When does the B1g money start to kick in?

[ruhudsonfan]

If the some of the posts in this thread are correct, we don't need a new coach, we need a new CFO. lol.

Stadium debt expense is not charged to athletics, but student rec centers are?

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

If the some of the posts in this thread are correct, we don't need a new coach, we need a new CFO. lol.

Stadium debt expense is not charged to athletics, but student rec centers are?

I think stadium debt is charged to athletics but one poster said it's not specifically related to the football program but rather an expense of the entire athletic department. I don't know if that's true or not.

As to the operating/maintenance expenses of the gyms/rec centers etc. that is something I've heard and read here before in that they fall under the athletic department but I don't know if that's true or not either. If it is though, then there shouldn't really be any stink about student fees between those maintenance fees and free tickets for all sporting events. The admin was never going to get rid of them but in this scenario there really shouldn't be much of stink about them either.

 

[Steveriknight]

If the some of the posts in this thread are correct, we don't need a new coach, we need a new CFO. lol.

Stadium debt expense is not charged to athletics, but student rec centers are?

The stadium debt service expense IS charged to athletics, but it's not classified as attributable to football. It is instead classified as "non-program specific". The change was made in FY2011 for presentation purposes to keep it separate from the football p&l. This absolutely was done so that if somebody was looking at the financial statements of the athletic department, they wouldn't see an $8M operating loss coming from football. It was instead buried in a 'catch-all' category' so as not to attract the attention to football. The press figured it out or was tipped off and ran with that and tried to say RU was being deceitful, bunch of scumbags that the press folks are.

Football on it's own ran at roughly a $2M profit in FY2014, but when you count the debt service it runs an $8M loss. Football will probably be slightly more profitable in FY2015 because of increased ticket costs/donations etc.

It's irrelevant though, the debt service costs ARE being accounted for as athletics expenditures. Who gives a **** if it's related to football or field hockey or whatever. It's all rolled in together, all athletic revenues vs expenditures, including olympic sports program costs and athletic facility debt service as a total profit, or a loss.

Bottom line is football and basketball currently don't generate enough revenue to break even with the stadium debt costs and the cost to run the olympic sports, which are by far the two largest drags on the athletics budget.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

Bottom line is football and basketball currently don't generate enough revenue to break even with the stadium debt costs and the cost to run the olympic sports, which are by far the two largest drags on the athletics budget.

This is basically the crux of it. Football/MBB are profit centers and the rest of the department are cost centers. The profit centers don't generate enough profit to support the entire department.

But again, the 18M subsidy pre AAC exit and excluding student fees is what needs to be wiped out and I don't see how it won't be pretty easily when we get a full share of the revenue.

In addition though as I've said we need to expand the donor base to get done all the things we need and want to get done. B10 revenue is great but it's not a bottomless pot of gold.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I don't care either way, but a fundamental tenet of GAAP is to match revenues and expenses as close as possible.

If you are reporting or releasing individual sports P&Ls, it makes no sense to consolidate the biggest expense into a the department's P&L. At that point, you aren't matching.

If we were running a manufacturing facility as part of a larger company, we wouldn't release the plant's P&L absent the costs associated with paying for the building.

If you don't want the scrutiny, don't release individual sports P&Ls.

 

[Steveriknight]

You guys should take a good look at this document created by the RU senate finance committee. It's an anti-football narrative but it contains a lot of very relevant information, and I think it covers some of the biggest obstacles RU football is currently facing. It's EXACTLY what needs to be resolved before we will be competing with the big boys of our new conference.

http://senate.rutgers.edu/BFConS1408AthleticsProgramDeficitsMarch2015.pdf

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Rutgers, in their never ending quest to bungle every conceivable public relations encounter, put a message out that football actually turns a profit. But the 8 figure debt service associated with the building was moved off the program's P&L...

It's dumb.

The narrative should continue to be, "we are making substantial progress toward getting the department to budget neutrality. Some sports are closer than others."

 

[RU2055]

This analysis is a perfect example why you should never let academia run a business. Our operational expenditures is one of the lowest in the B1G already. The problem is the revenue - look how pathetic it is compared to our B1G peers (table 6). The solution then is not to lower expenditures. The solution is to increase revenue, even if you need to increase expenditures in the process. You need to spend money to make money.

