Rutgers Subsidizing Sports While Academics Suffer archived
Dec 11, 2011 at 6:22am
Well, we in MSO have a newly renovated, lighted stadium for athletics, but still have no gifted and talented program for our K-8 students, so at least we are consistent with Rutgers ;-)
(end of off topic response...someone else can debate Rutgers!)
(end of off topic response...someone else can debate Rutgers!)
I was going to post this article but you got there first. My title would have been snappier.
'Imagine if, say, public school teachers or administrators had gotten that sort of increase. People would be in the street with pitchforks and torches. But, hey, it's a football coach. He's definitely worth every penny. Nobody cheers a chemistry professor or research librarian, so who needs 'em?'
You really can't compare, you choose to send your kid to Rutgers, you have no choice but to send your child through the school system and get taxed for it.
You really can't compare, you choose to send your kid to Rutgers, you have no choice but to send your child through the school system and get taxed for it.
johnlockedema said:
'Imagine if, say, public school teachers or administrators had gotten that sort of increase. People would be in the street with pitchforks and torches. But, hey, it's a football coach. He's definitely worth every penny. Nobody cheers a chemistry professor or research librarian, so who needs 'em?'
You really can't compare, you choose to send your kid to Rutgers, you have no choice but to send your child through the school system and get taxed for it.
Actually, Rutgers is a public institution and Greg Schiano is the highest paid public employee in the state. We all pay for it, whether we send our kids there or not.
I'm sure Rutgers gets state money, but I'm much more annoyed over the money wasted in the Abbott school debacle-we're talking billions instead of millions. I'd rather go after the big fish before looking for the minnows.
My priorities? The best education at the lowest cost, which we're not getting now. What are yours Nan, besides protecting the status quo for the NJEA and its members?
I think a university has to decide what it wants to be before spending money and the university needs to consider the environment. Football has never been religion in the Northeast the way it is in the South and Midwest. That should have been the first warning flag when deciding to invest in the football program. With the benefit of hindsight, I would say that Rutgers would have done better to shift to Division 1AA, spend much less on football, retain the other sports programs and be happy.
Dec 11, 2011 at 9:30am Edited
johnlockedema said:
I'm sure Rutgers gets state money, but I'm much more annoyed over the money wasted in the Abbott school debacle-we're talking billions instead of millions. I'd rather go after the big fish before looking for the minnows.
The difference would be that Abbott spending is wisely-intended whereas football spending is not. The second problem is to make sure that well-intended money is well-spent.
There is an old cliche' mouthed even by teachers that goes........."Those who can, do...Those who can't teach.......Those who can't teach, teach gym.
I would imagine the first step in being a university football coach would be as a gym teacher.
I think that cliche' needs re thinking. The world is a funny place but to imagine that the highest paid public employee in the State of New Jersey is the football coach at the University is really a screamer.
Maybe we all need to go back to the basics............"This is a football."
I would imagine the first step in being a university football coach would be as a gym teacher.
I think that cliche' needs re thinking. The world is a funny place but to imagine that the highest paid public employee in the State of New Jersey is the football coach at the University is really a screamer.
Maybe we all need to go back to the basics............"This is a football."
I was around Rutgers for a few yars and I was really annoyed at a speech by (now sainted) Edward Bloustein in which he said Rutgers needed to be more like Princeton. It does not need to be like Princeton or a football powerhouse.
Rutgers needs to realize that it should be a high qualty-low cost academic resource for the overtaxed residents of this State.
Rutgers needs to realize that it should be a high qualty-low cost academic resource for the overtaxed residents of this State.
The questions is how much revenue did Rutgers Athletics net in 2010? Factor in all ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, alumni & friend gifts designated specifically for athletic programs, percentage from branded clothing items & collectibles, and BIG EAST & NCAA monies - bet it's quite a sum.
soorlady said:
The questions is how much revenue did Rutgers Athletics net in 2010? Factor in all ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, alumni & friend gifts designated specifically for athletic programs, percentage from branded clothing items & collectibles, and BIG EAST & NCAA monies - bet it's quite a sum.
RU athletics bleeds money. They need to get their priorities straight. RU would be better suited going back to the Atlantic 10 for all of their sports including football which is played at the 1AA level. That stadium expansion was an embarrassing waste of money that was never needed.
