The Attacks Never Stop

[Letitrip]

The NJ media does this to give the impression to their shrinking reader/viewing bases that they are real news media. It looks like investigative reporting - but in reality it is not. If they wanted to really investigate corruption that has meaningfully impacted the states taxpayers they would have been all over the American Dream mess for the last 30 years - but turning over those skeletons will lead to actual connected NJ elites - cant have that.

As an aside - I never clicked that link

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

I have experienced the exact same thing. When I tell them I'm an RU football fan, I usually get a remark like "it's costing us so much taxpayer money". I also get comments like "if only we could spend less on football, Rutgers would become better academically".

My reply to them is that football actually makes a profit. The reason the athletic budget needs a subsidy is because of non-revenue sports. Every time I explain this, it is news to them. Even fellow alumni. I think this is the main point we need to get across.

(EDIT: Are NJ.com and the S-L pretty much the same thing these days? I dunno.. I say NJ.com a lot in my response but maybe it should be Star-Ledger.)

Ask them if they support Title IX.. do it this way.. when they complain about Rutgers athletic budget and spending.. accuse them of not supporting women and Title IX.

Then, after you shock them, explain how the money spent is only there because of the sports. IF you did not spend it on sports it would not exist. So you cannot just move it to academics. Then ask if they donate to any state university academics funds.

Also.. what is the state's total support of the state's flagship university? Its like $400M right? That's $50 a year for every resident to have a flagship state university serve the state in any number of ways.

The Proposed 2023 Budget should $224M for Rutgers NB... and including all other entities, $485M. So, for New Brunswick, where athletics largely are, that's less than $25 per resident.. for everything including athletics.

Ask them if they want their $25 back.

In 2016, New Jersey's total spending was something like $60B. The current $224M is much less than 1/2 of 1% of Rutgers overall spending.. for the state's flagship state U.. and that spending is probably going to be well over $60B in 2023. (EDIT: my source siting $60B in 2016 seems weird.. the projected amount in the FY2023 budget I found later says it will be about $48B)

Last thing: the title.. RU $100M, Taxpayers $0.. total BS.. here's why:
1) the $100M is a small portion of the pool of money that $100M was taken from..$3.44B.. So it could be RU $100M, Taxpayers $3.34B.. or, if you want to think of it as part of FY23 NJ budget.. it is $100M of nearly $49B.. that's Rutgers $100M, taxpayers $48.9B (nearly)
2) the pool of money is NOT provided solely by current NJ taxpayers. That is, this is that CoVid money that was given to NJ(though such funds are fungible, NJ would be underwater without that CoVid money providing us a surplus.. the surplus was not because of belt-tightening and good management). That money was just printed,, created out of thin air and will be paid by future taxpayers of the United States as a whole or just be part of that ever-expanding National Debt that will be booted down the road forever.
3) that NJ.com title could have been RU $100M, taxpayers of California, $0... and that is probably a bit more true since that state provides more of the total tax revenues compared to New Jersey.

All that goes to support the OP's point... any of the angles I mentioned could be used to tell the same story that the NJ.com pice did... but NJ.com CHOSE the worst angle for Rutgers. They CHOSE it despite it being a false narrative.

They even assigned a job to their cartoonist to produce a supporting cartoon. What douchebags.... no.. that's not harsh enough.. they are worse than douchebags.. they are enemas.

 

[RU#1fan]

I lit them up on their Facebook site. F NJ.com

 

[srru86]

(EDIT: Are NJ.com and the S-L pretty much the same thing these days? I dunno.. I say NJ.com a lot in my response but maybe it should be Star-Ledger.)

Ask them if they support Title IX.. do it this way.. when they complain about Rutgers athletic budget and spending.. accuse them of not supporting women and Title IX.

On the Edit: NJ.com is the Star Ledger which is Advance Publications. It's all owned by Newhouse clan who are major Syracuse boosters. The same functionally. There is no editorial daylight between them.

Besides all the good points about the minuscule amount of money in terms of NJ budget we're talking about that isn't going to football the Title IX issue is big. We should be asking the Star Ledger and the doubters which teams shall we cut? Ledger was bemoaning Mulchay program cuts years after he had been pushed out. They talk out both sides of their mouths.

All the current $300 mil in the State budget is for capital building. Buildings that will be owned by the State at the State University. Not going to Greg's salary.

The entire Athletics spend is a few percentage points of the University budget. The University "subsidy" they like to talk about is mostly for women's programs that generate no revenue. To be fair if we only keep the programs that generate cash then any men's in that position should go also. That won't leave much.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

The attacks stop when we win--it changes the mood and the perspective, even of the local media.

