Athletic Department Subsidies Controversy
Is Rutgers athletic program worth the money? That seems to be the question flying around after the faculty voted to overwhelmingly ask the Board of Governors to end subsidies to the athletic department. Upon closer inspection, though, this article from the Star-Ledger shows some evidence that the discussion might be overblown. The vote was taken by only 177 of the 910 faculty members of the School of Arts and Sciences. So, while it's obvious that the athletic department is losing support among the faculty, this is still a rather small sampling of the larger body of educators.
Second, the largest subsidy was to the football team to the tune of 2.9 million dollars. The current budget calls for a reduction of that deficit by 1 million dollars this year. And Rutgers is paying over 1 million dollars less to employ Kyle Flood as the head coach as opposed to Greg Schiano. It seems to me that 1 million dollar reduction has been taken care of.
The deficit was brought to light as a result of an August article by Bloomberg. As a Rutgers alumnus who donates a very modest sum to the school, I agree that the school needs to subsidize less of the athletic department, not just the football team. The article clearly mentions that other sports, such as women's basketball, share in the burden. But Rutgers has recently undergone 2 stadium expansions that coincided with an economic downturn. When the school made the decision to join the Big East in the early 1990s, it made the commitment to big-time athletics. Now that we have the larger stadium we need to fill it.
My hope is that the recent recruiting classes and winning football season will lead to better ticket sales at the stadium. Ticket sales lead to concession and merchandise sales. A winning program also leads to more money coming in from boosters. Rutgers has only just begun to resurrect a winning tradition and that will eventually trickle down to alumni who will be inclined to give because they will remember how good times at sporting events was a part of their college experience the way that they do at the traditional sports and academic powerhouses such as Michigan and Texas.
I feel for the departments that have been hit with significant cuts. A Rutgers education is still a valuable commodity and it's because of the educator's there that this is the case. But hopefully, the faculty and athletic departments can work together to come up with solutions on how to better market the teams and the university in a way that will lead to greater interest and offset the deficit, rather be remain at odds.
Second, the largest subsidy was to the football team to the tune of 2.9 million dollars. The current budget calls for a reduction of that deficit by 1 million dollars this year. And Rutgers is paying over 1 million dollars less to employ Kyle Flood as the head coach as opposed to Greg Schiano. It seems to me that 1 million dollar reduction has been taken care of.
The deficit was brought to light as a result of an August article by Bloomberg. As a Rutgers alumnus who donates a very modest sum to the school, I agree that the school needs to subsidize less of the athletic department, not just the football team. The article clearly mentions that other sports, such as women's basketball, share in the burden. But Rutgers has recently undergone 2 stadium expansions that coincided with an economic downturn. When the school made the decision to join the Big East in the early 1990s, it made the commitment to big-time athletics. Now that we have the larger stadium we need to fill it.
My hope is that the recent recruiting classes and winning football season will lead to better ticket sales at the stadium. Ticket sales lead to concession and merchandise sales. A winning program also leads to more money coming in from boosters. Rutgers has only just begun to resurrect a winning tradition and that will eventually trickle down to alumni who will be inclined to give because they will remember how good times at sporting events was a part of their college experience the way that they do at the traditional sports and academic powerhouses such as Michigan and Texas.
I feel for the departments that have been hit with significant cuts. A Rutgers education is still a valuable commodity and it's because of the educator's there that this is the case. But hopefully, the faculty and athletic departments can work together to come up with solutions on how to better market the teams and the university in a way that will lead to greater interest and offset the deficit, rather be remain at odds.
Comments