I was at RU in the late 80s which was before the stadium expansion and half the home games were played at Giants Stadium. I wasnt a fan of Bloustein, and when I heard about the expansion of the stadium and the transfer to the Big East I was against it. The classes I was in were overcrowded, and so was housing.
Is it any wonder young males are falling behind in education? The only role models males have these days are pro athletes and other entertainment industry types.
Is it any wonder young males are falling behind in education? The only role models males have these days are pro athletes and other entertainment industry types.
Actually those who cannot teach are often found teaching teacher education courses. In grad school I was appalled by lecturers teaching pedagogy, including that we should not lecture. Many of them counted attendance as part of the grad since it was the only way to get people to show up. I certainly learned very little in those required educational philosophy course.
--segment on NPR (where else), Radio Times just last week. Only 14 colleges in the U.S. turn a profit on football. Rutgers isn't one of them.
johnlockedema said:
I'm sure Rutgers gets state money, but I'm much more annoyed over the money wasted in the Abbott school debacle-we're talking billions instead of millions. I'd rather go after the big fish before looking for the minnows.
Bingo.
The abbots cost us billions per year. And no one says a thing.
LMC said:
Bingo. The abbots cost us billions per year. And no one says a thing.johnlockedema said:
I'm sure Rutgers gets state money, but I'm much more annoyed over the money wasted in the Abbott school debacle-we're talking billions instead of millions. I'd rather go after the big fish before looking for the minnows.
No one? Not even the Governor?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/christie_supreme_court_abbott.html?mobRedir=false
Also, they aren't directly comparable. The Abbott districts throw good money after bad in an attempt to educate kids. Rutgers throws it in an attempt to make northeasterners care about college football.
LMC said:
The abbots cost us billions per year. And no one says a thing.
No one says a thing? Are you kidding? This has to be the most debated topic in New Jersey and one that is most closely examined by NJ politicians as well as the legal system. In case you didn't notice, there was a very major overhaul to Abbott a couple of years ago.
You're like a broken record, but you don't seem to have much factual knowledge.
RobB said:
The Abbott districts throw good money after bad in an attempt to educate kids. Rutgers throws it in an attempt to make northeasterners care about college football.
And that's why the achievement gap is less in New Jersey than in about 48 other states and why NJ ranks in the top 5 states for overall educational outcomes. 'Cause all we do is waste money.
soorlady said:
The questions is how much revenue did Rutgers Athletics net in 2010? Factor in all ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, alumni & friend gifts designated specifically for athletic programs, percentage from branded clothing items & collectibles, and BIG EAST & NCAA monies - bet it's quite a sum.
Perhaps, but it's still $26.8m less than what they are spending.
mjh said:
And that's why the achievement gap is less in New Jersey than in about 48 other states and why NJ ranks in the top 5 states for overall educational outcomes. 'Cause all we do is waste money.RobB said:
The Abbott districts throw good money after bad in an attempt to educate kids. Rutgers throws it in an attempt to make northeasterners care about college football.
Really? That doesn't align with what I've read - can you give me some homework?
http://www.state.nj.us/education/news/2011/1101naep.htm
Though nearly all subgroups have improved since 2003, the gap between low- and high-income students remains one of the largest in the country. In grade 8 reading, New Jersey ranks 50 out of 51 states plus DC in the size of its achievement gap.
It's all about $$$!
Football is one of the biggest revenue producers for colleges and universities. This has nothing to do with my opinion, just the facts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/the-most-profitable-colle_n_802810.html#s217317&title=University_of_Texas
In case you don't want to read the entire article, here's what the University of Texas made last year alone:
Total Revenue - $93,942,815
Total Profit - $68,830,484
And they didn't even play in the National Title game!
Another reason why these college coach child sex scandals are such huge media stories, do you know how much $$$ these schools stand to lose without their biggest sports programs? Penn State lose football revenue? Syracuse lose basketball revenue? It would effect the entire school, including academia. So while you may think Rutgers will never be a Penn State or Oklahoma, with the $$$ at stake, "somebody" thinks it's worth the effort.
Football is one of the biggest revenue producers for colleges and universities. This has nothing to do with my opinion, just the facts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/the-most-profitable-colle_n_802810.html#s217317&title=University_of_Texas
In case you don't want to read the entire article, here's what the University of Texas made last year alone:
Total Revenue - $93,942,815
Total Profit - $68,830,484
And they didn't even play in the National Title game!
