I grew up in New Haven, CT. At a family reunion of a girlfriend, a young man from the South asked me if Yale University was a good school? Taken aback, I then realized that to him, a "good school" was one he seen on televised college sporting events.
4
Rutgers athletics was in dire financial shape, and the Big Ten Conference came to its rescue in exchange for access to the NY/NJ media markets. Maryland was also in trouble, and they joined the Big Ten in exchange for access to the MD/DC/VA media markets. The Big Ten Network blesses all 14 member universities with uniform payouts that make a huge difference in athletic department financing. Now it seems Rutgers is overreaching again.
According to a 2013 report:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-su...
exactly seven major athletic programs took no money from their universities or had student fee income: LSU, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Purdue, and Texas. Four are in the Big Ten Conference. They are all buoyed by income from TV cable channels because people willingly pay extra to their cable companies to watch Big Ten, SEC, or Big 12 sports.
Purdue athletics actually contributes to the university general fund annually, although that has just been reduced to finance Ross-Ade stadium improvements. Perhaps one or two others do too.
According to a 2013 report:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-su...
exactly seven major athletic programs took no money from their universities or had student fee income: LSU, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Purdue, and Texas. Four are in the Big Ten Conference. They are all buoyed by income from TV cable channels because people willingly pay extra to their cable companies to watch Big Ten, SEC, or Big 12 sports.
Purdue athletics actually contributes to the university general fund annually, although that has just been reduced to finance Ross-Ade stadium improvements. Perhaps one or two others do too.
3
You didn't address the inferiority complex from being NY's neighbor and a punchline since I can remember.
I grew up in NJ. Of the top 10% of our high school class, only a handful went to Rutgers and usually it was for financial reasons. That's not because our grads didn't go to public schools, it's just that they went to better ones: UVA, Berkeley and Michigan, among them.
Alums like Lesniak are chasing a ghost, hoping a bowl win will result in respect and prestige. NJ loses many of its best students because it needs to improve its flagship university, not because they need to improve the football team.
I grew up in NJ. Of the top 10% of our high school class, only a handful went to Rutgers and usually it was for financial reasons. That's not because our grads didn't go to public schools, it's just that they went to better ones: UVA, Berkeley and Michigan, among them.
Alums like Lesniak are chasing a ghost, hoping a bowl win will result in respect and prestige. NJ loses many of its best students because it needs to improve its flagship university, not because they need to improve the football team.
20
If schools primary focus is going to be football then they should lose their accreditation.
19
Once again, I am proud that my alma mater has one of the worst football teams in collegiate history. I'm happy to be a supportive alumnus!
14
It is a disgrace that in 47 or 48 of the 50 states the highest paid public employee is a football or basketball coach. As Joe Nocera notes, state legislatures have been starving state universities for funds in order to address state governments' serious fiscal problems. So middle class families borrow money to pay their university tuition and fees, more classes are taught by adjuncts and TAs, while a public enterprise spends millions on luxury boxes and boosters events and venues. The whole thing is seriously out of whack, but NO governor is brave enough to stand up to alumni networks and say, "Enough. We're a school, not a farm team for the NBA, that ends up poaching many of these kids before they've even gotten close to finishing a degree." Enough with the gold-plated stadiums (the one at Penn State comes to mind) and plus arenas. Colleges and universities are for teaching and learning...and when there are shortfalls, the LAST place to look is into the wallets of struggling families.
29
I'm a Rutgers alum (twice over and a legacy at that) and I will never give money to Rutgers. My dean at Rutgers College (an LSU alum) used to call the grads who worshipped athletes 'jock sniffers.' Never more true.
20
Just to clarify, in case any readers might misunderstand:
Nocera writes, "Thanks to those TV deals, last year the Big Ten paid out some $27 million to its 11 qualifying universities."
That Big Ten conference payment was $27 million to EACH of those 11 universities. It paid out a TOTAL of nearly $300 million in TV revenue to those 11 schools plus what it paid out to Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland, the newer members,who will have to wait a few years to get their full shares.
In the next five years, the annual payment per EACH member school is expected to grow to $45 million.
At this level of TV revenue, it is hard to regard college athletics as anything other than a "big business" with coaches and athletic directors making salaries of millions per year.
Pretending it is part of the academic institution is absurd, and for a start it should be taxed liked any other for profit business.
Nocera writes, "Thanks to those TV deals, last year the Big Ten paid out some $27 million to its 11 qualifying universities."
That Big Ten conference payment was $27 million to EACH of those 11 universities. It paid out a TOTAL of nearly $300 million in TV revenue to those 11 schools plus what it paid out to Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland, the newer members,who will have to wait a few years to get their full shares.
In the next five years, the annual payment per EACH member school is expected to grow to $45 million.
At this level of TV revenue, it is hard to regard college athletics as anything other than a "big business" with coaches and athletic directors making salaries of millions per year.
Pretending it is part of the academic institution is absurd, and for a start it should be taxed liked any other for profit business.
30
Europe has it right separate minor league athletics from academics at all levels. No more high school or college athletics except as club sports. As an academic I have never understood what the hell minor league pro sports has to do with the primary mission of discovery and education.
29
A simple solution would be for all universities to sell off their teams to the pro leagues who recruit them. Rent the university facilities back to the NFL, NBA, and MLB so they can be trained and vetted, and then watch the balance sheets go into the black and the academics and research come back to the fore.
11
Mr. Nocera concludes with two rhetorical questions: "Why isn’t that more important that competing in the Big Ten? Why does the tail always wag the dog?"
The answer is simple. Rutgers is a microcosm of America today wherein the tail always wags the dog. The 1% uber rich tail of our society wags the huge Congressional dog. Why would I expect anything different at Rutgers or any other part of America today?
The answer is simple. Rutgers is a microcosm of America today wherein the tail always wags the dog. The 1% uber rich tail of our society wags the huge Congressional dog. Why would I expect anything different at Rutgers or any other part of America today?
10
As I watch Steve Austin browbeat those who disagree with spending on college sports, I'm reminded of the timeless battles between jocks and nerds. Nerds/geeks/what have you are subjected to the same sort of insults that Steve has been dishing out, e.g., get out of your mom's basement. It does speak a little to the jock mentality: insults about virility and social belonging are what make their comments sting. He won't call you stupid because in his world, intelligence is at best unnecessary and at worst, anathema.
We value sexual prowess and the ability to smash headlong into another person more than we do math for math's sake or really, any learning at all. We make fun of bumper stickers that promote students of the month while cheering the stickers that advertise colleges not really known for their scholastic achievements. We consider the ability to run outdoors more important than the ability to read indoors.
Fair enough. Just one question, though: who will get stuck taking care of all these head smashers once the post-concussive syndrome brings on early Alzheimer's?
We value sexual prowess and the ability to smash headlong into another person more than we do math for math's sake or really, any learning at all. We make fun of bumper stickers that promote students of the month while cheering the stickers that advertise colleges not really known for their scholastic achievements. We consider the ability to run outdoors more important than the ability to read indoors.
Fair enough. Just one question, though: who will get stuck taking care of all these head smashers once the post-concussive syndrome brings on early Alzheimer's?
20
Many commenters have stated that they do not want to provide financial support for university athletics programs - and it is noteworthy that Rutgers used $26 million - money that was likely contributed through small donations by alumni to cover the costs of its athletic department. Yes, those small gifts do add up and make an impact!
My suggestion is not to threaten your respective alma maters with curtailing your donation but to provide financial support to the parts of the university that you value the most. I am an alumna of a university with an enormous basketball program that has gotten in to a bit of trouble with the NCAA. I don't wish to support athletics - and here's my solution. Simply write on your annual contribution form that your gift is restricted to use by the library, the appropriate academic department or whatever else you value from your campus experience. Even better, send the check directly to that department, with a cover note to the department chair, dean or librarian. I do this each year and always get a note back from the chair of my undergraduate department. By restricting your gift, you can send a signal to top administrators about what you value.
My suggestion is not to threaten your respective alma maters with curtailing your donation but to provide financial support to the parts of the university that you value the most. I am an alumna of a university with an enormous basketball program that has gotten in to a bit of trouble with the NCAA. I don't wish to support athletics - and here's my solution. Simply write on your annual contribution form that your gift is restricted to use by the library, the appropriate academic department or whatever else you value from your campus experience. Even better, send the check directly to that department, with a cover note to the department chair, dean or librarian. I do this each year and always get a note back from the chair of my undergraduate department. By restricting your gift, you can send a signal to top administrators about what you value.
59
Regardless on how you feel about college athletics, you can't use misleading numbers. Most college sports do not generate revenues & therefore must run a "deficit" & wouldn't exist without college funds.
In fact even most private colleges cost of acedemics exceed their tuition revenue & rely on large endowments. You would hear profs howl if there wasn't this revenue stream.
In fact even most private colleges cost of acedemics exceed their tuition revenue & rely on large endowments. You would hear profs howl if there wasn't this revenue stream.
2
The "tail doesn't always way the dog" in college sports. Perhaps Rutgers could take a lesson from Big Ten founder Purdue University. While not OSU, Michigan State or UM in scope and size of its athletic programs, it funds its athletics entirely through private donations, venue and Big Ten revenues, and actually pays millions annually to the university's operating budget. This at an academically strong university which has bucked trends and not raised tuition rates for past four years either.
31
The people who run athletic programs all suffer from the Lake Wobegon effect--all university athletic programs believe that by sucking more money from the university and its dumber alums that they will all be above average. College athletics serve the athletic dept., its coaches, and the administrative and support structures that serves it. It is a worthless enterprise. And please don't whine about the wonderful members of the tennis or ski team who can't afford to lose the university support. Want to ski? Pay for it. Ditto for tennis, golf, volleyball.
7
In the Real World, what happens is that there ARE no books because it is the ballgames that bring in the donors. You struggle with how humanity thinks, but this is proven over and over.
LSU in Baton Rouge needed dorms AND a place to play football, but only some of the money was available. SO they built dorms that were shaped on the backside to turn into stadium seating on weekends, a decent, workable compromise.
The sort of people that accumulate on college campuses like calcium buildup in plumbing fixtures think it all has to serve their warped view of purity, and in this they look a LOT like the Jim Crow racists of our terrible past.
But diversity demands that everyone's needs be met, and to have the cash donated, the donors have to feel invested and a part OF the college. Part of that WILL be athletics for the next couple of centuries. Ignore this human dynamic at your peril.
LSU in Baton Rouge needed dorms AND a place to play football, but only some of the money was available. SO they built dorms that were shaped on the backside to turn into stadium seating on weekends, a decent, workable compromise.
The sort of people that accumulate on college campuses like calcium buildup in plumbing fixtures think it all has to serve their warped view of purity, and in this they look a LOT like the Jim Crow racists of our terrible past.
But diversity demands that everyone's needs be met, and to have the cash donated, the donors have to feel invested and a part OF the college. Part of that WILL be athletics for the next couple of centuries. Ignore this human dynamic at your peril.
1
Am I missing something? Does the amount of money you pump into sports create more talented students? Is there an formula I am not aware of? Because unless I'm mistaken, pumping cash into a mediocre team doesn't make it a better team. Another thing, as a College Student, I can safely say that I have no wish to pay for sports that I will take no part in. I'm supposed to paying for academics, not the coaches salary. Am I wrong in this sentiment?
18
Typically in any given market, either NFL football or college football can be big, but not both. With 3 NFL teams dividing up the state, it is unlikely that Rutgers football will be anything besides an afterthought (especially given the structure of the different campuses).
4
As a graduate of a Big Ten school, I was dismayed they let Rutgers into the conference. It was only done to get The Big Ten Network into the East coast. They will never be able to compete academically or sports wise in the Big Ten.
1
To all influential Rutgers alumni out there who are reading this article, you owe it to your alma mater to put a stop to turning it into yet another farm league for professional sports. Why would you want the scandal and disgrace that seems built into every large sports program - er, uh, I mean university - in the U.S. when you could better support the continued high quality academic programs that already exist?
9
I believe there is "value" in big-time athletics. Getting (super-rich) alumni involved in donating takes some of burden away from the state and university, especially when it comes to capital-intensive projects. While it isn't a guarantee I think winning teams facilitate large donations. At Michigan, my alma mater, new buildings have been built and others renovated paid for just by donations. Yes, many of these buildings are for athletics, but some of them are academic. This happened in a state that may have been hit harder in the economic downturn than any other.
However, it is unconscionable that Rutgers' administration had/has allowed such large deficits to be had by the Athletic Department. Unfortunately Pandora's Box has already been open, and Rutgers is now forced to go down this path. I agree 100% that the first thing that should be done is to eliminate any subsidies the Universities send to athletics. Any non-operating expense (specifically facility expansion/improvements) should be financed solely on donations.
Finally, even at Rutgers, football and men's basketball are both "profitable". If the athletic department were to be run like a business,then every other sport should be eliminated or be run at a club level. However, most reputable universities are not run as a business. Athletics have been a part of a well-rounded education for a long time.
However, it is unconscionable that Rutgers' administration had/has allowed such large deficits to be had by the Athletic Department. Unfortunately Pandora's Box has already been open, and Rutgers is now forced to go down this path. I agree 100% that the first thing that should be done is to eliminate any subsidies the Universities send to athletics. Any non-operating expense (specifically facility expansion/improvements) should be financed solely on donations.
Finally, even at Rutgers, football and men's basketball are both "profitable". If the athletic department were to be run like a business,then every other sport should be eliminated or be run at a club level. However, most reputable universities are not run as a business. Athletics have been a part of a well-rounded education for a long time.
1
One must feel bad for folks at Rutgers (and other places) that are trying to pushback: it's a fool's errand and they won't win. They will always lose out to those chasing down huge athletic departments gobbling up money. And I certainly hope no one believes the fiction that athletic departments have no connection to an overall university and are "self-sustaining." This is a nice accounting lie.
2
It makes no sense, educationally at least, to have educational institutions have sports programs, the athletes get a poor education, the school switches focus from education to athletics, and the entire institution loses academic integrity.
5
Ask most people who the highest paid state government employee is and virtually no one will say "Kyle Flood". Early in his first term, Governor Christie took aim at the salaries of school district superintendents, calling them greedy and partly blaming them for New Jersey's sky-high property taxes, yet nearly all made far less than a sixth of what Kyle Flood makes.
If the Rutgers administration and alums thinks competing in the Big Ten is going to enhance the school's academic reputation and thereby the caliber of the student body, they really do have misplaced priorities.
If the Rutgers administration and alums thinks competing in the Big Ten is going to enhance the school's academic reputation and thereby the caliber of the student body, they really do have misplaced priorities.
10
This isn't anything new to colleges or even high schools. I can recall back in the late 50's and early 60's those who excelled in HS athletics (football, basketball) were class presidents and held in high esteem by all students. The "intellectual" students were barely mentioned or remembered. Who remembers students who participated in the Chess Club?. People will find something to worship. In our case we've decided to supplicate ourselves at the alter of sports.
1
My alma mater, the University of Maryland at College Park, made a decision to leave the Atlantic Coast Conference and join the Big Ten with Rutgers, and I believe Maryland is in that league to benefit the existing Midwestern Big Ten schools - as is Rutgers.
The Midwestern base of the Big Ten is not doing well in a demographic sense, so it decided to expand east - for the benefit of the Ohio States and Michigans and Indianas and Penn States - NOT Rutgers and Maryland, who are in that league to provide a convenient place for their N.Y./N.J. and Washington, D.C./No. Virginia alumni respectively to support those schools, and to provide easy football and men's basketball opponents. The roles that Rutgers and Maryland have been assigned might be called "cannon fodder," at least as it pertains to football.
In protest, I will not financially support Maryland any longer - I do not see any benefit to the institution or Maryland taxpayers (or the university's mission of research and education) of Big Ten membership.
Maryland's President Wallace Loh has placed emphasis on the cash that (supposedly) comes with Big Ten membership, but only after six years in the league, for the first six years, Maryland is being paid by the Big Ten at the same rate that it would have been paid by the ACC.
Rutgers and Maryland are East Coast schools that have no place in the Big Ten geographically and were asked to join to benefit the Big Ten, not their own states and student bodies.
The Midwestern base of the Big Ten is not doing well in a demographic sense, so it decided to expand east - for the benefit of the Ohio States and Michigans and Indianas and Penn States - NOT Rutgers and Maryland, who are in that league to provide a convenient place for their N.Y./N.J. and Washington, D.C./No. Virginia alumni respectively to support those schools, and to provide easy football and men's basketball opponents. The roles that Rutgers and Maryland have been assigned might be called "cannon fodder," at least as it pertains to football.