Not really. The hatchet jobs multiplied after the Insight Bowl appearance in 2005 and the magical 2006 season. The attacks eventually ran Mulcahy out on a rail. Winning didn't change the mood and perspective then, and it won't change it now. The only thing that will change it is not giving them oxygen. Unfortunately, the contempt for college athletics in NJ provides that oxygen.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

... The University "subsidy" they like to talk about is mostly for women's programs that generate no revenue. To be fair if we only keep the programs that generate cash then any men's in that position should go also. That won't leave much.

I think the NCAA guidance to be considered an FBS program includes having 16 sports... so there is a bottom limit to the cutting. But the point is sound. Football is largely why there is a Big Ten conference at all, and why it generates so much money. Without football, we would not be in the Big Ten and, without football, Syracuse would not be in the ACC. Drop football and those 85 schollies and how many women's sports get shut down? Would there be anything outside Men's basketball (and matching Women's basketball)? That pair might be revenue neutral. What conference would they play in? Patriot?

If we do not properly invest in football, in what should we invest? If we do not invest and we become a complete non-competitive laughingstock, maybe we will have no future in any major conference. We have already seen stories, and idiotic suggestions, about this conference realignment BS resulting in us getting kicked out of the Big Ten. Fail even to try to compete.. fail to invest in football.. and maybe that becomes a real possibility. Maybe that is what the Syracuse sycophants at the Star-Ledger are really all about.

Have some state pride, New Jersey. Rutgers University is one of the best things that New Jersey tax dollars help out. And it provides educational opportunities to New Jersey kids in a major, major way... actually harming its various rankings and ratings to do so (among other issues taking more in-state kids and disadvantaged kids than equivalent flagship state Us in other states). Many of the oft-mocked flyover states find ways to directly support SEVERAL FCS athletics and football programs among their state universities. But to New Jersey's "paper of record", one such program in New Jersey is too much for the children of New Jersey's taxpayers.

 

[runrutgersrun]

I've been avoiding this thread all week because I already need BP meds for reasons non-RU lol. However, reading another chapter of this never-ending drivel from infantile, lazy "reporters" that are allowed to spout off nonsense without responsibility or reasonable research is a major part of what is wrong with this world. I am a member of a family of relatives and "friends" who are otherwise very intelligent. However, Rutgers sports expenditures will set many of them off majorly. Every story over the years like, maybe, elementary students in South Jersey needing to buy their own pencils and pens because the local school system cannot afford supplies, can/is blamed on Rutgers sports!!! A close, young relative, whom I love, went to college (in NJ, not Rutgers) and studied journalism at first, years ago now. I showed him a non-Rutgers sports article in the Asbury Park Press once that was so slanted and one-sided that I thought I would ask him for his somewhat expert opinion of the article. He read it and laughed at me. He said it was not really that necessary to have the complete truth...it was not worth writing an article unless it pissed off at least two of the involved parties! He had a journalism teacher that taught students/future reporters this way! So we have the Ledger, et. al. with the Syracuse Syndicate running the content there, this the-truth-is not-the point attitude being taught in journalism school and a general self-loathing, let's-blame-anyone-but-me self image of a good part of the resident population here in NJ. Rutgers sports fights all of this - in addition to the well-intentioned university President who years ago declared he thought it was a good idea for Rutgers to go 'bigger time' in sports...without having a plan, the resources or political connections to help make this happen. The venerable Eagleton96 of these forums (I believe, sir) stirred up quite a few of us to the point of taking out an editorial ad in an issue of the Star-Ledger QUITE a few years ago now in an effort to get some pro-Rutgers information into that rag. I think I asked quite a few of my family members to read it...most got glazed-over looks in their eyes and didn't even finish reading the article. One nephew said, "Good job, Uncle Rutgers". I hope I am wrong, but I don't believe the article created much pro-RU reaction at that time. And, the RU vs. NJ song remains the same even now. This is what we have to continue to fight against. On my best days, I am happy to say that we have fought our way to the B1G...to anybody...even if they're laughing at me! Thank you TKR and all my friends here at Cheers for letting me carry on this long and self-regulate my blood pressure!!! Continue the fight, Brethren...it will never end lol. Screw 'em all....GO RU!

 

[Knight Shift]

This story popped up on Twitter again. When do they start building the fieldhouse?

 

[RUnTeX]

I think the NCAA guidance to be considered an FCS program includes having 16 sports...

I think you meant FBS which requires 16 varsity sports. FCS and non-football playing schools are allowed a minimum of 14 sports.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

I had not read @runrutgersrun post just above until this thread got necro-bumped recently because of yet another renewal of the attacks.

I think his post is very good but suffers from that wall of text thing.. so I asked ChatGPT to copy edit and format it into paragraphs. Here is the result (THE BOLD AND COLOR HIGHLIGHT IS MINE):

*****

I've been avoiding this thread all week because I already need BP meds for reasons unrelated to RU, lol. However, reading another chapter of this never-ending drivel from infantile, lazy "reporters" who are allowed to spout off nonsense without responsibility or reasonable research is a major part of what is wrong with this world.