 

[ru8081]

This analysis is a perfect example why you should never let academia run a business. Our operational expenditures is one of the lowest in the B1G already. The problem is the revenue - look how pathetic it is compared to our B1G peers. The solution then is not to lower expenditures. The solution is to increase revenue, even if you need to increase expenditures in the process. You need to spend money to make money.

Bingo! We have a winner! Hence the blueprint used by a whole host of programs over the years. I cannot think of One example of where it failed!

 

[Steveriknight]

Athletics as a whole is what's running the tremendous deficit, not football alone. They care about the subsidy, and are blaming the stadium expansion debt service among other things for it.

RU needs to figure out a way to increase revenues without alienating the current fan base with large price increases, and also keep costs stable. There is no way in hell RU ponies up for a big time coaching staff until they figure out their current fiscal problems which after closer inspection, are at crisis levels. Football really is stuck until this problem is resolved, I sure hope they have a plan that doesn't involve just waiting until 2021 for B1G money.

 

[ru8081]

It's the revenue stupid!

I might be missing a few things but revenue is made up of:

Return on investments.
Grants from various sources
Tuition and fees
Ticket sales, Merchandise, Media rights etc.
Endowment.

The endowment is pathetic. How do you increase the endowment? Top notch media relevant academic departments (Medical advances etc.) Winning sports programs.

Here's my equation:

Media relevant academic success + Big time sports success = Increased (Ticket Sales, Merchandise sales and Media rights) and an increase in the Endowment.

The only solution is to borrow from future revenue (B1G funds). Given my equation, not borrowing will make the expense - revenue relationship worse.

 

[Knight Shift]

You guys should take a good look at this document created by the RU senate finance committee. It's an anti-football narrative but it contains a lot of very relevant information, and I think it covers some of the biggest obstacles RU football is currently facing. It's EXACTLY what needs to be resolved before we will be competing with the big boys of our new conference.

http://senate.rutgers.edu/BFConS1408AthleticsProgramDeficitsMarch2015.pdf

EVERYONE should at least look at the Tables in the link:

And this:
"In the late fall of 2012, Mulcahy's successor as athletics director, Tim Pernetti, became
aware of a video showing varsity men's basketball practices during which the head coach, Mike
Rice, threw basketballs at players' heads and assailed them with homophobic slurs and other
abusive language. President Robert Barchi did not look at the video, and left the Rice question
largely in the hands of subordinates whom he called his "direct reports." Over the course of
several days, various University officials and members of the Board of Governors became
involved in discussions about what to do. Eventually, President Barchi, his administration, and
members of the Board of Governors agreed that Rice would be fined and given a three-game
suspension. In April 2013, however, the video was leaked to national news outlets and ignited a
firestorm of controversy. On the evening of the day when the video became public, President
Barchi looked at it himself, and reversed himself, instructing Pernetti to fire Rice at once.
Pernetti later resigned."

"In addition to these management failures, there have also been failures of due diligence.
For example, the University announced that the successor to Rice as men's basketball coach was
a Rutgers graduate, but later had to admit that the new coach was many credit-hours short of his
undergraduate degree.
In sum, this review of the recent history of Athletics shows that management failures of
the first decade of this century continued into the second decade. It is clear that these
management failures are distinct from the program's financial problems. However, it is also
clear that the "insularity and autonomy of the Athletics Department as well as insufficient
oversight by the President's Office and Board" have helped to create an environment that has
contributed to, and has also made it harder to solve, the Athletics program's financial problems."

 

[Scarletnut]

So Rutgers seems to account for it properly and other schools (do you have any examples?) don't. How is that an "accounting gimmick" as it pertains to Rutgers as it seems we account for stadium debt properly? You agree it is an athletics expense, right? Or do you think it is a building, like a dorm or a classroom building, that should be accounted for as part of an overall budget? And if you think it should be part of an "overall budget" rather than athletics should a football stadium upgrade or basketball practice facility have to get in line with other capital projects like dorms and classrooms? Or should it be treated differently? Not sure I want our athletic buildings to be proposed to our BOT/BOG/State of NJ as a choice between a new classroom building or a basketball practice facility. Unlike OSU or Michigan or Indiana we are a school where we likely won't like the answer.

