ever increasing slice of the pie, everyone thinks it is a revenue generation issue and seems to ignore the spending side. While Schiano appears to making a good effort to raise funds to pay players he should still be held accountable for the expense side. The Sean Gleeson like hires were very costly.
It used to be easy to distinguish between on field and support staff since there were limits on how many positional coaches who could recruit off campus there could be. Now, while there may be some sort of limits on position coaches who recruits and who doesn't seems to be more of "at any point in time" limit rather than assigned permanently to individuals. We have been hearing for several years what a good recruiter Vallone is but he has only had a full time position assignment for a year or so.
This is now proliferating into basketball where the number of individuals wearing coaches attire on the bench is coming close to the number suited up to play. The answer from the universities will likely be to add more scholarship players.
Let's face it University systems in general would probably not fare well if someone took a really hard look at what they spend their money on. Yet when do such scrutinizing reviews ever take place?
Because that is what I recall reading both here and multiple sources. And I just googled and got many of those same original articles (however I didn't see or spend any time trying to find the one or one's that said 50/50).
I did come across your Thread though and hadn't seen that before as I was off premium for most of the football season. Didn't realize it went away or vanished or whatever it is being called. That would certainly explain some things.
"By
In a deal quietly hammered out last week, New Jersey leaders agreed to earmark $100 million in taxpayer money to Rutgers University in the upcoming state budget to help fund the renovation of the state schoolās aging basketball arena and kick-start a multimillion-dollar indoor football practice facility, NJ Advance Media has learned."
Last edited:
Rutgers Football has a lot of education people to assist players, with many who visit the Hale Center. It's why Rutgers is always near the top of the APR scoring. At other schools that program can be under Education vs Athletics cost. Similar to stadium/arena cost other schools put those costs under the facilities bucket.
If I was new to our country I would find this kind of spend on a football team (nominally connected to a university) freaking insane.
Define insane.
People pay $15/$20 at sporting events for a single can of beer. That's insane to me but the long lines tell me I'm wrong.
I commented on this last month. University College London where I did a junior year program offers 70 sports and athletic director is student earning $40,000. I played on the soccer teams and attendance at home games was zero, or in US accounting, 25 - each teamās 11 players, the referee, and the two kids the ref got to volunteer as line refs.
Imagine somebody visiting student accommodation at a warm weather school in US and seeing students lounging poolside outside their dorm.
That structure makes a whole lot more sense than what we have here. And In D3 there are actually student athletes.
back in 2004 when we were doing OV's- the athletic facilities at GaTech was insane. Their on-campus hotel was also state of the art.
It's funny, during the Rutgers OV- we all went into NYC ESPN Zone and when we all got back to the hotel, GS had booked a separate suite for parents which served booze and finger foods. But nothing all that fancy. Though, the lunch buffet they had was insane. Lobster, prime rib, oysters, etc...
At GaTech- the party for parents was insane. After the night out with players(Which as a huge dinner at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse - entire menu was available and order as many as you want) They had the entire Hotel Bar as a private party with top shelf and BBQ and lobster tails for the parents.
The cash dropped at schools is crazy for big time sports.
At University College London, we had to get our own shirt sponsor. Was a topless bar or bikini bar, don't remember exactly. Anyway, use your imagination for the sponsor image on the shirts. When I asked to take one back to US as a souvenir, I was told no, the shirt was needed for the next season. I could've nicked it but had to much respect for the guys.
The one particular spend that drives me crazy is how the entire team and staff spend summer camp for 3 weeks at the Embassy Suites and then buses over to RU facilities each day. 150 people times what $$ per night when they just as soon could stay in their dorms or homes. Spitballing it that must be $20-$40k a day times 20 days. Absurd waste.
G = Government, R = Rutgers
Looks like we should establish a DOGE like effort and call it the Athletic DORE ā¦ ADORE sounds catchy
Looks like we should establish a DOGE like effort and call it the Athletic DORE ā¦ ADORE sounds catchy