In protest, I will not financially support Maryland any longer - I do not see any benefit to the institution or Maryland taxpayers (or the university's mission of research and education) of Big Ten membership.
Maryland's President Wallace Loh has placed emphasis on the cash that (supposedly) comes with Big Ten membership, but only after six years in the league, for the first six years, Maryland is being paid by the Big Ten at the same rate that it would have been paid by the ACC.
Rutgers and Maryland are East Coast schools that have no place in the Big Ten geographically and were asked to join to benefit the Big Ten, not their own states and student bodies.
5
My father was a Rutgers alum (class of '55), and he was dismayed when the university started to push athletics in the 1990's. In his day, a degree from Rutgers, like a degree from CCNY, meant that you had gotten an education comparable to that of an Ivy league school at a fraction of the cost. By turning to an emphasis on athletics, he saw Rutgers devolving into just one more state university that churns out graduates with dubious academic credentials. He refused to donate money to the university after that, and he told fundraisers that he refused to donate because of Rutgers' turn toward athletics. If he were around today, he would be even more infuriated. The taxpayers of NJ should be angry; NJ has better things to do than subsidize second-rate minor league teams for the NFL and NBA.
15
As a Rutgers alumni, I had the dubious pleasure of having to room with members of the Rutgers football team my senior year.
My first hand observation is that they studied little, were coddled, spoiled and catered to by Rutgers staff. They treated others outside their elite athletic circle with disrespect and disdain.
It is outrageous that serious students are made to bear the costs of catering to a bunch of losers to the tune of $10 million a year.
Cut the cord and return Rutgers to being an institution of higher learning.
My first hand observation is that they studied little, were coddled, spoiled and catered to by Rutgers staff. They treated others outside their elite athletic circle with disrespect and disdain.
It is outrageous that serious students are made to bear the costs of catering to a bunch of losers to the tune of $10 million a year.
Cut the cord and return Rutgers to being an institution of higher learning.
20
Our houses of higher education continue to elevate athletics above any pretense of an academic mission. Rutgers is just the latest in a long line of venerable institutions following the luchre and fame that come with so-called amateur sports.
At best, we provide subsidized minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. At worst, our colleges and universities provide society with modern day gladiators, to be tossed away (along with their scholarships) at the slightest hint of injury.
Meanwhile, China, India (and much of the rest of the world) continue to laugh.
At best, we provide subsidized minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. At worst, our colleges and universities provide society with modern day gladiators, to be tossed away (along with their scholarships) at the slightest hint of injury.
Meanwhile, China, India (and much of the rest of the world) continue to laugh.
8
I have lived in this state for over 45 years and would not have wanted my sons to go there notwithstanding the by now diminishing differential in costs because Rutgers for 25 years has been chasing something no one but some of its foolish graduates want -- Division IA championships and competition.
It should be a great research university. It is a middling one. It should be on a par academically with the University of Michigan but does not need IA athletics to do it because it is within one hour of NYC and two hours of D.C., where the money is for research.
No one in NJ gives a fig about Rutgers athletics except some students and some but not all alumni and New Jersey should shut it down mostly, or at least this foolish ambition, get it out of the Big Ten where it doesn't belong and put the emphasis on making it one of the top 10 public universities in the nation in academics, research, development and professional and graduate studies, especially graduate studies.
We are still one of the richest and largest states even with what Christie has done to destroy the fiscal integrity, economy and political comity of NJ and our state university ought to reflect that. That is does not is a major failing for New Jersey.
It should be a great research university. It is a middling one. It should be on a par academically with the University of Michigan but does not need IA athletics to do it because it is within one hour of NYC and two hours of D.C., where the money is for research.
No one in NJ gives a fig about Rutgers athletics except some students and some but not all alumni and New Jersey should shut it down mostly, or at least this foolish ambition, get it out of the Big Ten where it doesn't belong and put the emphasis on making it one of the top 10 public universities in the nation in academics, research, development and professional and graduate studies, especially graduate studies.
We are still one of the richest and largest states even with what Christie has done to destroy the fiscal integrity, economy and political comity of NJ and our state university ought to reflect that. That is does not is a major failing for New Jersey.
26
When you so loudly ignore people with whom you disagree, as with -
''No one in NJ gives a fig about Rutgers athletics except...'' -
- you tell us that you really do not know people every well.
Get out from your computer or machines and actually spend time talking to people that you don't usually run with. Yes, this will take you out of Mom's basement, but the experience will mature you!
''No one in NJ gives a fig about Rutgers athletics except...'' -
- you tell us that you really do not know people every well.
Get out from your computer or machines and actually spend time talking to people that you don't usually run with. Yes, this will take you out of Mom's basement, but the experience will mature you!
Mr. Austin, your belligerent replies to several readers are uncalled for.
2
If an athletic department pays its staff amounts that are outside of the faculty scale, relies upon student athletes who are not academically qualified to earn admission to the university and/or spends more than a specified, modest percentage over the university's per-student average, it should be required to spin off from the university and operate as an independent business.
No public funds, either direct tax money or tax exemptions, should be spent on such non-conforming departments, at any level from elementary through the professional leagues. This is particularly true of football, given the prevalence of permanent injury it inflicts on players.
There is no credible justification for taking public education investment money away from academics while lavishing it on a brutal, sexist "sport". None.
No public funds, either direct tax money or tax exemptions, should be spent on such non-conforming departments, at any level from elementary through the professional leagues. This is particularly true of football, given the prevalence of permanent injury it inflicts on players.
There is no credible justification for taking public education investment money away from academics while lavishing it on a brutal, sexist "sport". None.
15
It's about bragging rights. How many people across the world are NY Yankee fans?
1
And exactly how does being a Yankees fan improve one's life? And how much better are their lives than those of a Mets fan?
The New York Yankees are a professional sports club, not a group of "amateur" college student/athletes.
Yeah, right. When are you ever going to need arts and sciences in real life? Now, football, that’s something you make time for.
4
What if we pose it as calculus versus exercise? Does that help? Do you know young people? Ask them.
How about a ballot referendum on this expenditure or the priorities of the University? Something similar to what is being done in Boston, Massachusetts for the proposed Olympics. Even a nonbinding referendum might send Senator Lesniak and Governor Christie a message.
7
In 2001, Murray Sperber published "Beer & Circus: How Big-Time College Sports is Crippling Undergraduate Education" addressing this issue. The only change since Sperber's book (one of many he wrote on the subject) is that tuition has climbed higher, undergraduate education has deteriorated further, state funding has steadily declined, and the academic medical center has turned into another educational money machine that subverts the academic mission.
This is old news, obviously, but now closer to New York as Rutgers joined the Big Ten (or is it 14?). Wake up East Coast.
I remember then Temple basketball coach John Chaney sneering at Sperber on TV "I aint letting a professor tell me what to do". Heck no, man, you're the head basketball coach no one tells you what do to (other than big donors).
If universities concentrated on academics as on D-1 sports the nation would be killing it in med, law, business, journalism, and sports. We might even be able to vote on an intelligence basis.
D-1 sports is all about CBS, and Disney (ESPN, ABC), and Nike, and Underarmour, and Coke....At&T, Cap-One, Allstate, Buick, Burger King, UPS, etc etc etc.
So this is a huge portion of the American psyche, it's economy, it's heart, and it's pocketbook. Not going to change any time soon, needed or not. Sperber's Drake Commission is the Drake Out of Commission.
Note to Rutgers: get real, don't depend on 50% subsidies. Michigan and Penn State, and Iowa ADs pretty much support themselves.
This is old news, obviously, but now closer to New York as Rutgers joined the Big Ten (or is it 14?). Wake up East Coast.
I remember then Temple basketball coach John Chaney sneering at Sperber on TV "I aint letting a professor tell me what to do". Heck no, man, you're the head basketball coach no one tells you what do to (other than big donors).
If universities concentrated on academics as on D-1 sports the nation would be killing it in med, law, business, journalism, and sports. We might even be able to vote on an intelligence basis.
D-1 sports is all about CBS, and Disney (ESPN, ABC), and Nike, and Underarmour, and Coke....At&T, Cap-One, Allstate, Buick, Burger King, UPS, etc etc etc.
So this is a huge portion of the American psyche, it's economy, it's heart, and it's pocketbook. Not going to change any time soon, needed or not. Sperber's Drake Commission is the Drake Out of Commission.
Note to Rutgers: get real, don't depend on 50% subsidies. Michigan and Penn State, and Iowa ADs pretty much support themselves.
4
Both readers of Sperber's work would warn you against blaming tuition hikes on the costs of athletics.
Yes, " ... that's what the big boys do" says it all. Sheesh.
3
There is nothing inherently wrong with high level (D-1) sports, as there is nothing wrong with art nor music. At a high level it is a cultural achievement, respected through the ages. Colleges should develop the intellect, the physique, and the spirit.
However, the Rutgers model is wrong as are others for several reasons:
1. Students there to study should be be financing the big business of sport; this is a travesty
2. Inter-mural sports are a joke, and should be supported rather than all that money going to the D-1 players
3. The D-1 athletes should be compensated more rather than watch Disney and Nike make billions off them (not to mention the coaches)
4. The major conferences should be footing a huge portion of the bill, not the students not the state, not the professors. It is big business and big business should ante up - the NFL and NBA, Nike, Banks, Disney - to even an extent covering the academic side. This is the biggest travesty.
However, the Rutgers model is wrong as are others for several reasons:
1. Students there to study should be be financing the big business of sport; this is a travesty
2. Inter-mural sports are a joke, and should be supported rather than all that money going to the D-1 players
3. The D-1 athletes should be compensated more rather than watch Disney and Nike make billions off them (not to mention the coaches)
4. The major conferences should be footing a huge portion of the bill, not the students not the state, not the professors. It is big business and big business should ante up - the NFL and NBA, Nike, Banks, Disney - to even an extent covering the academic side. This is the biggest travesty.
6
My Voorhees ancestors are rolling in their graves. Education was and still is paramount in the family.
1
One of us is a Rutgers alumnus from the 1950's, and in those years there were no football scholarships nor was there extravagant non-educational spending on sports facilities. Those on the varsity football team had to meet academic standards or they couldn't play. The Rutgers team had a mixed performance record, but people still went to the games and cheered them on, win or lose. The teams that they played didn't field semi-professional teams masquerading as amateurs, either, unlike at too many universities today.
Expensive football teams shouldn't be part of an academic institution, especially when they take money from academic needs, as they almost invariably do. We have professional football (and other sports) teams, so those who want to play football but have no academic ambitions should go there and not enroll in universities as "students." It's sad to learn that Rutgers has succumbed to the football craze. Let's return ALL college/university sports to true amateur status, where students attend to learn and sports are recreational, not a big business venture.
Expensive football teams shouldn't be part of an academic institution, especially when they take money from academic needs, as they almost invariably do. We have professional football (and other sports) teams, so those who want to play football but have no academic ambitions should go there and not enroll in universities as "students." It's sad to learn that Rutgers has succumbed to the football craze. Let's return ALL college/university sports to true amateur status, where students attend to learn and sports are recreational, not a big business venture.
14
Couldn't Rutgers just cut their sports expenses, take the Big Ten money, and fill the role of the Washington Generals of the Big Ten?
4
They're already the Washington Generals of the Big Ten. They've tried to go big time since the seventies, but have gotten nowhere.
Since people decide that the business of football is more important than the actual quality of the university, then it is only natural that things like that happen. I attended Rutgers in the mid 90s, when RU football was mediocre, tuition was affordable (even the out of state ones that I was paying), and when international students like me went to games, but still considered football the sport we played with our feet (you know soccer).
But now NCAA is all about business, tv rights, and ad revenue. This is not bad for me, since Rutgers has televised games now, which I can watch on line. But I will never afford to send my son to Rutgers, since it has become really expensive, and it has slipped academically, at least according to the various lists. The purpose of a university is to teach students and give them the knowledge for the life they want to pursue. Not exist to prepare "student-athletes" for their future pro careers, while trying to make money in the process for the various athletic departments. But things being as they are, sports are still more popular than Nobel awards, and people must get what they want. Ironically, many teams in the pro world are owned by "geeks" who I am sure they were once interested more in knowledge than sports.
But now NCAA is all about business, tv rights, and ad revenue. This is not bad for me, since Rutgers has televised games now, which I can watch on line. But I will never afford to send my son to Rutgers, since it has become really expensive, and it has slipped academically, at least according to the various lists. The purpose of a university is to teach students and give them the knowledge for the life they want to pursue. Not exist to prepare "student-athletes" for their future pro careers, while trying to make money in the process for the various athletic departments. But things being as they are, sports are still more popular than Nobel awards, and people must get what they want. Ironically, many teams in the pro world are owned by "geeks" who I am sure they were once interested more in knowledge than sports.
3
I never have seen the connection between a college education and sports. Contrary to the beliefs of some, sports is not an academic activity and consequently has no place in our university system. Many of the athletes are not qualified students and have no business being admitted in the first place. How anyone, a student or a non-student, can get excited about some silly game is beyond me. College athletics is a waste of time and money.
12
As a society we need to ask why so many people enjoy and thrill to watching a small group of extreme athletes play a game, and why so many of us become so deeply involved emotionally in this experience. Many Americans engage in mass rituals of social solidarity through watching sports, and businesses are able to exploit these emotions to the point of pushing education to the side in our universities. Yet at the end of the day, whether your team wins or loses, you really have nothing. You have done nothing but sit and watch and maybe yell while someone else played a game. What is that??
Why not read and think about the world around you instead? So in part this is a choice between blind conformity and thinking for oneself. So much for American individualism, which apparently the politicians in NJ have little interest in.
Why not read and think about the world around you instead? So in part this is a choice between blind conformity and thinking for oneself. So much for American individualism, which apparently the politicians in NJ have little interest in.
5
Like most things this is not the whole story...$36mm is 1% of the overall budget at Rutgers. Where is the rest of the cost expansion coming from - need to dig a little more on this. Emphasis on sports is troubling, but it is a little naïve to think that folks are sitting in a room deciding between a coach's salary or a new professor. It is just not the case. The far larger issue is hiring more administrators versus teaching faculty. Simplifying the issue does not lead to real solutions.
This quote from a NYT op-ed piece from this spring.
"...a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.
Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase."
Full article -
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college...
This quote from a NYT op-ed piece from this spring.
"...a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.
Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase."
Full article -
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college...
10
The same ridiculous spending priorities are on display at your local public high school.
6
And police department.
4
As a Rutgers College (New Brunswick) class of 1966 grad , I can recall the low key attitude toward sports and the football program back in the day. We had an unofficial cheer that went "Come on Rutgers, score more points than the other team does". I guess that has changed to "Come on Rutgers spend more than the other team(s) does".
2
Rutgers is a fine institution. However, does the scope and depth of academic research and teaching compare with a Wisconsin, Michigan, Purdue? I doubt it. Neither does Nebraska. The Big Ten has watered down it's academic reputation by adding these schools purely for athletic tv exposure.
11
Rutgers is considered a superior research university. And that's a very good point, John - and one Mr. Nocera had not considered. Several schools in the Big Ten are top second tier Universities - not Ivy, Stanford or Duke - but really fine research institutions and thus members of the Association of American Universities.
But Rutgers is a member of the AAU. As are Wisconsin, Michigan, and Purdue. As are Ohio State, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and several others.
Nebraska is not. It does not belong with the Big Ten academically. in addition, Nebraska did itself a grave disservice by leaving the Big 12 and losing fecund Texas for recruiting. It just gave up on historic Big Eight rivalries.
Penn State is a fine academic institution. But a long time ago, PSU and Rutgers, Syracuse, Louisville, WVU, etc should have tried to form some sort of an eastern conference, but that withered and so now Rutgers part of the geographically incongruous Big Ten. The Big Ten for eastern schools really does a disservice to the athletes, particularly those not playing football.
But Rutgers is a member of the AAU. As are Wisconsin, Michigan, and Purdue. As are Ohio State, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and several others.
Nebraska is not. It does not belong with the Big Ten academically. in addition, Nebraska did itself a grave disservice by leaving the Big 12 and losing fecund Texas for recruiting. It just gave up on historic Big Eight rivalries.
Penn State is a fine academic institution. But a long time ago, PSU and Rutgers, Syracuse, Louisville, WVU, etc should have tried to form some sort of an eastern conference, but that withered and so now Rutgers part of the geographically incongruous Big Ten. The Big Ten for eastern schools really does a disservice to the athletes, particularly those not playing football.