Whether its a gimmick or proper/improper isn't the question. We get lambasted as being the school with the largest athletic subsidy in the country. It should be compared apples to apples with the rest of the P5 schools to get an accurate assessment of where we stand. Its not about the accounting as much as the perception that RU is so much worse off than everyone else. Tough to fight that PR battle.

 

[Steveriknight]

Or a group of guys like Greg Brown to privately fund the cost difference between Team Flood's total cost and the cost of a top notch coaching staff.

The revenue shortfall won't change overnight, and we need a new coaching staff that can win big yesterday.

 

[RUJohnny99]

Want an example of fun with accounting?

P. 25, one of the expenses listed is "loss of Big East home game": $1,487,888.

So at least $1.5 mm of that institutional support in 2013 was completely phantom.

Also no inflows of Tampa's buyout of Schiano. I'm guessing that check was payable to Rutgers U & never made it to athletics.

I'd love to see a cash flow statement.

 

[Steveriknight]

Want an example of fun with accounting?

P. 25, one of the expenses listed is "loss of Big East home game": $1,487,888.

So at least $1.5 mm of that institutional support in 2013 was completely phantom.

Also no inflows of Tampa's buyout of Schiano. I'm guessing that check was payable to Rutgers U & never made it to athletics.

I'd love to see a cash flow statement.

Truth! Loss of Big East home game is not an expenditure, just a revenue not realized in the budget.

And the Buc's had to pay RU $500k to buy him out, and I don't see that presented anywhere unless it's buried.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Truth! Loss of Big East home game is not an expenditure, just a revenue not realized in the budget.

And the Buc's had to pay RU $500k to buy him out, and I don't see that presented anywhere unless it's buried.

This depends...

If the revenue associated with a BE home game was already booked in an earlier period, this entry reverses that.

The section this appears in is Extraordinary Items, not operating expenses. These financials are the University's and are audited. These aren't recreations from the Senate.

As was pointed out, the Cash Flow Statement would provide a more clear picture.

ETA: The original game money didn't even need to be booked, to qualify as an extraordinary item.

 

[RUJohnny99]

Here's a 2012 article about it.

If they booked the lost income from a TCU home game because they were expecting a paycheck from Tranghese to make them whole, they definitely need a new CFO.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/03/rutgers_ad_tim_pernetti_seekin.html

 

[Queztastic]

I agree with this. If the students have free access to all the sporting events and the maintenance for the rec centers/gyms etc..all fall under the athletic department budget I'm not sure why student fees should be considered a subsidy. Mind you the admin isn't going to get rid of student fees but I don't get the classification of it in the media as such.

There are other schools in the B1G that (at least back in 2011) didn't have any student fees, but they charged students for tickets. The most expensive was Michigan which charged $250 in 2011 for a student season ticket. (see link) Assuming that 15,000 students get tickets (which I have no idea about, but that's less than 15% of the stadium and it seems like at least that much is filled on tv), that would be $3.75 million. Add that Michigan charges for basketball student tickets ($200 for 2015) and ice hockey student tickets ($150 for 2015) and the figure from student season ticket revenue begins to approach the RU student fees.
.http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/28/267/
Now, of course RU's student attendance would likely go down if they charged, but its almost six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the students pay for tickets, then its not a subsidy, but if they get charged a fee, then its a subsidy.

 

[Steveriknight]

This depends...

If the revenue associated with a BE home game was already booked in an earlier period, this entry reverses that.

The section this appears in is Extraordinary Items, not operating expenses. These financials are the University's and are audited. These aren't recreations from the Senate.

As was pointed out, the Cash Flow Statement would provide a more clear picture.

ETA: The original game money didn't even need to be booked, to qualify as an extraordinary item.

You also an accountant or auditor Hudson? [cheers]

In my opinion, the loss of the home game would be better booked as a contra against the home game revenue if they did in fact book it in FY2014, or better yet..they shouldn't have booked that as revenue at all. Other wise you are overstating both revenues and expenditures..you net to the same place but individually you are overstated.