Another reason why these college coach child sex scandals are such huge media stories, do you know how much $$$ these schools stand to lose without their biggest sports programs? Penn State lose football revenue? Syracuse lose basketball revenue? It would effect the entire school, including academia. So while you may think Rutgers will never be a Penn State or Oklahoma, with the $$$ at stake, "somebody" thinks it's worth the effort.
bklyntonj said:
In case you don't want to read the entire article, here's what the University of Texas made last year alone:
NJ is not, and never will be, Texas. That's kind of what we're talking about.
Last year, the report said, Rutgers spent nearly $27 million in subsidies — funds that come from university money and student fees — on athletics. It came at a time of state funding cuts and rising tuition.
whether you like them or not, sports arent just a cashflow stream for colleges, theyre a big form of publicity. And publicity gets more alumni interest and donations, more applicant interest, more student spirit and involvement. It's easily identifiable...scholars and Nobel laureates arent as easily identifiable.
but I bet SUNY Albany's success in basketball and lacrosse in recent years got more alums back to campus or to alumni events...and got more kids aware of the school who might not have been before
hankzona said:
whether you like them or not, sports arent just a cashflow stream for colleges, theyre a big form of publicity. And publicity gets more alumni interest and donations, more applicant interest, more student spirit and involvement. It's easily identifiable...scholars and Nobel laureates arent as easily identifiable.
For the majority of schools that is true. However, there is an exception to every rule and in this case that exception is Rutgers. Rutgers needs to face the reality that they can not afford nor are they cut out to compete in high major Division 1 sports. Why can't RU just go back to the Atlantic 10 for all of their sports, including football? They would be much better off there.
Face it, one quasi-successful year in over 130 really isn't much to hang your hat or or make a compelling argument for investing more money into something that is clearly not a wise investment.
RobB said:
LMC said:
Bingo. The abbots cost us billions per year. And no one says a thing.johnlockedema said:
I'm sure Rutgers gets state money, but I'm much more annoyed over the money wasted in the Abbott school debacle-we're talking billions instead of millions. I'd rather go after the big fish before looking for the minnows.
No one? Not even the Governor?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/christie_supreme_court_abbott.html?mobRedir=false
Also, they aren't directly comparable. The Abbott districts throw good money after bad in an attempt to educate kids. Rutgers throws it in an attempt to make northeasterners care about college football.
Good points.
RobB, anyone's opinion or response to what the OG wrote IS what we're talking about. Whether you agree or think it's "kinda not what YOU'RE talking about" is your opinion.
I'm sure your thoughts on this issue are just as strong as your thoughts towards Texas having a quality football program that can never be matched by the likes of Rutgers. You also may believe that schools make poor decisions with their finances when it comes to athletic programs. But no matter what your feelings our;
It's all about the $$$.
Please, if I'm wrong. show me where this conversation will summize to anything other than the $$$.
I'm sure your thoughts on this issue are just as strong as your thoughts towards Texas having a quality football program that can never be matched by the likes of Rutgers. You also may believe that schools make poor decisions with their finances when it comes to athletic programs. But no matter what your feelings our;
It's all about the $$$.
Please, if I'm wrong. show me where this conversation will summize to anything other than the $$$.
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Free Items
Advertisement
Imagine if, say, public school teachers or administrators had gotten that sort of increase. People would be in the street with pitchforks and torches. But, hey, it's a football coach. He's definitely worth every penny. Nobody cheers a chemistry professor or research librarian, so who needs 'em?
While the athletic department has been sucking at the trough and the coaches have been laughing all the way to the bank, this is what else has been going on in the rest of the university. Annual state aid has been cut by 10%, or about $29m. In-state tuition [inc. room + board] has increased by 47% since 2004, from $19,300 to $28,350. Non-coaches salaries have been frozen. The university is relying more on part-time adjuncts. The article notes that even faculty member's office phones have been yanked.
The best defense the pro-sports faction can mount in the article is that it's given Rutgers more exposure through the red "R" care magnets! The fact that average SAT scores of applicants are up slightly is almost certainly a function of the recession causing families to look to cheaper public schools than anything the football team has done. For chrissakes, the Athletic Department has to give away almost half the tickets to home football games and still doesn't draw anywhere near a full house.
Why the hell does the possibility of competing in big-time college sports cause people's brains to melt? Rutgers will never be Oklahoma or Penn State -- and that's a good thing in my book.
ETA the link: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/despite_success_on_the_field_b.html .