1
When I attended RU the football program focused on games with Lehigh and Lafayette. These were fun to attend and scaled appropriately. The Princeton game was big deal and competitive. They had real student athletes - the center for the basketball team was in my English class and he was a fine student who happened to be 6'10".
Big time college athletics has an enviable business model - tax free, don't pay the workers and dip into the public coffers whenever needed. Notice most of the big time football schools are public and most loose money. Do you really think Duke, Harvard and UofChicago are too stupid to figure out how to cash in if this was a money maker? How about an investigate of the season boxes for the legislators they can use to court donors?
Big time college athletics has an enviable business model - tax free, don't pay the workers and dip into the public coffers whenever needed. Notice most of the big time football schools are public and most loose money. Do you really think Duke, Harvard and UofChicago are too stupid to figure out how to cash in if this was a money maker? How about an investigate of the season boxes for the legislators they can use to court donors?
6
I am a Rutgers alumna (BA ’03, M.Sc. ’12), & I want to see my alma mater succeed. How do I define “success” in this context? Stop the brain drain & keep talented, ambitious students from New Jersey IN STATE, while also creating a national cachet—similar to other state-school peers like UVA, UNC, UCLA, UT, & Michigan…another Big 10 peer. In- & out-of-state students are clamoring to get into these schools! Rutgers has a PR problem. I'm not going to digress as to why, but there is indeed a stigma associated with it (even I once balked at attending the school). The problem isn't academics, though the quality of our professors & education seems to be a confounding “best-kept-secret” rather than shouted from the rooftops. So how does Rutgers achieve success? Well, my superficial answer is going to be resoundingly unpopular. Rutgers needs the appearance of the “trappings of success,” including a $1B+ endowment, top employers recruiting graduates, & yes, superior athletic teams that cultivate a regional following (much like Penn State). Perhaps we can look at other Big 10 schools...personally, I'd like to see Rutgers as a composite of Purdue, IU, Wisconsin, & Northwestern. Our peers had to start somewhere. Unfortunately, higher education has devolved into a beauty contest in many ways (which warrants separate discussion), & Rutgers can either play the game, or always remain the oft overlooked contestant that has "lots of character."
12
Rutgers' biggest problem is the big sprawling campus. It's basically 5 campuses rolled into 1 giant university, with an old, run down town of New Brunswick in the middle. The money would've been better spent providing better linkages between these campuses, offering lots of scholarships to top in-state students, hiring more top notch professors, do more research, fostering better links with nearby corporations to enhance research, internships and job placements for its alumni. With its proximity to NYC and being Milton Friedman's alma mater, Rutgers could totally take more advantage of its ties to Wall Street to improve its business school. This is money and energy wasted on sports, the easy way out, because doing all the other stuff is just too hard.
1
There is no doubt that college sports, which I love, is a cesspool of self-dealing, corruption, infamous iniquity and general no-good behavior. And that's among the fans. HOWEVER, until such time as I become emperor and revamp the system entirely, this is the field on which we may play. Unlike the big square states, Rutgers for New Jersey is not STATE U, or even The U of STATE. As everything else in NJ, it dwells in the shadow of the megalopolises to the north and south with their pro teams. If RU could hold on to just 50 percent of the NJ kids who go on to play Division I sports, it would be a monster among men. Joining the BIG, as it is known, is part of the move to raise LOCAL visibility, which will lead to national visibility, which should lead to M-O-N-E-Y. University of Chicago has no sports teams, you say? Fine get Trenton to fund RU like UC and we can talk about angels visaviz heads of pins.
This is a real shame. Rutgers was always known as an anomaly, a Div. I school that was more into academics than athletics. It's sad to see it falling into the same trap.
Our colleges need to get out of the business of entertainment and return their focus to the business of education. It's time for college football to break off and start an independent league, where players can get paid and stop pretending to be "students". Colleges can sponsor teams to get their alumni loyalty, but should play no part in the recruiting and operations of these teams.
Our colleges need to get out of the business of entertainment and return their focus to the business of education. It's time for college football to break off and start an independent league, where players can get paid and stop pretending to be "students". Colleges can sponsor teams to get their alumni loyalty, but should play no part in the recruiting and operations of these teams.
3
Big money sports such as "football" is a bad influence on big university campuses all around, academically and culturally, as well as economically.
4
Every astute administrator knows that assembling a large & outstanding marching band is the best possible recruitment device, regardless of the level of competition. A college band with a repertoire of rallying cries, appeals for defense & identity assuagement will bring them in regardless of level of success.
Why even the Chicago Cubs, a professional team without a band & only loudspeakers, keeps them coming into the stadium without having reached the pinnacle of success in many decades. In short, create your own legend of devoted followers & live on.
Why even the Chicago Cubs, a professional team without a band & only loudspeakers, keeps them coming into the stadium without having reached the pinnacle of success in many decades. In short, create your own legend of devoted followers & live on.
Is the tail wagging the dog, though? We do enjoy our battle and have rollicking good fun knocking one another's heads off. Of what possible importance is education or something so silly as a library, for God's sake, when in no time at all we'll be heading out of doors and settling all disputes over land, goods, and women like real men, with fisticuffs?
When climate change ends civilization, much good these libraries will do you. It's the football players you want to befriend. I'd be careful, Nocera.
When climate change ends civilization, much good these libraries will do you. It's the football players you want to befriend. I'd be careful, Nocera.
4
It is hard to understand how any university can pay someone $1.25 million to train young men to chase a ball around a field and bash heads and pay so little to the people responsible for filling those heads with knowledge and stimulate their creative thought process. This is just another example of American exceptionalism.
8
wichita stateuniversity where I teach stopped having a football team in 1970,after a tragic plane crash repeated studies over the years have shown what has happened at Rutgers also happens on other campuses.a football team
costs more than it brings in revenue. Wichita still has great basketball, baseball
and women's volleyball teams, not to mention bowling.
costs more than it brings in revenue. Wichita still has great basketball, baseball
and women's volleyball teams, not to mention bowling.
3
I think it's time that collegiate athletics be retired altogether. The players seem to get neither educated nor paid. We should one or the other. Let high-quality athletes play in minor leagues who will paid them accordingly to their ability, and let universities get back to the business of educating.
In Canada the highest level of hockey below the NHL are the regional leagues OHL, QHL and WHL. These are not university leagues, but they often provide a year of university for each year on the team. The difference is that university comes after the playing career is over....when the students can actually have the time to study and perhaps learn something or some value.
You can still have the highest levels of play below the big leagues, without using the university system.
In Canada the highest level of hockey below the NHL are the regional leagues OHL, QHL and WHL. These are not university leagues, but they often provide a year of university for each year on the team. The difference is that university comes after the playing career is over....when the students can actually have the time to study and perhaps learn something or some value.
You can still have the highest levels of play below the big leagues, without using the university system.
99
I can appreciate entertain always win over academics. We live in an entertainment age where attention spans are less everyday. However, Rutgers used to be known as an academic powerhouse. Sports caches are generally the highest paid in every school. Which is absurd considering athletes are academically unprepared for real life. I once taught at a university with a litany of top athletes. I noticed after two years they were gone. I asked the President how many actually graduated. He walked away never giving me an answer. The point is the deficit is huge. A state sponsored university can ill afford such monies which can certainly be used for other state needs. The massive cheating scandal at University of North Carolina should be a concern. http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/massive-cheating-scandal-at-univers...
2
I taught at Rutgers from 2011-2014 and it is a dysfunctional place. Thee are a lot of good people there trying to make it a first class university, but there are a lot of things that do not work well. The unionized environment with both faculty and staff makes it difficult to move the university forward at a decent pace.
One of the best advertisements for a university are its athletics programs. The number of "hits" on a university website from prospective students dramatically increase after a big football or basketball game. My alma mater, Michigan State University, was asked to join the Big 10 in 1953-54 because of its football team. Joining the Big 10 benefitted greatly MSU greatly just as it is benefiting Rutgers. MSU became a good school academically because, in part, it needed to raise its standards to compete in the same conference with Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, and, of course, Michigan. The academic standards and accomplishments at MSU rose with the fortunes of MSU athletics. I believe that President Barchi and his team at Rutgers are likely to do the same thing.
One of the best advertisements for a university are its athletics programs. The number of "hits" on a university website from prospective students dramatically increase after a big football or basketball game. My alma mater, Michigan State University, was asked to join the Big 10 in 1953-54 because of its football team. Joining the Big 10 benefitted greatly MSU greatly just as it is benefiting Rutgers. MSU became a good school academically because, in part, it needed to raise its standards to compete in the same conference with Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, and, of course, Michigan. The academic standards and accomplishments at MSU rose with the fortunes of MSU athletics. I believe that President Barchi and his team at Rutgers are likely to do the same thing.
2
Rutgers spending is peanuts. Here at Enormous State U in the great state of texas, we're spending a half billion dollars to have the largest football stadium in the state (or maybe the universe). And $1.25 M for a head coach? We probably have grad assistants making that much ;-)
5
Guaranteed your assistant coaches and other clowns from the clown-car that is college football rake in such excessive amounts, but not the important people, like teachers and assistants.
I am a faculty member at Enormous State U as well. My 6 year old thinks the football stadium is the center of town. From the mouths of babes...
Rutgers alumni who care about academics should stop donating until it is clear that their money doesn't go where it shouldn't.
7
I already have. I refuse to donate to a school that will never profitably compete in its conference.
Make sure you earmark your donations to go to a certain fund, specified scholarship fund, etc -- that's what I've done for years.
2
Good advice. I want to support the school that partially supported my child with a scholarship, but my donations go directly to that academic program
1
Most of the so-called top small colleges now have to reserve 25% or more of their Freshman admissions spots for "student-athletes" just to populate the growing number of men's...and women's...teams. In some of these sports (e.g., girls soccer and lacrosse), 15 year olds have already "committed" to attend their top choice school by sophomore year in high school, even in the case of the Ivies, provided of course that they "wink-wink" meet the high academic standards required for admission by the time they are seniors.
1
The long term solution to this tail-wagging-dog scenario is to split athletics off from universities. Schools would be about academic excellence (imagine), school-branded athletics would be about athletic excellence. The schools raise revenue as they always have; athletic programs raise revenue through sponsors, whether they are alumni or commercial sponsors. Profitable sports pay for less popular sports. The ideal of amateur athletics is from a former era, it's time we moved on. Who doesn't find it obscene that student tuition and taxpayer dollars go to subsidize corporate profits and provide extraordinary benefits for a minute fraction of students? Costs should be assessed to the obsessed. Let sponsors carry the burden.
11
Rutgers, as most other colleges and universities may have to make a decision: are they in the endeavor of educating young students or are they in the lucrative entertainment business?
It is a glaring example of American exceptionalism: we are here to make money - forget everything else. Forget that American students come in with miserable records on international tests; forget that many graduates are woefully lacking basic knowledge in fundamental disciplines such as spelling and grammar that people in other countries learn in grade school; forget that American graduates have never seen a play by Arthur Miller or Tennessee WIlliams; forget that American graduates have no idea who Marian Anderson might be: forget that American graduates cannot figure out what compound interest at 4% brings in over 10 years; I could go on.
Harvard does not represent the educational level achievable in our country. It is Rutgers and hundreds of similar schools where the vast majority of young people go.
It is a glaring example of American exceptionalism: we are here to make money - forget everything else. Forget that American students come in with miserable records on international tests; forget that many graduates are woefully lacking basic knowledge in fundamental disciplines such as spelling and grammar that people in other countries learn in grade school; forget that American graduates have never seen a play by Arthur Miller or Tennessee WIlliams; forget that American graduates have no idea who Marian Anderson might be: forget that American graduates cannot figure out what compound interest at 4% brings in over 10 years; I could go on.
Harvard does not represent the educational level achievable in our country. It is Rutgers and hundreds of similar schools where the vast majority of young people go.
19
School "prestige" cannot be posted on an athletic scoreboard. sman and others write in the same vein: "Being mentioned in the same breath as . . . " is only important in terms of what words that breath is sending out to the world. We won, we lost, we play again next week and the week after that, is just so much rah-rah hot air. They mean nothing of real importance. Words about the academic strength of Rutgers' programs, the breathing a little easier about the fees and the debts students pay and are saddled with, these are the mentions Rutgers, and every school, should be working to circulate.
Finally, yes finally, late to the show Joe Nocera writes about the real scandal and scourge of college athletics. And Joe, paying athletes will not put an end to the scandals and the scourge.
Finally, yes finally, late to the show Joe Nocera writes about the real scandal and scourge of college athletics. And Joe, paying athletes will not put an end to the scandals and the scourge.
4
“we have been told that we can hire one person for every two who leave.” And what subsequently happens in this faculty shortfall? Quite simple--- the hiring of adjunct faculty, paid miserably, many of whom require second jobs to survive: this makes them far less accessible to their students, thereby diminishing the value of a Rutgers education. As a former college prof., I distinctly recall the educational value of seeing small groups of students in my office, outside of regular class hours --- those students with weaker backgrounds who chose to attend these office-hour Q&A sessions generally did far better than their peers who did not. The time- and financial-shortfalls of adjunct faculty diminish the power of such out-of-classroom learning. To thus penalize students (and their financially hard pressed parents) in order to support an NCAA athletic program is a travesty.
24
Sounds good to me. Kill high school and college sports, other than intramurals or club teams and sports. I was an OK athlete in high school, but could never have dreamed of making a division I team. It was probably for the best.
The degree to which athletes defined themselves and walked around with an entitled air based on some sport which should presumably compliment a life (not become its overriding activity) was amazing. We shouldn't seduce naturally gifted athletes (and it is talent, not effort at that level) with such a massive structure of sport when it eclipses the university experience and education that they should be there to focus on
The degree to which athletes defined themselves and walked around with an entitled air based on some sport which should presumably compliment a life (not become its overriding activity) was amazing. We shouldn't seduce naturally gifted athletes (and it is talent, not effort at that level) with such a massive structure of sport when it eclipses the university experience and education that they should be there to focus on
11
This is a simple solution.
Eliminate all athletic scholarships at Rutgers. Return all athletic teams to the real students who are there to get degrees.
See school spirit skyrocket as students got to games to watch their friends represent the Scarlet Knights.
Watch Rutgers become a national leader in this new culture change toward stressing the importance of education.
Applaud as the Big Ten becomes the Big Nine, then the Big Eight as other school administrators come to their senses.
Eliminate all athletic scholarships at Rutgers. Return all athletic teams to the real students who are there to get degrees.
See school spirit skyrocket as students got to games to watch their friends represent the Scarlet Knights.
Watch Rutgers become a national leader in this new culture change toward stressing the importance of education.
Applaud as the Big Ten becomes the Big Nine, then the Big Eight as other school administrators come to their senses.
20
You don't understand that your bigotry doesn't apply to everyone at a university playing a sport. Not everyone is on the football team and "ignorant" as you'd probably say a lot of them are hardworking kids that deserve to be rewarded through athletic achievement and make the grade nevertheless, widen your lens. Otherwise you sound extremely ignorant referring to "real degrees" that's some unnecessary slander.
Please do not discount the impact of being a member of the Big Ten has to the prestige of Rutgers. This is the USA where success on the playing field equates to esteem and financial rewards. Being mentioned in the same breath as Michigan, Ohio State, Northwestern, Purdue, Penn State will increase the prestige of Rutgers verses schools like South Florida etc.
3
prestige as a sports school, yes, but prestige an an excellent educational institution, no.
One of the reasons I left UT Austin for Lamar in Beaumont back in the mid 80's was because "the University of the first degree" was an undergrad money-vacuum for football and post-grad research professors, particularly for us Electrical Engineers in the PC boom. It has gotten much worse in the last 30 years.
6
Nothing more clearly illustrates the absurdity of college athletic program economics than the Armani garbed, Gucci loafer clad multi-millionaire head coaches pacing the sidelines at a basketball game.
Meanwhile the faculty that is charged with actually delivering curriculum is compensated with the change found in the coach's couch cushions or worse yet, is taught by one of the ever-growing numbers of adjunct faculty for subsistence wages.
In an institution purporting to be an educational environment, what message does this send to students?
Meanwhile the faculty that is charged with actually delivering curriculum is compensated with the change found in the coach's couch cushions or worse yet, is taught by one of the ever-growing numbers of adjunct faculty for subsistence wages.
In an institution purporting to be an educational environment, what message does this send to students?
32
Joe neglects the other side of the coin. Rutgers is not exactly a prestigious state university. I wonder where it ranks in a list of state universities in terms of out of state applicants and other ranking criteria. My guess is that joining the Big 10 will yield far more in terms of increased prestige and applicants than the cost of the athletic deficits.