Doesn't make sense that they would have booked it in a prior period (FY2013), that would be improper revenue recognition and an audit finding/comment.

 

[Steveriknight]

There are other schools in the B1G that (at least back in 2011) didn't have any student fees, but they charged students for tickets. The most expensive was Michigan which charged $250 in 2011 for a student season ticket. (see link) Assuming that 15,000 students get tickets (which I have no idea about, but that's less than 15% of the stadium and it seems like at least that much is filled on tv), that would be $3.75 million. Add that Michigan charges for basketball student tickets ($200 for 2015) and ice hockey student tickets ($150 for 2015) and the figure from student season ticket revenue begins to approach the RU student fees.
.http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/28/267/
Now, of course RU's student attendance would likely go down if they charged, but its almost six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the students pay for tickets, then its not a subsidy, but if they get charged a fee, then its a subsidy.

I can't find an exact dollar amount on the cost of providing free student tickets but I bet it's in the area of a couple million bucks. They should probably drop that and start charging students. This is a dicey area though, it could backfire in a bad way.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

You also an accountant or auditor Hudson? [cheers]

In my opinion, the loss of the home game would be better booked as a contra against the home game revenue if they did in fact book it in FY2014, or better yet..they shouldn't have booked that as revenue at all. Other wise you are overstating both revenues and expenditures..you net to the same place but individually you are overstated.

Doesn't make sense that they would have booked it in a prior period (FY2013), that would be improper revenue recognition and an audit finding/comment.

No...but I did get an A in Financial Accounting in my MBA program. lol

I agree with what you're saying. However, just being practical, they made the decision to list it as an Extraordinary Item. No way it get's past KPMG if there isn't sufficient reason to book it as such. Just my .02

That said, I do agree that the P&L is not reflective of the cash in and out. But any finance person knows that.

 

[Knight Shift]

Table 9, under revenue, "Other". Does this include ticket sales, seat donations, parking etc?

This is the "other" for years 2011-12 to 2020-21.

other 25.32// 21.37// 27.18/// 32.98/// 34.81// 36.73 //38.47 ///40.54 ///42.68/// 44.77/// 46.79

So it looks like we went from $25.32 million in 2011-12 to $33 million in 2014-2015. That's an $8 million/year increase. We can't fork up an extra $1 million/year for a new head coach? Greg was making $2.3 million in 2011.

As George W. Bush said--that's some fuzzy math.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

You also an accountant or auditor Hudson? [cheers]

In my opinion, the loss of the home game would be better booked as a contra against the home game revenue if they did in fact book it in FY2014, or better yet..they shouldn't have booked that as revenue at all. Other wise you are overstating both revenues and expenditures..you net to the same place but individually you are overstated.

Doesn't make sense that they would have booked it in a prior period (FY2013), that would be improper revenue recognition and an audit finding/comment.

Perhaps they are taking it as an Extraordinary Loss because the Athletics department is in the "business of putting on athletic contests" and due to the "rare and unusual" circumstances of losing a conference home game, this dollar amount represents a shortfall compared to the revenue of the game that replaced it?

Using round numbers, if the average revenue from a BE game is normally $10MM and the revenue for the game that replaced it was $8.5MM, you certainly *could* book that shortfall as an extraordinary item. It's not totally crazy.

 

[Steveriknight]

Perhaps they are taking it as an Extraordinary Loss because the Athletics department is in the "business of putting on athletic contests" and due to the "rare and unusual" circumstances of losing a conference home game, this dollar amount represents a shortfall compared to the revenue of the game that replaced it?

Using round numbers, if the average revenue from a BE game is normally $10MM and the revenue for the game that replaced it was $8.5MM, you certainly *could* book that shortfall as an extraordinary item. It's not totally crazy.

I guess...but still, why ever book the $10MM as revenue to begin with if that's not what was going to be received. We could start really getting technical here on how it could have happened and it depends on how they book their revenues. At the end of the day they net to the correct place and are just moving numbers around in the same athletics pot.

The only real accounting trick that would be effective would be if they could get non-athletics revenues into the athletics p&l, and/or get athletics expenditures moved off of the athletics department's books. That could only be done through a legal GAAP loophole if there was one...and I don't have that answer. Star Ledger would also find out and RU would be tarred and feathered.