I am a member of a family and group of "friends" who are otherwise very intelligent. However, Rutgers sports expenditures set many of them off majorly. Every story over the years, like elementary students in South Jersey needing to buy their own pencils and pens because the local school system cannot afford supplies, is blamed on Rutgers sports.

A close, young relative, whom I love, went to college (in NJ, not Rutgers) and studied journalism at first, years ago now. I once showed him a non-Rutgers sports article in the Asbury Park Press that was so slanted and one-sided that I asked him for his somewhat expert opinion. He read it and laughed at me. He said it wasn't really necessary to have the complete truth...it wasn't worth writing an article unless it pissed off at least two of the involved parties! He had a journalism teacher that taught students/future reporters this way!

So we have the Ledger, et al. with the Syracuse Syndicate running the content there, this "the-truth-is-not-the-point" attitude being taught in journalism school, and a general self-loathing, "let's-blame-anyone-but-me" self-image of a good part of the resident population here in NJ.

Rutgers sports fights against all of this, in addition to the well-intentioned university President who years ago declared he thought it was a good idea for Rutgers to go "bigger time" in sports...without having a plan, the resources, or political connections to help make this happen.

The venerable Eagleton96 of these forums (I believe, sir) stirred up quite a few of us to the point of taking out an editorial ad in an issue of the Star-Ledger quite a few years ago now, in an effort to get some pro-Rutgers information into that rag. I think I asked quite a few of my family members to read it...most got glazed-over looks in their eyes and didn't even finish reading the article. One nephew said, "Good job, Uncle Rutgers." I hope I am wrong, but I don't believe the article created much pro-RU reaction at that time. And the RU vs. NJ song remains the same even now. This is what we have to continue to fight against.

On my best days, I am happy to say that we have fought our way to the B1G...to anybody...even if they're laughing at me! Thank you, TKR, and all my friends here at Cheers for letting me carry on this long and self-regulate my blood pressure!!! Continue the fight, brethren...it will never end, lol. Screw 'em all...GO RU!

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

I think you meant FBS which requires 16 varsity sports. FCS and non-football playing schools are allowed a minimum of 14 sports.

Thanks.. edited my post above.

Here's the bottom like.. 9M people in NJ. They can't afford $10 a piece per year to sponsor all their State University's sports programs? That's 84 cents a month.

Really.. is it worth the aggravation for them to even think about "wasting" 84 cents a month? And that is if there is a $90M deficit each year.. which there is not.

 

[RU4Real]

They know it's ********. They know because they have guys like Politi on the payroll who, like him or not, knows that it's ******** and has certainly explained it to everyone.

They make **** up and print it because it's what they think their readers will pay for. There's no remedy other than to simply not read anything that nj.com publishes.

 

[yesrutgers01]

No one writes how much being a part of the B1G has benefited the University. Research grants, prestige etc. Football got us here. But the University has benefited greatly

 

[RUScrew85]

The attacks stop when we win--it changes the mood and the perspective, even of the local media.

Nah, they'll never stop. The NJ media is convinced the best way to make money is to rip Rutgers and it won't change until NJ treats Rutgers like other states treat their state universities.

 

[RUScrew85]

Here is what we have to understand here

we are RU fans and we know that the money is a worthwhile investment in our sports programs

but there are thousands, tens of thousands of NJ citizens that are not sports fans at all. They see these negative articles and now have the opinion that our efforts in sports should be curtailed and no further monies should be spent by our state


And the knee jerk response of our fans is to say “so what”

We can say that but know that these articles poison what Some people think about
our school, and you would never know it because you do not engage them in discussion

Yep.

 

[srru86]

I think you meant FBS which requires 16 varsity sports. FCS and non-football playing schools are allowed a minimum of 14 sports.

The uniformed think that if we got rid of the expense of College Football lots of money would flow to the other priorities. Hardly, it wouldn't even go to other sports. It would just go away.

Plenty of much better funded departments don't sponsor as many programs as we do. U-Texas is 19. 20 at TA&M. Baylor 19. For those keeping score at home we have 27. That's after the 6 cuts from 2006.

Even within the B1G within we are close to the top. Michigan has 29. OSU is the outlier at 36.

Back to Texas- What would happen would be likely more like the situation in Texas. Not a single D-1 Gymnastics program. It's not because they don't have money.

Washington Post

For top Texas gymnasts, there’s no chance to stay home for college​

Plenty of top tier schools are closer to WVU at 17. Our critics would get the vapors if they knew one of those was Rifle. Why Rifle? well if you have to ask son...

At least the Rifle team is co-ed.

 

[Knight Shift]

So how is the $100 million being spent?