2
Although I will agree that Rutgers' prestige has dropped since its its ranking in the earlier 20th century (in line with Yale and Princeton), it is still considered a top ranking research university. Wouldn't it be better for an institution formed in order to educate its diverse population divert expenditure to academics over sports? Shouldn't universities imperative be to help form the future leaders and innovators of the world, rather than garner future sports fans? I had a glimpse of this shift as a student at Rutgers, and took part in the debate when I served on the RU Student Assembly. I can say first hand that many of my peers, football fans alike, took issue with these allocations.
4
wellsir, in 1969, a century years after the first American college football game, The Ohio State University capped student computer and laboratory access in order to light a practice football field outside Ohio Stadium. I blame the misplaced priorities of civilization.
15
Nocera is, of course, highly educated and he should give up that liberal trope of exposing an egregious instance of corruption and perverted values and then, disingenuously, asking, "Why is this permitted?" He knows why; I know why; everyone does, Decisions about the expenditure of public wealth are controlled by a wealthy elite because they control government at every level. Stop feigning this outrage; say it plain: Get rid of these oligrachs!
22
I find the emphasis on sports at every educational level disheartening especially since it contributes to the idea that academic pursuits are less important than athletics. By putting sports expenditures first, celebrating sports the way we do, we are sending students a message that if they aren't on a sports team, interested in sports, or part of the whole sports mania their interests or work are not important in the scheme of things. Considering how few student athletes will ever make it to professional sports I think that colleges and schools in general ought to revert to their original purpose: the education of the current and next generation of Americans.
18
Sports are a meaningful part of the college experience and alumni pride is the gift that keeps on giving- the lack of state funding for education at all levels has its grandstand supporters led by the part time Governor who has found political success cheering on the de-funding obstructionists in what was once the republican party. Education is fundamental to our national interests, football is not. Resources need to be created to assure that our state university system offers the bets possible academic experience for our kids. It is mind boggling that we can't sell this to our electorate. The propaganda mill that has ruined our pride in our teachers and schools must be countered with noble articles like this one, and the work of common sense New Jerseyans who can recognize a bad deal when they see one.
8
Why do powerful alumni insist on big-time sports and, often, their traditional accompaniment - fraternities and sororities? It's not only about money, but control. They tend to see their universities as training grounds for the worlds of corporate employment and politics, and the last thing they want is to cultivate independent-minded intellectuals who might see through the imposed shallowness and materialism - Bods, Bucks and Brainlessness - that counts for a 'culture' these days. After all, when people start thinking that way, they start to ask questions, and what they're likely to question is why so many of us work hard just to conform to their dictates. And why do we?
14
The only problem with this article is that this is not news any more, and whatever outrage may be generated is short-term. Clearly, nobody has the energy to fix this situation, which is hardly confined to Rutgers. Somehow the big spectacle of mass entertainment (which arguably has its place) got mixed up in the milieu of higher education (where I argue it does not belong). Why can't we have both, and keep their finances separate? Those with successful programs in either arena will prosper there, and nobody need be confused about which is which.
7
Tocqueville spoke of a democracy but his words accurately describe the lure big time college football can have on a fine academic institution: "Men living in democratic times have many passions, but most of their passions either end in the love of riches, or proceed from it."
8
One of the best decisions I've ever made was to get my doctorate from Rutgers University. The school was very affordable, I had to work harder than I have ever done, and I found that when I graduated the Rutgers reputation helped me get a very good college teaching position. None of that had anything to do with sports. In fact, as an alum I have seen some of the benefits for current students disappear as the University puts more and more money into the black hole known as "big time college sports."
20
As a RU alum (RC '93) I've always been ambivalent about the RU athletics program. On the one hand, true student-athletes, with little or no prospect for a professional career after graduation, should always be encouraged, and I'm proud of RU's track record there. I'm also a fan of the football team, both as a member of the marching band, and today. But the increased financial demands of the football program (the tail wagging the athletics dog) do not sit well with me, especially considering the ever-rising cost of an education.
Rutgers is consistently considered one of the best educational values for public universities in the country, and I would hate to see it's quality diminished for elusive (and illusive) sports glory.
Rutgers is consistently considered one of the best educational values for public universities in the country, and I would hate to see it's quality diminished for elusive (and illusive) sports glory.
8
I would rather say the "tail" is the athletic department (esp. football program) and the "dog" is RU's primary mission as a higher education institution. RU's primary mission according to this column seems to be charging built-in fees from the current students and other fans (mostly, alums and their families) and grooming the future RU sprots (esp. football) fans, just like most other BIG FOOTBAL universities.
1
I am deeply saddened by these reports of Rutgers wasting money on building its athletic department. I graduated from Rutgers College in '99, back when it was unbelievable affordable for in-state residents, and I feel it was the best academic value around. I spent later years in graduate school at private institutions of high caliber and price, and I can say that none has compared to the academic experience I had at Rutgers. In fact, living in the south, I can't tell you how often people mistake Rutgers for an Ivy League. I correct them, explaining that Rutgers is a behemoth of a state institution, but the reputation down here remains.
To me, the academics are so much more important than the athletics, and this is despite the fact that during my time at Rutgers, I ran XC and track, and competed in the Big 10. I don't want an alma mater with an amazing football team - especially during this time of moral corruption as the sport makes headlines for all the wrong reasons - Ray Rice anyone? I cringed when people reminded me that he had been Rutgers' star player...does increased investment in Rutgers athletics mean we have more of this to look forward to?
As an alumna, I don't want to see the value of my degree diminished. By all means, build up the athletic department, but it is criminal to do so at the detriment of the school's excellent academic reputation.
To me, the academics are so much more important than the athletics, and this is despite the fact that during my time at Rutgers, I ran XC and track, and competed in the Big 10. I don't want an alma mater with an amazing football team - especially during this time of moral corruption as the sport makes headlines for all the wrong reasons - Ray Rice anyone? I cringed when people reminded me that he had been Rutgers' star player...does increased investment in Rutgers athletics mean we have more of this to look forward to?
As an alumna, I don't want to see the value of my degree diminished. By all means, build up the athletic department, but it is criminal to do so at the detriment of the school's excellent academic reputation.
21
As I recall, this imbalance was reported on well before Rutgers joined the Big Ten.
The Big Ten is complicit through its effort to expand its viewing and recruiting base, and admitting an obviously not "Big Ten-ready" into the league.
Moreover, while Rutgers' teams may play in the Big Ten, they are not a "Big Ten school."
The Big Ten is complicit through its effort to expand its viewing and recruiting base, and admitting an obviously not "Big Ten-ready" into the league.
Moreover, while Rutgers' teams may play in the Big Ten, they are not a "Big Ten school."
4
It is the one at the top who for his efforts is not getting a minimum wage that must say no. Good luck!
2
To understand why RU will NEVER be a dominant player in college sports, look no farther than Karl-Anthony Towns of Kentucky. Here is one of the most talented basketball players in the country - hails from Piscataway (Rutgers' back yard!) - went to St. Joseph's High School (down the street from RU). Where did he decide that his career basketball interests were best served? Kentucky!
While NJ has produced many of the finest professional athletes (Ray Rice notwithstanding), most of them leave the state to gain national recognition.
Rutgers latest experiment in overspending on athletics to achieve mediocrity is doomed to failure until it can figure out why NJ's best athletes leave the state.
While NJ has produced many of the finest professional athletes (Ray Rice notwithstanding), most of them leave the state to gain national recognition.
Rutgers latest experiment in overspending on athletics to achieve mediocrity is doomed to failure until it can figure out why NJ's best athletes leave the state.
4
Right now the most famous Rutgers football team alum is Ray Rice, he formerly of the Baltimore Ravens.
1
As a native New Jerseyan I must say I have always wondered why States like Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Alabama,Oklahoma, Texas, and California could field competitive state university football programs and we couldn't. Maybe it's just the ever present New Jersey inferiority complex in my head, and I get all the academic arguments, but darn it I'd sure like to see the Scarlet Knights kick some Crimson Tide butt some day on the gridiron. I know, I know, not in my lifetime.
1
Because they sold out their students and their taxpayers in order to finance a grotesque spectacle?
1
Well.....yeah, but they had competitive football programs, right?
Typical thinking in this country. Never focus on what is really important. That is too hard.
13
"That's what the big boys do"???
Seems a bit childish to me.
Seems a bit childish to me.
11
A bit? Geez, I'd go out on a limb and say a whole lot.
A comment was made that it is not the money-making sports like basketball and football that cause the financial problems but other sports that lose money. That is absurd on its face. Rutgers loses 37 million dollars in a year on fencing, cross country, and rowing?
Sports are important for school spirit, no doubt. The more CHEAP teams the better. But Rutgers, like many other northeastern state universities, has bought into the fantasy that it will become a profitable sports powerhouse. Like many other regional universities, Rutgers has become blinded by this silliness. Let's get real. State universities are in crisis right now and will continue to be so for at least several years. Rutgers looks the fool for undermining its ability to train the citizens of New Jersey for vital professions and toward good old fashioned liberal educational goals.
Sports are important for school spirit, no doubt. The more CHEAP teams the better. But Rutgers, like many other northeastern state universities, has bought into the fantasy that it will become a profitable sports powerhouse. Like many other regional universities, Rutgers has become blinded by this silliness. Let's get real. State universities are in crisis right now and will continue to be so for at least several years. Rutgers looks the fool for undermining its ability to train the citizens of New Jersey for vital professions and toward good old fashioned liberal educational goals.
16
Those other teams you're talking about aren't cheap either. They provide scholarships and have travel and facilities costs too.
1
As a recent Rutgers graduate I have little interest in providing alumni donations to prop up the school's struggling football program. Perhaps future my donations would be of more use at medical research facilities that could help Eric LaGrand, a former Rutgers defensive tackle who was paralyzed from the neck down in 2010.
29
As another Rutgers alum, I agree with you.
Then you should designate your donation for specific use. It's very simple to do and everyone can support what they want. Do you know who wants to create a "us vs them" environment? A vocal segment of the faculty that think somehow if this money wasn't spent on athletics it would be given to them. Guess what the same faculty complain about other departments at the school getting more money than their department. This is an issue blown out of proportion by faculty for self-serving reasons.
1
Well so much for the big question of schooling: what does it mean to be educated? Rutgers answer: bread and circuses.
11
Joe, aren't you stating the obvious? Football at most American colleges trumps academics in money and the esteem that ensues. We have words, nerd and dweeb, to describe, really to demean, those students, heavily caught up in academic pursuits. There's also the term, student-athlete, while dubious, connected with admiration. College may still conjure academic rigor in the minds of some but more often is seen as an avenue to a good-paying job or becoming an early pick in the NFL draft.
37
Nerd and dweeb were words that high school students used to demean their Chemistry teacher while flirting with their study buddy. Grown ups usually don't engage in such frivoliousness unless they're trying to impress their teenage children or gather a momentum of likes on Facebook. Student athlete is area specific and applies to the Family Studies major or Applied Consumerism which connected with admiration from their peers on how they were able to scam the system without being outed. To reject the notion of academic rigor in favor of a brainless job at the call center or lead barista at Starbucks is to acquiesce to an economic system based on greed rather than the acquisition of knowledge. The NFL is a clear example of dweebonomics engirneered by the sexually frustrated likes of Donald Sterling who uses his team to get some action while secretly despising the players who play the game for him.
1
How does football trump academics? Explain.
1
A nuanced view, Carla.
2
As a Rutgers alumnus who donates annually to my undergraduate alma mater I still appreciate and value my education there in the 1960s when sports had the appropriate degree of importance for an institution of education. College sports in my opinion has become an unhealthy business for colleges and I will consider leaving my legacy where education is still the primary function of a university.
12
In the 1980's Rutgers sought to be a football powerhouse so that it could achieve headlines on Page 1 of the NY Times Sports Section. It failed. In the 2000's it hired a football coach from Florida (a NJ native) and for a brief moment actually achieved that honor, which faded rapidly. And yet, when it hit Page 1, alumni contributions and undergraduate applications rocketed upwards.
The problem isn't simply Rutgers athletics, the problem is that athletic success brings front-page glory to our colleges where academic success doesn't. This is universal except for the 1% of universities. That is, the problem isn't Rutgers athletics, it's our societal emphasis on athletics.
The problem isn't simply Rutgers athletics, the problem is that athletic success brings front-page glory to our colleges where academic success doesn't. This is universal except for the 1% of universities. That is, the problem isn't Rutgers athletics, it's our societal emphasis on athletics.
7
Proof of this: who had ever heard of Univ Las Vegas, Xavier, or Gonzaga before sports went big time? (I am not criticizing them; just saying: most of us would never have heard of them outside their region). There is no getting around the fact that sports success = media prominence = much more money from the outside. Would Notre Dame be as widely known without football? Doubt it.
While there are a few examples of a succesful sports program - typically only one team rather than an entire athletic department - suddenly throwing the spotlight on a school and creating a long-term positive change in perception (I would add Boston College to the list, which became a national university almost overnight after the Doug Flutie era, but subtract UNLV as it is still not widely respected outside of it's region) it doesn't seem like a particularly cost-effective way to boost the fortunes of a school. First of all it's very hard to build a great program when you're competing against other schools that also want to win, and then even with very good teams it's still very hard to creat the kind of dramatic moments (deep tournament runs, national championships) that will resonate widely.
Glad this problem has hit the national/international circuit with Joe's column. He summarizes well why we (my wife and I both got our degrees at Rutgers) will not give to our alma mater. A few weeks ago, I struck up a conversation with someone who works with the Rutgers Foundation who happened to share the fact that Rutgers has a dilemma with many alumni who will not give $$$ due to the excesses and the preoccupation that the school has with athletics over academics (they went to Rutgers for an education, not to be spectators).
Rutgers should focus more on getting its academic act together...its lengthy and unnecessary detour into "big-time" athletics has carried no benefits for the average (or well-above average) student who is seeking a sound education.
Perhaps its about time to rework the school motto: sol ludorum et occidentem illustra --"the sun of sports also shines in the West..." ...twenty-first century enlightenment...
Rutgers should focus more on getting its academic act together...its lengthy and unnecessary detour into "big-time" athletics has carried no benefits for the average (or well-above average) student who is seeking a sound education.
Perhaps its about time to rework the school motto: sol ludorum et occidentem illustra --"the sun of sports also shines in the West..." ...twenty-first century enlightenment...
10
It's interesting that people think 2% of all dollars spent by Rutgers is should be described as "excesses and preoccupation" and as "athletics over academics". Perhaps the preoccupation is from those that are over blowing this issue.
1
Spin Out the AD as a private company renting facilities at the campus, or even building it's own new facilities if the market demands this, and offer equity stakes to private investors.
If it can not attract crowds and operate at a profit it will cease operations. Bummer. No great loss for the State of NJ.
Focus on funding biomedical and environmental technology start-ups instead.
If it can not attract crowds and operate at a profit it will cease operations. Bummer. No great loss for the State of NJ.
Focus on funding biomedical and environmental technology start-ups instead.
7
Let's be clear: we are talking about football. I would be interested to see how much is spent on football vs. other athletic programs. As a former Rutgers rower, my experience was that we had to pay ourselves for travel to winter break training, our uniforms, and other items. Further, we had to "volunteer" at the football games to fund our winter training trips. Alumnae donate to the program to help purchase equipment including boats and oars. The men's rowing program had their varsity status (and funding) taken away from them despite being one of the university's original sport teams and the training ground for a dozen Olympic rowing athletes just in the past few decades.
I value so much what I learned as a 4-year member of the Rutgers University crew team. While I find that what I learned in the classroom has faded or become obsolete, the lessons I learned as a rower about myself and how to work with others continue to apply to work and life today. I strongly support college athletics however the continued unchecked investment in the football program seems unnecessary and ineffective at best and damaging to other sports and academics at worst.
I value so much what I learned as a 4-year member of the Rutgers University crew team. While I find that what I learned in the classroom has faded or become obsolete, the lessons I learned as a rower about myself and how to work with others continue to apply to work and life today. I strongly support college athletics however the continued unchecked investment in the football program seems unnecessary and ineffective at best and damaging to other sports and academics at worst.
14
Football generates positive revenue. So let's talk about football. It doesn't cost the university anything. It actually produces revenue that helps other sports - not damaging.
It cost the university more to run the crew program than the football program because crew didn't generate any positive revenue. Now I'm not knocking the crew program or any other non-revenue program. I think they are an important part of the university. But it should be noted that "varsity status" doesn't really mean much as crew is not even an NCAA sanctioned sport.