 

[batts]

Don't expect a huge financial windfall from Big 10 Membership. The cost of maintaining Power 5 athletic teams and facilities are enormous. Most athletic departments in the Big 10 operate millions in the red. Indirect benefits such as increased branding and alumni donations are the plums of Power 5 membership. Barchi and the Administration therefore appear to be moving prudently in maintaining strict controls over the Athletic Budget.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/edu...-not-produce-a-windfall-report-warns-1.587567

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...XGKdEhPig&sig2=iib_84KqsMkVAGsjbLFU2Q&cad=rja

 

[Upstream]

I don't care either way, but a fundamental tenet of GAAP is to match revenues and expenses as close as possible.

If you are reporting or releasing individual sports P&Ls, it makes no sense to consolidate the biggest expense into a the department's P&L. At that point, you aren't matching.

If we were running a manufacturing facility as part of a larger company, we wouldn't release the plant's P&L absent the costs associated with paying for the building.

If you don't want the scrutiny, don't release individual sports P&Ls.

The individual accounting is available through OPRA requests. At the time that Pernetti adjusted the reporting of Stadium debt, there was discussion from some in the faculty, public, and politicians, that Rutgers should either drop football or drop down to Div 1AA, in order to reduce the subsidy of athletics.

The move to take stadium debt out of the Football line was to highlight that dropping football wouldn't impact the subsidy, since football turns an operational profit. (The debt is a sunk cost. Even if the stadium were to be shuttered, the university would still have to pay off the debt.) The justification of moving the stadium off the football line is that the stadium serves other sports (including lacrosse) and non-athletic functions (including graduation ceremonies).

 

[Upstream]

Want an example of fun with accounting?

P. 25, one of the expenses listed is "loss of Big East home game": $1,487,888.

So at least $1.5 mm of that institutional support in 2013 was completely phantom.

Also no inflows of Tampa's buyout of Schiano. I'm guessing that check was payable to Rutgers U & never made it to athletics.

I'd love to see a cash flow statement.

The loss of a BE home game is listed as and "extraordinary item" not an expense. It is anticipated revenue which did not materialize due.

Also, I would assume that since the only revenue sources listed in this document are direct institutional support, student fees, conference/NCAA distributions, and other, then the Schiano Tampa payment would be included in Other, along with ticket revenue, donations, licensing fees, concessions, parking, and every other revenue source.

 

[NickKnight 1]

I thought there was a phase-in period? Full share after x amount of years, but increasing annually up until then.

I'm pretty sure you got it right, that's what I believed from the start.

 

[Upstream]

Now, of course RU's student attendance would likely go down if they charged, but its almost six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the students pay for tickets, then its not a subsidy, but if they get charged a fee, then its a subsidy.

The reasoning (which I don't necessarily agree with) is that student fees are not optional (you pay the fee whether you attend a game or not, and even if you pay the fee, you might not get a ticket to a game if there is too high demand), while students buying tickets are optional (only those students who want to see a game have to buy a ticket).

That makes a student fee essentially part of your tuition. There is not really much of a difference between a school saying that tuition is $12,000 or saying tuition is $10,000 + $2,000 in fees. Since most of the subsidy comes from tuition/fee revenue (as this is the largest bucket of non-directed revenue), it doesn't really matter whether the money is collected as fees or as tuition.

Conversely, if student fees were not counted as part of the subsidy, then the easiest way to reduce the subsidy would be to cut tuition by the $1000 that gets allocated to athletics, and collect an additional $1000 in athletic student fees.

 

[RutgHoops]

EVERYONE should at least look at the Tables in the link:

And this:
"In the late fall of 2012, Mulcahy's successor as athletics director, Tim Pernetti, became
aware of a video showing varsity men's basketball practices during which the head coach, Mike
Rice, threw basketballs at players' heads and assailed them with homophobic slurs and other
abusive language. President Robert Barchi did not look at the video, and left the Rice question
largely in the hands of subordinates whom he called his "direct reports." Over the course of
several days, various University officials and members of the Board of Governors became
involved in discussions about what to do. Eventually, President Barchi, his administration, and
members of the Board of Governors agreed that Rice would be fined and given a three-game
suspension. In April 2013, however, the video was leaked to national news outlets and ignited a
firestorm of controversy. On the evening of the day when the video became public, President
Barchi looked at it himself, and reversed himself, instructing Pernetti to fire Rice at once.
Pernetti later resigned."