It cost the university more to run the crew program than the football program because crew didn't generate any positive revenue. Now I'm not knocking the crew program or any other non-revenue program. I think they are an important part of the university. But it should be noted that "varsity status" doesn't really mean much as crew is not even an NCAA sanctioned sport.
I taught at Rutgers throughout he 90's and witnessed this academic decline. A series of misguided conservative administrations drove funds toward athletics and high profile research programs and away from undergraduate education. Tuition rose dramatically and my course enrollments changed from the typical NJ working class to a mix of more affluent residents, a lot of foreign exchange students and a few token subsidized low income students thrown in. Deans began approaching courses with a profit/loss mandate and academic teaching materials and program budgets dwindled to nearly nothing. The State University of New Jersey no longer serves the residents of the State of New Jersey, I was not sad to leave there.
6
I am a Rutgers alumni from back in the day when Princeton was still our arch rival. My siblings attended Ohio State. So now whenever Rutgers and Ohio State meet in football or basketball I end up losing a six pack. While it would be nice to win a six pack, at least once in awhile, it makes no sense to throw tons of money into the athletic programs to try to compete with the Ohio States of the world. The balance between athletics and academics is totally out of wack. Those who seek to take money from academic pursuits and out of students' pockets to build up the athletic department's budget even more, ought to work on getting themselves a professional sports franchise. That is really what they are seeking to establish at Rutgers (without paying the athletes of course.) The primary mission of a great state university like Rutgers should be to provide a great education for its students, not to serve as developmental teams for the NFL or the NBA.
17
It starts early. The school board in my district is pushing for a two million dollar renovation of the football field, even though it is in danger of losing academic accreditation. This is just insane.
18
Nocera's pointed piece defines the reality of big time Division I athletics. The major conferences (BIG 10, SEC, PAC 10, etc.) are nothing more than farm leagues for the pros ... where academics for the athletes take a backseat to performance expectations on the field. This unbalanced and distorted world is increasingly controlled by TV revenue from hoops and football championship tournaments ... and it ain't going anywhere ... there is too much money to be made and the American public supports it. If you're a member of one of those
conferences, you gotta play by their rules. As with all games, there are winners and losers. Rutgers is going to have a tough road to hoe.
conferences, you gotta play by their rules. As with all games, there are winners and losers. Rutgers is going to have a tough road to hoe.
31
You don't hoe roads, you lay down fresh gravel or asphalt. You hoe rows (of crops) to kill the weeds, back in the day before cancer-causing pesticides.
4
True that's why the NFL and NBA have to come up with their developmental leagues, college athletics is getting to big. The funny thing is that the poorest states (SEC schools) have the biggest CFB fans, expenses. How can anyone in Alabama or Mississippi think that given their terrible public school system, and lacking economy that spending $5 on coaching is a good idea, more than 85% of the fans never attended that college or any college. Off topic but when they say they have to suspend xxx player in the NFL because Budweiser and their other sponsors I laugh, Anhiser Bush more than any company has contributed to so much domestic violence, family violence, destruction, and poverty..lol
3
Over the past 15 or so years, the Rutgers Board of Governors has slowly but steadily destroyed all the things that have made Rutgers an excellent state university. Consolidation of the separate colleges (especially Douglass and Cook) has diminished the strength of the larger institution, rather than shoring it up as the BOG predicted. Their new narrative is that athletics will save the school. Looks like a weak argument to me. Here's a better narrative: Reduce the number non-academic administrative positions, which have grown at a rate that far exceeds that of academic positions, and focus on strengthening the stature of the university as a learning institution.
14
Precisely why this Rutgers alum (GSNB 2010) won't give a single penny to his alma mater. Whenever they call asking for donations, I politely explain that until The State University of New Jersey straightens out its priorities, they won't be seeing any of my money.
17
When U of M hired the beleaguered 49ers coach last year, I heard many big blue alums echo your thoughts. I hope this movement gains momentum. When I think back on my college days at UC Santa Barbara, I think of the academics, my friends, the beach and the beautiful weather. I seldom think about the sports, other than those I played: IM football, softball, etc. We had an OK men's BB team, a world class Volleyball team. I hear today the soccer program is excellent. So I donate to my alumni group. Why-- because I want today's students to prioritize just as I did-- learning first. If UCSB ever switched its emphasis to sports powerhouse, my faucet would be turned OFF.
Ultimately sports colleges will be forced to shut down their money-losing academic departments.
11
Our local high school begins classes at 7:30 AM when many kids are half-asleep to allow large blocks of time in the afternoon for athletics. Sports are warping the education system well before college.
28
Part 2 of Comments
Additionally, Nocera completely MISSES that Rutgers has amongst the top 5-10 best records of keeping its athletes as STUDENTS, and often students first, consistently scoring in the top 5 or 10 in ratings as to progress of its student athletes (especially in football) towards graduation, and in academic achievement. And often Rutgers is rated as the top PUBLIC universities that have major athletic programs.
Nocera buys into the false narrative that facilities and successful athletic programs do not pay for themselves. At Rutgers, every facilities upgrade has more than paid for itself: Both from a pure ticket sale basis, as well as in future donations. So does athletic success.
Finally, Nocera and many other miss the most basic fact of all: Even at Rutgers, with its so-called mediocre football and men's basketball, THOSE sports operate at break even or profits ... it is the other, the non-revenue generating sports that create the deficits. It is only the affiliation with the Big Ten that will eventually give hope for the entire athletic program to run at break-even or better.
Additionally, Nocera completely MISSES that Rutgers has amongst the top 5-10 best records of keeping its athletes as STUDENTS, and often students first, consistently scoring in the top 5 or 10 in ratings as to progress of its student athletes (especially in football) towards graduation, and in academic achievement. And often Rutgers is rated as the top PUBLIC universities that have major athletic programs.
Nocera buys into the false narrative that facilities and successful athletic programs do not pay for themselves. At Rutgers, every facilities upgrade has more than paid for itself: Both from a pure ticket sale basis, as well as in future donations. So does athletic success.
Finally, Nocera and many other miss the most basic fact of all: Even at Rutgers, with its so-called mediocre football and men's basketball, THOSE sports operate at break even or profits ... it is the other, the non-revenue generating sports that create the deficits. It is only the affiliation with the Big Ten that will eventually give hope for the entire athletic program to run at break-even or better.
3
The whole problem is the myth of profitable sports. Almost all sports, but especially football, are massively state subsidized. They are charitable institutions masquerading as businesses. Now, I like football, especially college football, but we need to be more honest about how we pay for all of this. We should look at football in the same way we look at an art museum - a cultural resources that appeals to a segment of the population, serves some public good, and cannot be economically self-sufficient in its current form.
2
Something is wrong with the economics of higher education in America. I confess, I don't know what it is, but I am sure it is out there, in the records or account books.
With a budget of 3.6 B, Rutgers is spending 55 thousand dollars per year for each of its 65,000 students. I suspect that many of those 65,000 are part time, which means that, on average, Rutgers spends even more per student.
I find something likewise smelly in the idea that the school spent 76.7 million on athletics. Surely this must include every dime spent, including athletic facilities and activities for the thousands of students who are not involved in competitive sports. I suppose if you have a million dollar football coach, you've got to have quite a few half million dollar assistants and very well paid recruiters, etc., If I were in charge, my first screamed order would be: GET THE ACCOUNTANTS IN HERE.
Governments and large institutions tend to take a massive amount of spending as simply the accepted way things have always been done. They don't zero out their budgets and say, "What do we really need?" Desires are placed on top of existing budgets and keep growing, yr. by yr., ever upward.
Before getting and spending more, find out what you are spending now and why.
As for football, winning becomes the end in itself. Talented athletes want to go to big name, winning schools for exposure, TV and otherwise. The more they win, the more they get. Recruiting can't change that much.
Doug Terry
With a budget of 3.6 B, Rutgers is spending 55 thousand dollars per year for each of its 65,000 students. I suspect that many of those 65,000 are part time, which means that, on average, Rutgers spends even more per student.
I find something likewise smelly in the idea that the school spent 76.7 million on athletics. Surely this must include every dime spent, including athletic facilities and activities for the thousands of students who are not involved in competitive sports. I suppose if you have a million dollar football coach, you've got to have quite a few half million dollar assistants and very well paid recruiters, etc., If I were in charge, my first screamed order would be: GET THE ACCOUNTANTS IN HERE.
Governments and large institutions tend to take a massive amount of spending as simply the accepted way things have always been done. They don't zero out their budgets and say, "What do we really need?" Desires are placed on top of existing budgets and keep growing, yr. by yr., ever upward.
Before getting and spending more, find out what you are spending now and why.
As for football, winning becomes the end in itself. Talented athletes want to go to big name, winning schools for exposure, TV and otherwise. The more they win, the more they get. Recruiting can't change that much.
Doug Terry
5
Having taught for many years at a Big Ten school with relatvely clean and self-sustaining athletic programs, the characterization of hypocrisy and misplaced values and priorities is still inescapable. Tribalism and escapism triumph over the educational and cultural mission and contribute to the more general coarsening of our society.
7
Just imagine how great Rutgers could be if it followed the example of my UK alumnus and put its money and energy Into climbing the academic league tables instead of the football stack rankings.
What a shame for the families of New Jersey. Bringing it on ourselves though.
What a shame for the families of New Jersey. Bringing it on ourselves though.
13
Another aspect that had not been discussed is the huge disruption that sports cause to that other (relatively minor, or course) missions of the university: teaching and research. Examples: (1) no parking and street closures on weekdays when games are played (classes then get canceled, staff is given early leave with pay), (2) loudspeakers on high volume at the stadium (and soccer stadium), not only during games, which would be bad enough, but at random times during the day - presumably to make things fun for maintenance people, which make working at offices facing the stadiums impossible. It is outrageous and I would hope that this had been mentioned in the article as well. But then, who cares about research and teaching, right?
14
Some perspective. About 1/3 of the Rutgers non-athletic budget goes to academic expenses. So, if you eliminate the $36 million loss from sports you add $12 million to academics. That's about $185 per student. With a budget in excess of $3 billion, the loss from sports is nowhere near 1% of expenditures. Big to do about not much.
1
In college we learned that the way you divide up the first dollar for an enterprise isn't going to be the way you divide up the last dollar. If 1/3 of the non-athletic budget goes to academics, it would be great to supplement that with the extra $36,000,000 freed up. That would pay for a good 300 extra full time professors. Kind of a lot.
1
Except any incremental spending on academics needn't be allocated to incremental capital and maintainence costs of land, buildings, and facilities. Since the infrastructure is already in place, the funds liberated from athletics could be devoted to educational uses in a far greater proportion than are the current aggregate expenditures. The effect of diverting money from athletics to academics would certainly be significant.
The more salient questions are whether the current receipts from media outlets, ticket buyers, and boosters who now support athletics would be available to support academics, and whether other alumni would be willing--and able--to contribute enough to offset the likely diminution of athletic-related revenue. Additionally, consider what percentage of current athletic costs could actually be eliminated given existing contracts and the maintenance of existing athletic facilities. The going back may be nearly as bloody as the going o'er.
The more salient questions are whether the current receipts from media outlets, ticket buyers, and boosters who now support athletics would be available to support academics, and whether other alumni would be willing--and able--to contribute enough to offset the likely diminution of athletic-related revenue. Additionally, consider what percentage of current athletic costs could actually be eliminated given existing contracts and the maintenance of existing athletic facilities. The going back may be nearly as bloody as the going o'er.
3
The dispute is being led by the Rutgers professors union. I'm guessing they'd like higher pay. Using your pie-in-the sky reasoning, the money would likely fund raises of $4,500 for the existing professors. Didn't they tech that inc college?
1
When the Big 10 expanded beginning last year to include Maryland and Rutgers, it was obvious that they wanted to get into two of the biggest TV markets in the country, New York and the DC area. As Joe Nocera points out, TV is a big source of income for the conference. It remains to be seen whether New York will ever get into college football in a big way. Not since Army was a national power in football back in the 50s has there been a successful New York area football program. It's a bit of a gamble for Rutgers. For Maryland, not so much.
1
I cringe at the thought of subsidizing professional football.
11
The damage to education has already begun if they are justifying themselves with phrases like: "that’s what the big boys do."
11
Nobody wants to watch the Debate Club in action, or the Physics Club, or any other academic function. But when mighty Michigan Wolverines come to town to pound on the Scarlet Knights, watch out! You can't sell tickets fast enough. The football stadium is packed.
It shows you where people have their priorities. My question is this: What is the purpose of Rutgers? Why do they exist? What is their primary objective? TO EDUCATE PEOPLE, not put on football games that drain the coffers and rip off the students.
The powers that be at Rutgers need to remember why Rutgers exists, and get their priorities in order.
It shows you where people have their priorities. My question is this: What is the purpose of Rutgers? Why do they exist? What is their primary objective? TO EDUCATE PEOPLE, not put on football games that drain the coffers and rip off the students.
The powers that be at Rutgers need to remember why Rutgers exists, and get their priorities in order.
14
Not all universities have football teams. Imagine Rutgers closing down their football program. They would have lots of money to support every other athletic team on campus, and would still be able to reduce fees or hire more faculty. Football is an expensive luxury. Shutting down the football program should be on the table.
13
I can easily (and happily) imagine closing down the program. The larger metropolitan area (NY, NJ, Philly) have enough professional football teams to provide sufficient entertainment. One of the few things I can be proud of as a NJ native and Rutgers alumna is that we don't esteem college football the way others do, because we have better things to do with our time, and a whole lot more entertainment options to choose from. What's left once we devolve into the bowels of college football as well?
Anyone that works at a Big Ten or Big East university knows that the school administration considers the faculty to be vermin and the students to be livestock. "Stack 'em deep and teach 'em cheap". What really matters is the athletic department. No matter how pathetic or expensive.
2
The mission statement of public Universities if formed at the Regent level. This is why the University of California system supports academic research over competitive sports teams. In fact, most UC campuses focus on intramural sports which benefit college students over Big Ten programs. Most UC campuses don't even have a football team for good reason. The focus is on academic integrity which promotes learning over athletic prowess. UC academic research creates opportunities for Biotech which enriches not only the community, widens the tax base but also is the brainchild of cutting edge cures for disease that benefit the world. This is a far different mission than pouring money into competitive athletics which stroke the ego of the fans & alumni rather than encourage innovative ideas which transform & better society.
9
And they are talking about paying these neglected football players. The AD deficit will then go to an unimaginable level.
Sadly I do not see a change to the emphasis on athletics over academics until the students realize the injustice of this and demand changes.
Sadly I do not see a change to the emphasis on athletics over academics until the students realize the injustice of this and demand changes.
1
As an alumnus of the Newark Campus of Rutgers, which to the best of my knowledge has no varsity sports, I am appalled by the decision to spend this much money on a sport known to cause substantial brain damage, while crippling academics. Rutgers has always been someplace where a working class stiff could get the break I got, it looks like spending on sports is just a gambit to block yet another path to upward mobility.
15
This highlights the hypocrisy and priorities of state governments: governors and legislators campaign on pro-education platforms ("we need better educated workers . . .") while in office they relentlessly cut education budgets; meanwhile, they submit special bills to add more tax dollars to the state university football program. Over time, university administrators who advocate for academics and libraries are replaced by ones that are a "better fit" to state political and business interests (". . . to attract more corporations to our state"). Talk about synergy!
11
This is truly a good article and very difficult to argue with. But, for obvious reasons, I have to say something - at least one thing - that runs emotionally through my thoughts just as it always does whenever I witness Rutgers game.
Although the school's economic situation doesn't square very well in the relationship between academics and athletics, RU's athletes through it all have consistently acquitted themselves quite admirably both on the field/court but particularly in academics! Year after year Rutger's teams rank high, if not highest, in academic ratings among all of the athletic programs across the nation. Why so little is EVER mentioned of that in sport's reporting is bewildering to me but that's another subject.
When institutions such as Stanford, Northwestern, Duke and yes, Rutgers, are mentioned in this rather prestigious fashion of academic-athletic excellence - there's got to be some significant intrinsic value that can't really be measured in numbers, but yeah with much pride over the decades.
Although the school's economic situation doesn't square very well in the relationship between academics and athletics, RU's athletes through it all have consistently acquitted themselves quite admirably both on the field/court but particularly in academics! Year after year Rutger's teams rank high, if not highest, in academic ratings among all of the athletic programs across the nation. Why so little is EVER mentioned of that in sport's reporting is bewildering to me but that's another subject.
When institutions such as Stanford, Northwestern, Duke and yes, Rutgers, are mentioned in this rather prestigious fashion of academic-athletic excellence - there's got to be some significant intrinsic value that can't really be measured in numbers, but yeah with much pride over the decades.
5
I retired from Rutgers a year ago. Why? My job used to be teaching, research, service. Now it is solely to make money for football. The administration cares about absolutely nothing else.
Rutgers is an academic disgrace.
Rutgers is an academic disgrace.
28
Even at Rutgers the football team's revenues cover the cost of that sport as well as a large number of other non-revenue producing sports teams, many of which are women's teams.
You can always count on Rutgers to make the wrong decision.
Here is a quote from an excellent book on the subject written by the economist Dambisa Mayo. She contends that this nations obsession with sports is dumbing down the country and hurting are world ranking. I agree.
"Should it really matter if some other country is richer and more militarily powerful? Who cares if some other country has economic supremacy as long as your country is prosperous and can manage its own internal affairs. For example the countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, each economically advanced, seem to have no qualms about who rules the world as long as they are left alone to be prosperous and peaceful, though their attitude might well change were whoever held the purse strings to start to curb their freedoms and encroach upon their way of life. But until that happens, whether the global financier is China, Russia or America seems, for them, largely irrelevant." How the West Was Lost Dambisa Moyo
http://bit.ly/FF1104iitl
"Should it really matter if some other country is richer and more militarily powerful? Who cares if some other country has economic supremacy as long as your country is prosperous and can manage its own internal affairs. For example the countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, each economically advanced, seem to have no qualms about who rules the world as long as they are left alone to be prosperous and peaceful, though their attitude might well change were whoever held the purse strings to start to curb their freedoms and encroach upon their way of life. But until that happens, whether the global financier is China, Russia or America seems, for them, largely irrelevant." How the West Was Lost Dambisa Moyo
http://bit.ly/FF1104iitl
4
According to research by a Berkeley professor,, if a college improves its season wins by 5 games, it can expect alumni donations to increase by 28 percent, applications to increase by 5 percent, in-state enrollment to increase by 3 percent and incoming students’ 25th-percentile SAT scores to increase by nine points.
3
"Rutgers is an enormous public institution, with an annual budget of $3.6 billion. It is responsible for educating 65,000 students. Why isn’t that more important that competing in the Big Ten?"
Statements like this are tabloidesque and misleading. The athletic budget accounts for 2% of the university's total spending. How does spending 2% of a university budget make something more important than educating students which accounts for the vast majority of the budget. The academic recruiting boost, fundraising, and student life benefits derived from athletics is substantial and a benefit to the university and its students. And a large portion of those student fees go to support student used facilities and activities. Students also do no pay anything for admission to athletic events.
What if major universities got rid of every sport but Football and Men's Basketball. What would people's reaction be? Because those are the only sports that generate a positive cash flow. So keep in mind that when we talk about these things you are really talking about the smaller Olympic and non-revenue sports. People bash football and basketball but they are the ones that are helping pay the bills for swimming, softball, track, field hockey, gymnastics, golf, etc.
Why all this overblown talk about 2% of the budget?
Statements like this are tabloidesque and misleading. The athletic budget accounts for 2% of the university's total spending. How does spending 2% of a university budget make something more important than educating students which accounts for the vast majority of the budget. The academic recruiting boost, fundraising, and student life benefits derived from athletics is substantial and a benefit to the university and its students. And a large portion of those student fees go to support student used facilities and activities. Students also do no pay anything for admission to athletic events.
What if major universities got rid of every sport but Football and Men's Basketball. What would people's reaction be? Because those are the only sports that generate a positive cash flow. So keep in mind that when we talk about these things you are really talking about the smaller Olympic and non-revenue sports. People bash football and basketball but they are the ones that are helping pay the bills for swimming, softball, track, field hockey, gymnastics, golf, etc.
Why all this overblown talk about 2% of the budget?
4
Personally, when it comes to eliminating college sports, I'd start with football and basketball. Football is the source of many, many injuries, and it seems to me that playing thirty or forty basketball games leaves little time for academics. And when people claim that football and basketball "pay" for other sports, I believe, I believe. But show me the numbers.
, Mens' Crew for example. It is clear to me that the choice to join the Big 10 (now Bigger 14) was a tv market selection based on the potentially large audience of Big 10 alumni in the Tri-State area. It would have made more geographical sense for Rutgers to have joined the ACC and compete with the excellent public universities UNC, UVA, Clemson, Pitt and their private school confreres.
Lack of funds has meant that Rutgers has transformed some varsity sports into Club Activities, like Mens Crew, that enjoyed an extensive history on the Raritan River. How much money is spent on promotion for football, which has been a recently successful sport, or basketball, much less notable.
Lack of funds has meant that Rutgers has transformed some varsity sports into Club Activities, like Mens Crew, that enjoyed an extensive history on the Raritan River. How much money is spent on promotion for football, which has been a recently successful sport, or basketball, much less notable.
When did tax supported colleges decide that "student-entertainers" (incorrectly labelled "student-athletes") were needed in football and basketball to fund other sports?
When did tax supported colleges decide that they needed to have "swimming, softball, track, field hockey, gymnastics, golf, etc. " teams, travel & recruiting budgets, vice intramural sports and a Physical Education Dept?
When did tax supported colleges decide that they needed to become tax-sheltered NFL/NBA farm locations for "student-entertainers"?
When did tax supported colleges decide that they needed to become entertainment venues?
When did tax supported colleges decide that they needed to have "swimming, softball, track, field hockey, gymnastics, golf, etc. " teams, travel & recruiting budgets, vice intramural sports and a Physical Education Dept?
When did tax supported colleges decide that they needed to become tax-sheltered NFL/NBA farm locations for "student-entertainers"?
When did tax supported colleges decide that they needed to become entertainment venues?
1
Bread and circuses, Mr. Nocera, why else?
3
Whenever a student volunteer from Rutgers calls me to ask for a donation, I try to carefully explain why I no longer send my money to Rutgers University. However, I do continue to donate each year to Douglass College since it does not have a football team and emphasizes academics and leadership development for women.
The next time someone from Rutgers calls, I will refer the person to your article.
The next time someone from Rutgers calls, I will refer the person to your article.
13
Didn't Douglass become part of the University in the restructuring a few years back?
My time at Rutgers in the second half of the 1980s was a time of transition between the modest goals of the athletic program and reaching for the big time. Students were still unhappy about giving up the oldest rivalry in college football in 1980 to be embarrassed by Penn State and Alabama every year. My fellow students stayed away in protest, and spent more time outside then in the stadium during games. The University administration never got a clue, and has continued to pursue this big time sports embarrassment at the expense of academics. Sadly, 30 years after my time there, Rutgers students are starting to get worked up for Rutgers Football in ways my classmate would have thought foolish.
1
Entertainment trumps everything in America. The Romans had the gladiators, Coliseum and the Circus Maximus. The U.S. has its equivalents. Just keeping the masses temporarily satisfied and their eyes off of what could be.
6
On way to address the deficits is to reduce the number of sports teams that don't generate revenue to cover all or at least most of their costs. Oh wait, that would be most of the women's teams.
3
This article exemplifies one huge aspect what is wrong with much of American college management. No wonder we churn out graduates unprepared on so many levels to face the work-a-day world.
5
It is notable that several of Rutgers neighboring schools, Princeton, U of Pennsylvania, and Columbia, manage to be high-status, academically acheiving institutions, with modest athletic programs. Basketball teams occasionally make it to the "Big Dance." Fencing, baseball, lacrosse, crew are sometimes nationally ranked.
Students who strive to attend the Ivy League schools go for the education and the connections. Sports are fun, but not first. Rutgers would be better off emulating its Northeastern institutions than seeking its fortune on Midwestern playing fields.
Students who strive to attend the Ivy League schools go for the education and the connections. Sports are fun, but not first. Rutgers would be better off emulating its Northeastern institutions than seeking its fortune on Midwestern playing fields.
90
This is like a saying that Johnny, with his very respectably above average120 IQ, should be more like Janie with her 160 IQ.
No. I am saying that if Rutgers and the State of New Jersey provided more support for academic programs and student scholarships, the college students of New Jersey could receive a useful and quality education at a more modest cost than Ivy League schools. This could help retain many good students. The super-scholars can go anywhere they please, or at least anywhere they can receive substantial financial aid if their families cannot afford the expense.
1
Title IX, federal law passed in 1972, essentially prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from, among other things, gender discrimination in sports. As a result, colleges and universities that have sports programs for men, when appropriate, must also have analogous sports programs for women. So, if a college or university has basketball and soccer programs for men it must also have basketball and soccer programs for women. Of course, providing such programs for women costs money. So why don't we exempt sports programs from the Title IX mandate - after all how many women really benefit from participating in college sports? Moreover, if a women wants to play college soccer, she can always go to a school that doesn't accept federal funds.
Fred P, I hope you are being facetious and not a sexist pig. I competed in Division I sports (at Rutgers) and am now a full professor/scientist (at Rutgers). In my lab (at Rutgers), I have a scholar athlete/captain of the women's soccer team who just won a Goldwater Award for excellence in research. "Non-revenue generating" sports are invaluable and cost a fraction of the football/basketball budget.
1
Rutgers: A mediocre school looking for football glory. What a sad commentary on higher education. And I thought the goal of a university was to educate future generations and do research in every field of endeavor for the benefit of humanity.
21
Rutgers was and may still be a fine school with an embarrassing cult of big time sports which unfortunately reinforces your view…..more evidence that this big time sports quest is folly for a school whose reputation was once built solidly on academics.
Rutgers is not a mediocre school, that is a false statement. Rutgers students are intelligent, diverse, hard-working. Rutgers alumni are extremely successful in all aspects of professional life. If you want to criticize Rutgers athletics as being mediocre, that's fine. But don't label 65,000 students and their accomplishments as mediocre, that's not fair and not true.
1
"A mediocre school looking for football glory."
Just to be clear, that's your "sad commentary" isn't it?
Just to be clear, that's your "sad commentary" isn't it?
2
What is happening at Rutgers mirrors the rest of what's happening in the United States.
Older Americans might be signing up for college courses and educational travel, and I know lots of college kids are working hard at various disciplines -- in classics, astrophysics, architecture and horticulture, engineering and math, and so on -- but a vast swath of Americans are rejecting intellectual life for games and grunts (and guns).
Our public schools? Even our private schools? Experienced educators who know better are forced to adopt "feel good" methods of teaching: no quizzes, lots of praise, lots of group work, very little correcting on paragraphs. At private schools, physical education departments determine schedules, kids are taken out of classes for games, practices take up three or four evenings a week; and after-school help, with rare exceptions, goes by the wayside. In our public schools, both inner-city and wealthy suburban, too many teenagers substitute playing sports and hanging out for studying.
Our colleges? Grade inflation is rampant, in at least small part to year-end professor assessments. Student-athletes? Oh, please.
Our cities? When every rich owner of a team can force a city to fork over hundreds of millions to build a new stadium, and we actually do it, and our libraries are collapsing or closing down (or being turned into a Starbucks, like our beautiful, irreplaceable 42nd Street Lenox library), you know the fall of Rome can't be far behind.
Older Americans might be signing up for college courses and educational travel, and I know lots of college kids are working hard at various disciplines -- in classics, astrophysics, architecture and horticulture, engineering and math, and so on -- but a vast swath of Americans are rejecting intellectual life for games and grunts (and guns).
Our public schools? Even our private schools? Experienced educators who know better are forced to adopt "feel good" methods of teaching: no quizzes, lots of praise, lots of group work, very little correcting on paragraphs. At private schools, physical education departments determine schedules, kids are taken out of classes for games, practices take up three or four evenings a week; and after-school help, with rare exceptions, goes by the wayside. In our public schools, both inner-city and wealthy suburban, too many teenagers substitute playing sports and hanging out for studying.
Our colleges? Grade inflation is rampant, in at least small part to year-end professor assessments. Student-athletes? Oh, please.
Our cities? When every rich owner of a team can force a city to fork over hundreds of millions to build a new stadium, and we actually do it, and our libraries are collapsing or closing down (or being turned into a Starbucks, like our beautiful, irreplaceable 42nd Street Lenox library), you know the fall of Rome can't be far behind.
21
This a complete distortion of what is going on at Rutgers. It disturbs me that a so-called journalist like Joe Nocera buys into this false narrative.
Part 1 Comment:
First, the "deficit" or "subsidy" numbers cited are not accurate and/or distorted. The large deficit cited in the last couple of years include a number of one-time items that inflate the "deficit" beyond what is normal. These include one-time pay-offs for several coaching contracts due to scandals (like Mike Rice), and one-time lump sum pay-off to the AAC (the old conference) for leaving, as well as the AAC/Big East withholding revenues they should have paid.
Also, the money that Nocera cites as Rutgers "paying" itself is also distorted versus how most schools account for revenues and expenses. Many schools include a large chunk of student activity fees in athletic revenue - Rutgers does NOT. Instead it looks like Rutgers is "paying" itself, as Nocera states, when compared to other schools that is already included in athletic revenues. Yes, these numbers have been stated as such in articles such as Barrons and the Wall Street Journal, but those articles created the distorted view, that keeps getting repeated over and over again.
Part 1 Comment:
First, the "deficit" or "subsidy" numbers cited are not accurate and/or distorted. The large deficit cited in the last couple of years include a number of one-time items that inflate the "deficit" beyond what is normal. These include one-time pay-offs for several coaching contracts due to scandals (like Mike Rice), and one-time lump sum pay-off to the AAC (the old conference) for leaving, as well as the AAC/Big East withholding revenues they should have paid.
Also, the money that Nocera cites as Rutgers "paying" itself is also distorted versus how most schools account for revenues and expenses. Many schools include a large chunk of student activity fees in athletic revenue - Rutgers does NOT. Instead it looks like Rutgers is "paying" itself, as Nocera states, when compared to other schools that is already included in athletic revenues. Yes, these numbers have been stated as such in articles such as Barrons and the Wall Street Journal, but those articles created the distorted view, that keeps getting repeated over and over again.
4
So the fact that the money was paid out because of scandals is supposed to make it more acceptable?
1
Some observations from the "belly of the beast" in the Midwest.
There is a lot more red ink here than $36M. Does that include amortization of the athletic venues? The utility bills for the athletic facilities? Extra policing and physical plant charges for the territory the jocks occupy and the roads and parking structures built to facilitate drunken sports orgies? The time and travel money administrators waste on sport and its scandals? And consider this: donations to the athletic department should be counted as opportunity costs that subtract from the limited pool of tax deductible donations that might be made to legitimate university activities. Coming soon: pay for the "student athletes" and legal fees to settle CTE-related liability suits. So, the true losses are double or triple those stated here and will soon skyrocket.
There is a lot more red ink here than $36M. Does that include amortization of the athletic venues? The utility bills for the athletic facilities? Extra policing and physical plant charges for the territory the jocks occupy and the roads and parking structures built to facilitate drunken sports orgies? The time and travel money administrators waste on sport and its scandals? And consider this: donations to the athletic department should be counted as opportunity costs that subtract from the limited pool of tax deductible donations that might be made to legitimate university activities. Coming soon: pay for the "student athletes" and legal fees to settle CTE-related liability suits. So, the true losses are double or triple those stated here and will soon skyrocket.
25
I wonder how Rutgers would respond if this was a publicly listed company. The board and the CEO would be fired immediately for fiscal irresponsibility. Rutgers is no less responsible as the college is funded by tax payers. I hope the leadership understands this concept.
Building a sound and strong educational institution should be the top priority for the State University -- after all, this is the main reason that parents spend their $ in sending their kids to college. At the same time, as some folks have pointed out, are some of tenured professors playing their part or just goofing off? Then why have a tenured system -- Rutgers should get rid of this system if it truly wants a meritocratic organization. Spending an appropriate amount on football is meaningful but running deficits in chasing a wild dream is insane!
Building a sound and strong educational institution should be the top priority for the State University -- after all, this is the main reason that parents spend their $ in sending their kids to college. At the same time, as some folks have pointed out, are some of tenured professors playing their part or just goofing off? Then why have a tenured system -- Rutgers should get rid of this system if it truly wants a meritocratic organization. Spending an appropriate amount on football is meaningful but running deficits in chasing a wild dream is insane!
5
you should become more familiar with corporate America - Rutgers is behaving exactly like a corporation. It's run primarily for those at the top who squeeze every dollar they can out of the institution with no regard for the long-term solvency of the institution and certainly none for the public good.