"In addition to these management failures, there have also been failures of due diligence.
For example, the University announced that the successor to Rice as men's basketball coach was
a Rutgers graduate, but later had to admit that the new coach was many credit-hours short of his
undergraduate degree.
In sum, this review of the recent history of Athletics shows that management failures of
the first decade of this century continued into the second decade. It is clear that these
management failures are distinct from the program's financial problems. However, it is also
clear that the "insularity and autonomy of the Athletics Department as well as insufficient
oversight by the President's Office and Board" have helped to create an environment that has
contributed to, and has also made it harder to solve, the Athletics program's financial problems."

Got any "funny pictures" for these suggestions from the report since you seem to be a fan?:

"The committee’s recommendations include the following:

•  Rutgers Athletics should design and enforce a five-year plan to eliminate all financial losses.
  
  
•  No capital investment (expansion or new construction of Athletics facilities) should be
  
  undertaken until the Athletics deficit is eliminated.
  
  
•  No allocations from student fees should be used to finance Athletics.
  
  
•  Financial losses funded by University discretionary funds and student fee allocations
  
  should be treated as loans, to be repaid as soon as possible.
  
  
•  Athletics should provide copies of its reports to the NCAA, its detailed annual budget
  
  statements, and its medium- and long-range financial plans to the University community.
  
  
•  The President should establish an advisory committee on management, budget and
  
  planning for Athletics. "

 

[Knight Shift]

I'm pretty sure you got it right, that's what I believed from the start.

It's all in Table 9 of the link he provided:

2011 to 2021 Conference/NCAA Distributions:
9.77 //9.51// 7.56// 10.04 //10.87// 11.21// 11.58//14.97// 19.38// 25.00// 35.53

We start to see real payouts in 2018-19, when we jump from 11.58 million to $14.97 Million, and then 4-5 million jumps until 2021, when we jump up $10 million to $35.53 million. Compare to where we were in 2011 with $9.77 million and we were paying our head coach $1 million more. Also include the increased revenues in Table 9 I posted above of "other 25.32// 21.37// 27.18/// 32.98/// 34.81// 36.73 //38.47 ///40.54 ///42.68/// 44.77/// 46.79", and it seems by 2018, we will have Conference distribution that is $6 Million higher than 2011 and "other" revenue that is $15 million higher than 2011. So, we will have $21 million in new revenue by 2018, and by 2021, there will be $34 million in new revenue.

 

[Knight Shift]

Did you really just advise us to take seriously a part of Rutgers student Senate report that would like nothing better than to shutter the football stadium and Rac? Got any "funny pictures" for these suggestions from the report?:

"The committee’s recommendations include the following:

•  Rutgers Athletics should design and enforce a five-year plan to eliminate all financial losses.
  
  
•  No capital investment (expansion or new construction of Athletics facilities) should be
  
  undertaken until the Athletics deficit is eliminated.
  
  
•  No allocations from student fees should be used to finance Athletics.
  
  
•  Financial losses funded by University discretionary funds and student fee allocations
  
  should be treated as loans, to be repaid as soon as possible.
  
  
•  Athletics should provide copies of its reports to the NCAA, its detailed annual budget
  
  statements, and its medium- and long-range financial plans to the University community.
  
  
•  The President should establish an advisory committee on management, budget and
  
  planning for Athletics. "

I direct you to my post immediately above. Even by their draconian view, things look pretty good in about 2-3 years, with healthy revenue increases by 2018.

 

[NickKnight 1]

It's all in Table 9 of the link he provided:

2011 to 2021 Conference/NCAA Distributions:
9.77 //9.51// 7.56// 10.04 //10.87// 11.21// 11.58//14.97// 19.38// 25.00// 35.53

We start to see real payouts in 2018-19, when we jump from 11.58 million to $14.97 Million, and then 4-5 million jumps until 2021, when we jump up $10 million to $35.53 million. Compare to where we were in 2011 with $9.77 million and we were paying our head coach $1 million more. Also include the increased revenues in Table 9 I posted above of "other 25.32// 21.37// 27.18/// 32.98/// 34.81// 36.73 //38.47 ///40.54 ///42.68/// 44.77/// 46.79", and it seems by 2018, we will have Conference distribution that is $6 Million higher than 2011 and "other" revenue that is $15 million higher than 2011. So, we will have $21 million in new revenue by 2018, and by 2021, there will be $34 million in new revenue.

Thank you kind sir.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

The individual accounting is available through OPRA requests. At the time that Pernetti adjusted the reporting of Stadium debt, there was discussion from some in the faculty, public, and politicians, that Rutgers should either drop football or drop down to Div 1AA, in order to reduce the subsidy of athletics.

The move to take stadium debt out of the Football line was to highlight that dropping football wouldn't impact the subsidy, since football turns an operational profit. (The debt is a sunk cost. Even if the stadium were to be shuttered, the university would still have to pay off the debt.) The justification of moving the stadium off the football line is that the stadium serves other sports (including lacrosse) and non-athletic functions (including graduation ceremonies).

Future debt service is not a sunk cost...

 

[Upstream]

Future debt service is not a sunk cost...

Technically, it is not. But, you get the point I was making, that there are no reasonable actions that the faculty can suggest the university take in regards to the Football program to avoid the obligation of paying the debt service. In the question of how should the university financially support football, the cost of the debt service isn't relevant.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Technically, it is not. But, you get the point I was making, that there are no reasonable actions that the faculty can suggest the university take in regards to the Football program to avoid the obligation of paying the debt service. In the question of how should the university financially support football, the cost of the debt service isn't relevant.

Agreed.

But the point everyone on this thread seems to be missing is one I've made countless times.

People are trying to read this report as a piece of financial research. The board has lost sight of the primary tenet of war fighting. Understand your enemy.

The report is being written as a propaganda piece by university stakeholders who:

1. Haven't gotten a raise in years.

2. Have seen their tuition go up substantially every year.

3. Sit in offices with no heat, no functioning A/C and with ceiling tiles falling down on their heads.

They couldn't possibly care any less about the B10 athletics arm races or "spending money to make money."

If the point of referring us to the report was to illustrate just how behind we are in revenue generation compared to our peers, nearly everyone already knows that. If the point was to somehow poke holes in the report--which seems to be part of the tract this thread has taken--I ask why? Other than determining the academic calendar and what GPA qualifies for honors, the university senate is tits on a bull useless. Ignore them...

 

[Steveriknight]

Agreed.

But the point everyone on this thread seems to be missing is one I've made countless times.

People are trying to read this report as a piece of financial research. The board has lost sight of the primary tenet of war fighting. Understand your enemy.

The report is being written as a propaganda piece by university stakeholders who:

1. Haven't gotten a raise in years.

2. Have seen their tuition go up substantially every year.

3. Sit in offices with no heat, no functioning A/C and with ceiling tiles falling down on their heads.

They couldn't possibly care any less about the B10 athletics arm races or "spending money to make money."

If the point of referring us to the report was to illustrate just how behind we are in revenue generation compared to our peers, nearly everyone already knows that. If the point was to somehow poke holes in the report--which seems to be part of the tract this thread has taken--I ask why? Other than determining the academic calendar and what GPA qualifies for honors, the university senate is tits on a bull useless. Ignore them...

I provided the link because I think they did a lot of the research that answers many of our questions for us.

Altogether it certainly was/is a tool that the anti-football folks are using to try to tear down our football program. But I still think it consolidates a lot of financial data that can be useful in understanding the scope of the budget problems. I found the data enlightening.

 

[Willow88!]

Remember when we were begging to get out of the Big East/AAC because of how dreadful it was and no money? LOL.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I provided the link because I think they did a lot of the research that answers many of our questions for us.

Altogether it certainly was/is a tool that the anti-football folks are using to try to tear down our football program. But I still think it consolidates a lot of financial data that can be useful in understanding the scope of the budget problems. I found the data enlightening.

Fair enough.

I just wouldn't get wrapped up in poking holes in their findings. They are about as irrelevant of a body as the university has.