As a Rutgers alumnus, '52, I always thought that joining the Big East was a mistake. As a state college there was no way that NJ was going to fund big time athletics. Rutgers should be making its "mark" as a top learning institution. Not trying to be an athletic powerhouse. Trying to be both, Rutgers has become neither. The loser has been the state and our students who pay tuition which is among the highest for state universities. Joining the Big Ten was the latest ego trip for those within and out who voted for it.
55
As a 1989 Rutgers alumnus, I agree completely, and you stated it perfectly. My years there were marked by disputes over how far to take this big time sports folly, and almost all the students supported academics and voted with their feet by missing the football games. That's how Rutgers "fans" got a reputation for not supporting their team on the road, and barely at home.
5
Required reading: Amanda Ripley's excellent "The Smartest Kids in the World". This sports-precedence-over-academics starts earlier than college, and is incomprehensible to much of the rest of the world.
35
Why don't you talk about the "deficits" run up by the English and Chemistry departments? Presumably, an educational institution should spend net funds on the myriad of experiences (in the class and out) that constitute a college education. Better that a sports program run a deficit and be somewhat beholden to the President and Board of Trustees for their funding. I would venture to say that Urban Meyer, Nick Saban and their ilk do not take direction from the educational leaders of their universities. He who has the money controls virtually everything.
3
"Infuriating faculty members" is not the worst fallout from sports that could happen at Rutgers. Let's point out that tenured faculty at Rutgers are members of the very powerful AAUP-AFT. They essentially can never be fired or laid off. Never ever. Many teach only one or two courses a semester. Their annualized expense with benefits averages over $200K plus perks that would make 99% of the for-profit world blush. Some of the union's tactics would make Patrick Lynch proud. So not hiring replacements for low priority sub-specialties is a sound fiduciary move the taxpayers should applaud.
Instead of looking at athletics as an isolated part of the modern American university system try seeing them as a marketing investment in building and maintaining a brand. The 36MM sports deficit is 1% of the overall budget. If they were a Silicon Valley startup they'd be laughed at as low-spending pikers. The athletic investment, as well as the major building initiatives that are transforming the Livingston and College Avenue campuses, are what will attract future generations of more and better students and faculty. In the long run that's what matters.
Instead of looking at athletics as an isolated part of the modern American university system try seeing them as a marketing investment in building and maintaining a brand. The 36MM sports deficit is 1% of the overall budget. If they were a Silicon Valley startup they'd be laughed at as low-spending pikers. The athletic investment, as well as the major building initiatives that are transforming the Livingston and College Avenue campuses, are what will attract future generations of more and better students and faculty. In the long run that's what matters.
2
For the thousandth time: Tenure does not mean you can "never be fired" - all it means is that you must have a reason to fire someone. That's it, just due process. Yes, few tenured professors are fired, but that is mostly because by the time someone actually gets tenure they have already spent 6-10 years in graduate school (the last few years teaching and doing research), a year or two in a "post-doc" or "visiting" position, and then 4-5 years working towards tenure. That's a 12-17 year vetting process before someone gets tenure.
1
I am puzzled as to where your figures come from - "their annualized expense with benefits averages over $200K plus perks...." I would be surprised if this were in fact true. In regard to this particular statement.....color me skeptical.
1
Nocera missed the tens of millions spent on the stadium conversion when Rutgers went "big time." Rudy Vallee, raccoon coats, and megaphones never existed, but they make for a wonderful mythological world that gets trotted out when money yet more is needed. It's obscene and an embarrassment.
Vic Losick '65
Son of Paul Losick '32
Vic Losick '65
Son of Paul Losick '32
18
Murray Sperber called the average university education "Beer and Circus" decades ago. This is just another chapter in the story of the increasingly dismal state of higher education in the good ole U.S. of A.
24
All over the country, rich guys waste their money on college sports ... except in the Northeast, where rich guys spend their money manipulating American government policy, at home and abroad. I'm all in favor of promoting college sports as much as possible in the Northeast as a way to suck up loose billions that would otherwise go to promoting tax breaks and wars.
3
New Jersey state government producing this result? Who'd have thought? BTW, I'd advise Joe Nocera not to try to cross the GW Bridge any time soon.
11
The tail always wags the dog because money is the only thing considered valuable in college education today. My husband and I got a great education from Rutgers and Douglass in the 70s. Now I wouldn't send a cockroach to Rutgers. The university destroyed my college (Douglass) and is now destroying its alumnae association and fund. Big time sports is a joke, a money pit that sucks all the funding that should go to educating young people, not teaching them to be fans. I'd like to think that things might change if enough light is shed on the abuses, but I doubt it.
50
But sports are now known to be a money-losing proposition. It's not just about money. It's about masculinity and rich men's self-image, as projected onto and reflected back by their alma mater.
I'm just grateful someone sufficiently powerful was able to stop the West Side Stadium that Bloomberg wanted from being built in Manhattan.
I'm just grateful someone sufficiently powerful was able to stop the West Side Stadium that Bloomberg wanted from being built in Manhattan.
6
DGG sounds a little bitter about the consolidation of Douglass to make it more like all the undergraduate divisions. Rutgers´ academic reputation is still very high and its students are much more than cockroaches.
Big time DI college sports + NCAA +NBA +NFL= conspiracy to fleece us all while the bands play on, the cheerleaders romp, the corruption of academic integrity accelerates with every semester, criminal behavior by prime recruits goes unindicted, financial deficits balloon, academic malfeasance explodes, all brought to us by a notorious sports cabal of Robber Barons hiding behind the fancy frills of the NCAA! Time for a Truth Commission to explode the myths, the misappropriations, the mendacity of Boards of Trustees and the complicity of state Governors who have swallowed this bilge hook-line-sinker for generations. And the multi-million dollar coaches & their defenders are laughing all the way to the banks!
11
NJ Governor Christie travels down to Delaware all the time to sit w high school/college buddies and watch U Del football. Indeed, this Rutgers idea was his.
He cuts academic programs, attackers teachers w cuts, and boosts... football.
He is anti-intellectual. Remember this as you vote soon.
He cuts academic programs, attackers teachers w cuts, and boosts... football.
He is anti-intellectual. Remember this as you vote soon.
83
Don't bring the University of Delaware into this--our football team is subpar, has been for decades, and we're fine with it staying that way.
Even were Rutgers to succeed, by dumping money into coaches and facilities –and some creative accounting–what would they gain? A reputation as another "powerhouse" in the Big 10. Huzzah!
The underlying message here is how ethically bankrupt was the education these sports-mad alumni received from their alma mater.
The underlying message here is how ethically bankrupt was the education these sports-mad alumni received from their alma mater.
17
Big time college football is a business and if a business loses money it goes out of business.
9
It's really adorable how Americans think that corporate America is accountable.
The problem is far broader than a couple of University board members. How much ink does the New York Times devote to Rutgers acedemic programs vs. athletics? For better or worse, successful athletic programs generate more publicity and marketing for a university than anything else. A whole media industry is devoted to assuring this.
13
Rutgers would do far better to reduce its football budget and use the money to make some adjunct faculty members full-time.
105
Well, Joe, finally finally! You have been explaining the excesses of college athletics for years by pointing to the money money money. But with very few exceptions, it's all red ink!!And NCAA study recently showed that only 20 schools, all real big time sports schools, produced more revenue than they spent. ALL the rest, division I, II and III, lost money on sports, and covered the loss by student fees and transfers from the general fund; and occasional lunacies like the one at Rutgers. Please: do not again explain the fashion of college sports as the money it makes. They LOSE money.
42
"You can see, of course, why this would infuriate faculty members — or, for that matter, anyone who cares about academics." Or anyone with a basic understanding of a balance sheet.
66
Rutgers will reap what it has sown. Fast forward five years and you will witness a total disaster. Football and men's basketball teams underwater with losing records and big deficits. There is no way Rutgers can compete in either sport with the Big Ten powers. What top recruit would want to play in a dump like The Rack? Two or three coaching changes will occur in each sport. Maybe even major recruiting scandals as wealthy alum try to buy players. Look at what happened at Binghamton, NY, when this small state school tried to go big time in basketball. Scandals, recruits who didn't belong. Firings and resignations. Rutgers has been on a positive track as an academic institution for the past many years. You can forget about that. The only hope is for the Governor and legislature to stand up. Don't hold your breath.
13
How athletics ever gained prominence is hard to figure. I am a NJ native and have known many Rutgers alums. Kids have always been happy to be accepted in this not quite an ivy. It has a great tradition and its graduates are recognized for have attended a very good school. They should make athletics devolve. How many junion grade instructors could be paid from the athletics' deficit?
And by the way, Rutgers is in New Jersey. We simply don't follow college football with the same passion as those in the South and mid-west.
And by the way, Rutgers is in New Jersey. We simply don't follow college football with the same passion as those in the South and mid-west.
11
Add to that the pressure put on faculty to give athletes special privileges (and grades) in the classroom (having seen this personally at two public universities and one private college).
43
This really doesn't happen at Rutgers. I've been there for 10 years and no one from the athletic department has ever asked me to change a grade. Though athletes do get a lot of academic support - tutors, attendance takers (someone stands at the door of my classroom and checks in the athletes to make sure they go to class), excused absences etc.
Good for Rutgers. At some other schools, not so much.
American "higher education" is just another scam on the taxpayers. Take, for example, the upper-division course at UC-San Diego (Visual Arts 104A: Performing the Self), where the final exam is taken in the nude in a candle-lit room, with the "professor" actively participating. One can only imagine what makes this an "upper division" course.
4
How did this get to be about "higher education." But great -- you managed to cherry-pick a ridiculous class, whose outrageousness went viral because it's NOT an "example" (as you put it) but a unique absurdity. (Yes, there are other absurdities, in a country with hundreds of thousands of different classes being taught. So?)
5
How is this class much different than the visual arts of Beyonce and Jay Z which are the ultimate tribute to performing the self? What about the visual art of Lena Dunham exposing her naked body in complete defiance of accepted norms of ideal body type and puritanical suppression of erotic desire? What about Norma Jeane Baker's visual performance art in her sexual goddess role of Marilyn Monroe and her amazing ability to capture an enthralled movie going audience? What does the candle-lit room signify in terms of capturing the essence of visual art before the eventual extinguishment of the sexual flame. What is troublesome to the conventional mind, is the presence of the Professor as evaluator as an active participant in the performance. How does the active involvement of the supposed superior in the visual exhibition disturb the moral equilibrium more than if he were off stage in a detached and objective observatory role? These are all important processes for visual artists as they engage the viewers intellectual acuity. Ever since the introduction of MTV, visual art has taken on an increasing role within mixed media performances. To remove the visual reduces the mind to a purely cognitive engagement devoid of the senses.
2
I'm not sure how an art class in California is relevant to the New Jersey football program, but I'm sure that the professor (who, according to the article I read about that class this morning, also offers a non-nude art project for those who object) is wasting less money on candles than the Rutgers is wasting on football.
4
As a graduate of Rutgers (MBA '90) and someone who abhors college athletics, this situation makes me fume. A great university should earn its stripes in academics, not touchdowns. Turning athletics in a wishful money maker would mean chasing after the wrong models. If it want to emulate other schools, let it be those that consistently rank on top for academic research and achievement.
82
Excellent article. It reads like a microcosm of the USA: the profit motive and PR versus substance. I can't advise the academics who are fighting a rear-guard action to protect the ideal of a university: it's their careers and paychecks. But if I were in that game again, I hope I would try to use the web and every other means of educating those who wished for education (not "training.") After all, the Greeks managed on small budgets.
14
Look at this in a broader context. The 1% controls a society in which a significant portion of the 99% consent to be opiated by sports and consumerism, two of the most powerful forces for depoliticizing and disenfranchising millions, who become apathetic about politics in their zeal for sports. Education is just one of the casualties, of course. Our democracy, arguably, is the bigger victim. If I am in the thrall of the Big 10 and cheap consumer goods produced in China, it is quite likely that I am not paying attention to billionaires corrupting democracy. At least sports fans with good jobs have a choice. Wages kept low by politicians who refuse to raise minimums is a more insidious force disenfranchising millions. If I am working two or three jobs to put food on my family's table, do I really have much time or inclination to pay attention to politics and vote?
107
The $26 million per year to subsidize the Athletics Department should be redeployed to pay the salaries of star faculty hired from other universities.
That amount of money could easily be used to hire star faculty of the level and quantity that would give Rutgers the No. 1 physics, law, biology, mathematics, and business departments in the nation. And there would still be money left over to reduce tuition.
Each year Rutgers is the worst or second worst in the nation in the tuiition and tax $$$ used to annually subsidizes the athletic department. And don't be fooled. Joining the Big Ten will not turn the Athletic Department into net revenue generator. Despite the widespread public misperception that athletic departments generate money for libraries and academic buildings, etc., the facts are otherwise. Only about a dozen universities nationwide have athletic departments that are financially self sustaining. In all other cases, the athletic department is a net money loser and must be subsidized with tuition and tax dollars. Moreover, for Rutgers to compete in the Big Ten it will have to spend hundreds of millions on stadium and other athletic facility upgrades in order to attract the best athletes.
Middle and working class students are being crushed by huge tuition bills. The combined state and local tax load in NJ is already very high. Meanwhile, state legislators and university 'leaders' want to spend more tuition and taxpayer money on college sports.
That amount of money could easily be used to hire star faculty of the level and quantity that would give Rutgers the No. 1 physics, law, biology, mathematics, and business departments in the nation. And there would still be money left over to reduce tuition.
Each year Rutgers is the worst or second worst in the nation in the tuiition and tax $$$ used to annually subsidizes the athletic department. And don't be fooled. Joining the Big Ten will not turn the Athletic Department into net revenue generator. Despite the widespread public misperception that athletic departments generate money for libraries and academic buildings, etc., the facts are otherwise. Only about a dozen universities nationwide have athletic departments that are financially self sustaining. In all other cases, the athletic department is a net money loser and must be subsidized with tuition and tax dollars. Moreover, for Rutgers to compete in the Big Ten it will have to spend hundreds of millions on stadium and other athletic facility upgrades in order to attract the best athletes.
Middle and working class students are being crushed by huge tuition bills. The combined state and local tax load in NJ is already very high. Meanwhile, state legislators and university 'leaders' want to spend more tuition and taxpayer money on college sports.
123
Joe,
You are assuming that a college is about education. I suspect that is even true for some students. For many students, however college has become extended adolescence.
You are assuming that a college is about education. I suspect that is even true for some students. For many students, however college has become extended adolescence.
20
Infiltrating the universities with commercial sports, left-leaning guerrillas, or anything non-academic simply weakens the universities. This is non-sense.
1
I think that commercial sports is overwhelmingly more a problem than "left-leaning guerillas," even if you mean that figuratively, which of course you do (the number of actual guerillas on campus being pretty darn small).
5
This will only end
when New Jersey taxpayers
wake up and stop it
when New Jersey taxpayers
wake up and stop it
13
I pay taxes in NJ. I can't see what we can do.
1
Not likely to happen.
The Devils were supposed to bring prosperity to Newark. It' didn't happen. No one learns anything.
The Devils were supposed to bring prosperity to Newark. It' didn't happen. No one learns anything.
2
At the very least you can tell your representatives in state government how you feel. If you're not satisfied with the response you can vote against them next time.
2
It seems that students at least could vote with their feet. If the college loses enough mass, there won't be enough of a student body to support the football team. If money is what the team needs, then money is where they will have to be targeted by something that is not influenced by alumni.
3
If the academic departments want justice, they should just pretend to be deflated footballs. Then outrage will ensue.
10
I object to the use of the general term "athletics" when talking about the problem. What we're really talking about is the use of American colleges and universities as a farm system by the NBA and NFL. Let the NBA and the NFL set up their A / AA / AAA clubs as baseball has done, so at least the young athletes are paid.
Let's see the shape of the problem after these two egregious exploiters of the young are taken out of the equation.
Let's see the shape of the problem after these two egregious exploiters of the young are taken out of the equation.
150
Every college sport played professionally, from golf to baseball to soccer to hockey and beyond, uses college sports as its minor league. If you want to stop that, homecoming for tiddlywinks will be the high point of the sports year.
I say let the NFL and NBA pay for the students and the facilities their sports require. Otherwise the leagues are getting a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers to develop professional talent.
8
I absolutely agree. I've been complaining about this since the 1980's. Its so blatant.
2
Not to minimize the importance of running farm teams for the NFL with taxpayer funding, overlooked in the comments, so far, is the toll this process takes on the "students" participating in college football.
Nine tenths of all these "student-athletes" are not going to make it into professional sports. After four years of organized mayhem they enter the real world with an autographed jersey, a couple of blown-out knees and a real shot at becoming a nightclub bouncer. And a worthless degree, a penchant for violence and a few thousand dollars of student, excuse me, "student" loans.
And, of course, the advantages of a college "education". Functionally illiterate thou art and onto functionally literate thou shall return.
While my bleeding heart liberal fellow NYT subscribers are obsessing about a couple of dead, black punks, they may wish to consider the disproportionate number of these individuals who are of the African-American persuasion.
Orval Faubus would be so proud.
Nine tenths of all these "student-athletes" are not going to make it into professional sports. After four years of organized mayhem they enter the real world with an autographed jersey, a couple of blown-out knees and a real shot at becoming a nightclub bouncer. And a worthless degree, a penchant for violence and a few thousand dollars of student, excuse me, "student" loans.
And, of course, the advantages of a college "education". Functionally illiterate thou art and onto functionally literate thou shall return.
While my bleeding heart liberal fellow NYT subscribers are obsessing about a couple of dead, black punks, they may wish to consider the disproportionate number of these individuals who are of the African-American persuasion.
Orval Faubus would be so proud.
9
I know that you thought you were being cute, but "African-American persuasion" is offensive. It really is. As is "dead, black punks,:
5
Come on Joe, I thought you told me every athletic department was awash in money, Say it ain't so Joe! Did you tell your readers how much of that money goes to fund women's teams as required by the federal government? That's right, required by the federal government, If you want to cut the athletic budget be prepared to be pummeled by groups that you are discriminating against women by cutting women's scholarships,
By the way, if you are so outraged by a school using general funds to help cover athletic department expenses, why don't you continually praise Purdue University which has never used a penny of a general funds, that's right Purdue athletics is entirely self-sufficient. But of course, you didn't know that.
By the way, if you are so outraged by a school using general funds to help cover athletic department expenses, why don't you continually praise Purdue University which has never used a penny of a general funds, that's right Purdue athletics is entirely self-sufficient. But of course, you didn't know that.
2
Go Purdue! Remind me how that's relevant to Rutgers?
And, um, I think part of the problem is that Title IX means that there's a multiplier effect for all money spent on athletics? Add money to football, and you have to add money everywhere. Nice, though, that you made this about helping women.
And, um, I think part of the problem is that Title IX means that there's a multiplier effect for all money spent on athletics? Add money to football, and you have to add money everywhere. Nice, though, that you made this about helping women.
6
"Rutgers is an enormous public institution, with an annual budget of $3.6 billion. It is responsible for educating 65,000 students. Why isn’t that more important that competing in the Big Ten?
Why does the tail always wag the dog? "
**************
MONEY. Bragging rights of having graduated from a university with a great ball team. Who on earth understands why sports is more important than a top notch school of academics?
Why else would academics, in a world requiring more and more intelligent people to be prepared to accept the responsibilities of a fast changing world with its myriad of complex problems, be constantly holding its hands out for help while our government in congress and our state governments cut more and more from their budget?
Why does the tail always wag the dog? "
**************
MONEY. Bragging rights of having graduated from a university with a great ball team. Who on earth understands why sports is more important than a top notch school of academics?
Why else would academics, in a world requiring more and more intelligent people to be prepared to accept the responsibilities of a fast changing world with its myriad of complex problems, be constantly holding its hands out for help while our government in congress and our state governments cut more and more from their budget?
9
The issue described struck me as a microcosm of a more pervasive problem in American culture: over-emphasis on the body and the material, under-emphasis on the mind and the less tangible.
The mission of state schools, in my opinion, should be providing a solid education at an affordable cost.
The mission of state schools, in my opinion, should be providing a solid education at an affordable cost.
104
"The mission of state schools, in my opinion, should be providing a solid education at an affordable cost."
Profound.
Profound.
1
You miss the point Diana. The general problem with America is that the pursuit of profit trumps every other value. Who cares about education? Why should we have to pay taxes for it? Let the universities support themselves, and let their product support the Pro Sport Industry.
4
Yes, but by the time kids get to college they've likely already made their choice between your two alternatives. And it's probably the first over the second option.
1
Private universities are largely free to do whatever their finances permit, but public universities do answer to the taxpayers. One might think that this would lead to sports parsimony, but it doesn't.
The pressures on many public universities are not much different than the pressures one sees at many public high schools where these are matters of direct public election: the voters turn down arts and music programs and reduce funding for accelerated classes ... but they fund a new bus and a locker-room upgrade for the sports teams.
The public universities that win at big football are predominantly midwestern and southern, and have only one, or at most two, big public universities in the state.
By this rubric New Jersey "should" be able to play the game, but it comes to the party late, the entry cost is high, and the benefit to the public is hard to explain or justify -- universities are driven to it by a mixture of prestige and fan pressures.
New York has the SUNY system, with 4 "university centers." Only Buffalo plays football in the FBS, Albany and Stony Brook play in the FCS (and are recent upgrades to that), Binghamton does not play intercollegiate football.
I bet most readers have never heard of these teams, and I think New York is better for this.
Football is still "small time" in New York, but pressures are mounting ... and Rutgers serves as a very good warning, as does the debacle at Penn State.
The pressures on many public universities are not much different than the pressures one sees at many public high schools where these are matters of direct public election: the voters turn down arts and music programs and reduce funding for accelerated classes ... but they fund a new bus and a locker-room upgrade for the sports teams.
The public universities that win at big football are predominantly midwestern and southern, and have only one, or at most two, big public universities in the state.
By this rubric New Jersey "should" be able to play the game, but it comes to the party late, the entry cost is high, and the benefit to the public is hard to explain or justify -- universities are driven to it by a mixture of prestige and fan pressures.
New York has the SUNY system, with 4 "university centers." Only Buffalo plays football in the FBS, Albany and Stony Brook play in the FCS (and are recent upgrades to that), Binghamton does not play intercollegiate football.
I bet most readers have never heard of these teams, and I think New York is better for this.
Football is still "small time" in New York, but pressures are mounting ... and Rutgers serves as a very good warning, as does the debacle at Penn State.
34
As a SUNY alum (and the father of two SUNY grads) I'm disturbed about the recent trend in the SUNY system to promote "big time" sports at the university center schools. My local state senator on Long Island is a funnel for cash to the Stony Brook athletic department and seems intent on making them a national name. The entire system is chronically underfunded and relies heavily on alumni support for building programs and general support - once entirely funded by the state.
As the bigger schools move towards the top of the NCAA pyramid, my sense is that the pressure is building at the smaller schools - Cortland, Oswego, Oneonta et al, to "upgrade" their programs to the next level. Most of these schools are D3 (no athletic scholarships, limited travel) and rightly so. I played baseball in the early '70's and if there was any preference given to a D3 baseball player, I sure never got any. We did class assignments on the bus during the 3 hour bus ride to Buffalo for a game as there was no excuse allowed for not being prepared for class just because of sports.
Big time, big money sports are a corrupting influence. NY has already had a scandal with the basketball program at Binghamton. How much longer before Joe Nocera is writing a similar article about a SUNY school?
As the bigger schools move towards the top of the NCAA pyramid, my sense is that the pressure is building at the smaller schools - Cortland, Oswego, Oneonta et al, to "upgrade" their programs to the next level. Most of these schools are D3 (no athletic scholarships, limited travel) and rightly so. I played baseball in the early '70's and if there was any preference given to a D3 baseball player, I sure never got any. We did class assignments on the bus during the 3 hour bus ride to Buffalo for a game as there was no excuse allowed for not being prepared for class just because of sports.
Big time, big money sports are a corrupting influence. NY has already had a scandal with the basketball program at Binghamton. How much longer before Joe Nocera is writing a similar article about a SUNY school?
8
Credit is due to Joe Nocera for this article, but he just scratches the surface. Departments in the humanities and social sciences are shedding faculty, and even minimal support for maintaining graduate programs is being slashed. Preventative maintenance for existing buildings has been entirely eliminated, leading to regular power outages, flooding, broken elevators, no heat/AC in major departments. University computing is also a mess. A denial of service attack recently took down the entire university computing system for nearly a week. To be sure, we have some shiny new buildings and a football team that remains mired in mediocrity no matter how much money is spent on it. The University will be able to run on fumes for a couple of more years, but this article is an indication that people are starting to get wise as to what is happening. Right now, the plan seems to be that our football team needs to miraculously defeat Alabama in a national championship, which will fix everything.
175
Some prominent Rutgers alumni are determined to build a college football power in place where one has not existed in decades. While college football has definitely gone more national in the last twenty years or so, it remains a profoundly sectional game, specific to the South and the Midwest. From the moment it decided to take the Big 10's offer, which was made in perhaps a futile effort to turn the TV viewers in the New York City-area markets into crazed college football fans, this day was inevitable.
It is now a race to see whether the university can financially last until the full Big 10 Network shares come pouring in to save the day. As far as investments go, it's a long shot, albeit with potentially lucrative rewards, but a greater chance for significant financial pain. Meanwhile, Rutgers is stuck in the same B1G division as Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State and Michigan for at least the foreseeable future, if not permanently. There may be some significant growing pains on the gridiron.
Is it also morally dubious? Of course, but we passed that point in collegiate athletics a long time ago.
It is now a race to see whether the university can financially last until the full Big 10 Network shares come pouring in to save the day. As far as investments go, it's a long shot, albeit with potentially lucrative rewards, but a greater chance for significant financial pain. Meanwhile, Rutgers is stuck in the same B1G division as Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State and Michigan for at least the foreseeable future, if not permanently. There may be some significant growing pains on the gridiron.
Is it also morally dubious? Of course, but we passed that point in collegiate athletics a long time ago.
56
Agree. We in NJ, if we talk football at all, it is the Giants and Jets. Rutgers is an almost ivy... or way.
1
Universities are supposed to educate future leaders in society and are not intended to be institutions that primarily play games – unless perhaps in the context of academic study of something that has to do with motion of the human body and health.
Seen in this way, the entire topic of this article is simply baffling to someone like me, who is a university adviser outside the United States. No university I know outside the US would ever take funds from its academics and give them to a semi-professional sports club – which is what seems to be happening in this case. Either the sports club can support itself or not. If it needs subsidies, it should find donors who are not the university budget!
Why does nobody question the entire system of US university athletics?
Seen in this way, the entire topic of this article is simply baffling to someone like me, who is a university adviser outside the United States. No university I know outside the US would ever take funds from its academics and give them to a semi-professional sports club – which is what seems to be happening in this case. Either the sports club can support itself or not. If it needs subsidies, it should find donors who are not the university budget!
Why does nobody question the entire system of US university athletics?
292
Thankfully Karla people are starting to do just that but the current of the stream their swimming against is very strong and it requires a lot of hard work.
If only people could be swayed by facts instead of what they feel when it comes to big-time college sports in the United States.
If only people could be swayed by facts instead of what they feel when it comes to big-time college sports in the United States.
7
Only a handful if universities actually educate the "future leaders in society." Many do educate the future middle managers of the business world. But most exist simply to continue to exist, and enrich the administration. Their sole purpose is to ensure perpetual existence via endowment growth. The time-honored method is: upgrade the facilities, entertain/coddle the students and alumni, increase the applicant pool so that they can pretend to be more selective than they really are, get a better US News ranking, get more money from donors, students, and the government, and go around again.
5
Karla... See my comment below, and take a look at some of the (admittedly dense) writings of Henry Giroux, who argues that neoliberal capitalism is at the root of many of the problems plaguing society today. Bottom line: Money is the root of this and many other evils. Seen in that way, perhaps your bafflement will turn to understanding.
Why are America's sports teams such welfare queens? From tax subsidies for stadiums to students subsidising coaching salaries. Pay your own way or get off the pitch.
222
Let's do away with museums too. Most of them are "welfare queens". Shouldn't every cultural institution "pay their own wat", or just the ones that the American left does not like?
4
Football as a cultural institution! You gotta love it. Only in the south.
14
Football is a cultural institution and not only in the South. I didn't say it was a worthwhile cultural institution but it certainly is part of American culture.
2
Unfortunately, it reinforces the answer to this old question: What does it take to make a great university? Good parking for the faculty, plenty of beer and sex for the students. A good football team for the alumni.
71
But surely these are worthy goals...?
1
Do we laugh or cry?
We send kids off to four year institutes who can neither write nor compute. We have whole campuses who average grade is A-. Schools across the country are hot beds of drunkeness and 'rape'. Of course sport is more important than academics.
We send kids off to four year institutes who can neither write nor compute. We have whole campuses who average grade is A-. Schools across the country are hot beds of drunkeness and 'rape'. Of course sport is more important than academics.
76
Rutgers demonstrates the warped priorities of glory-hungry college leadership. A $100 mil stadium with a nearby visitors center crowns the science campus. Meanwhile key texts in the medical school library are two editions out of date. Education has become a distant second priority to sports.
197
There are certainly legitimate financial questions to consider. And the finances are intricate. But this account omits an obviously relevant fact which needs to be weighed in the balance. The reason Rutgers expects to run a deficit through 2022 is that it is not fully integrated into the Big 10 until that year. Thereafter, the university projects an additional $200 million in net earnings over the following 12 years. That may still leave them in a deficit position. But it might be enough to make the athletic department profitable. Whichever, you can't just ignore that fact when making your argument. Full disclosure is necessary to allow the reader to intelligently weigh the issue. I believe this account is purposely misleading.
3
What you criticize is all very much obvious in the column.
Also, these horrendous deficits will exist for the next 17 years and the athletic department might be “profitable” thereafter? That is a pretty bad deal.
Also, these horrendous deficits will exist for the next 17 years and the athletic department might be “profitable” thereafter? That is a pretty bad deal.
16
But as I read the projected profitability in the future is still based on the baseline of increased student fees and severe cuts to the academics. And do you think the revenue in 7 years will be enough? NJ couldn't build a bridge worried about the future cost, why not worry about a football team the same way.
9
In the meantime, the leaky buildings will still be leaky, whole departments will still have a lack of professors.
7
In point of fact, the tail doesn't always wag the dog. Major League Baseball, for example, has an extensive farm club and MLB PAYS for it's farm clubs. But American Football, in its endless greed, has managed to get everyone else--especially universities--to be their farm clubs and to absorbs the costs. (Basketball has done the same thing.)
This is the power of marketing/advertising on display. Persuade people that their self-image depends on the 'feats' of their football farm club, and they will pay any price. They will even come to believe the players somehow 'represent' their university just as they have come to believe that professional level players 'represent' their city (and themselves.)
This is the power of marketing/advertising on display. Persuade people that their self-image depends on the 'feats' of their football farm club, and they will pay any price. They will even come to believe the players somehow 'represent' their university just as they have come to believe that professional level players 'represent' their city (and themselves.)
276
In Michigan the taxpayers, or more appropriately the taxpayers elected representatives, put $600 Million into a new baseball stadium so that the multimillionaire players can generate revenue for the billionaire owner. It is, we are told, to provide "economic development" and "urban renewal". The benefits to the average taxpayer are enormous...ENORMOUS. And yet we have no money to fix roads and bridges.
To address your point that "...MLB PAYS for its farm clubs" well, the players commonly live with host families & play in stadiums paid for and maintained by municipalities. MLB PAYS coaches and players salaries, uniforms and equipment, and 2,3 5 hour bus rides to away games. The "parent" clubs don't spend very much.
To address your point that "...MLB PAYS for its farm clubs" well, the players commonly live with host families & play in stadiums paid for and maintained by municipalities. MLB PAYS coaches and players salaries, uniforms and equipment, and 2,3 5 hour bus rides to away games. The "parent" clubs don't spend very much.
37
In a perfect world, people would pay for tickets to support academic pursuits like their local University's arts program including renowned poets, writers, visual artists, theater & musical performances. The locals would swarm to attend lectures on the latest scientific breakthroughs by University professors or support their city's University liberal arts programs or computer tech conferences. The pride of the city would revolve around civic endowments meant to further humanity rather than a bloated sports team which involves no more than watching two opposing teams kick and throw a ball around a field. It is a psychological phenomena that crowds of people feel more visceral excitement rooting for their home team (that consists of athletes from other geographical locations) that the pure joy of intellectual aesthetics. Somehow this raw instinctual lust for blood letting explains the success of the Ancient Roman coliseum which the Emperors to allow the citizenry to blow off steam. How far has the American psyche progressed from those early Roman times in light of the book vs. ballgame mentality?
3
Jim, you have this completely backward. Football as Americans know it was a college invention in the 1880's. Pro ball didn't ever get started for nearly 50 after the college game began and until the 1960's professional football was just an afterthought. It was not until fairly recently that professional football became the pre-eminent American game. The professional league didn't invent college football as its minor league, the colleges "birthed " the pro game.