Most universities don’t turn a profit on athletics. This is not a Rutgers specific issue and our annual loss would be much smaller if alums donate along the same lines as those at our B1G peers. Thats where the revenue issue has always been.
ChatGPT plucks the number from a Rutgers webpage.
i think you can count on a hand the amount of schools that lose more than us.
Less then 20 D1 schools are profitable. The loses range vastly up into the 200MM.
. Pay to play will be forbidden; true NIL will not. Deloitt's job is to figure out which is which.
But Deloitte is technically only required to look at deals originating through the school or connected to the school - correct? Or has that changed. For example if Nike reaches out directly to said player - no Deloitte? And if so, how is that differentiated from Booster A reaching out to said player (if neither go through Deloitte).
You are correct. The assumption is that Nike or someone else not affiliated with the school is only going to engage in commercially sensible deals. But I believe that Deloitte is going to look at all deals to ensure that they are not sweetheart deals designed to persuade a player to come to or stay at a particular school. We'll have to see the exact terms of the settlement when Judge Wilken gives it final approval -- which she hasn't done yet. (She can force the parties to change it.)
Rutgers gets nothing near that from the state. Last year's appropriation was $564 million. Again, that money goes to costs of instruction. It gets another $500 million or so to pay fringe benefits to professors and staff.
At the power conference schools, the purpose of college athletics is to pay football coaches.
I think the threshold for review is $600. Deloitte has constructed some kind of computer program for recording and auditing transactions. We'll see how well it works.
That adds up to over $1B....you are doing a little mental accounting. The University takes a $1 billion from the state. Rutgers athletics losses $75,000,000 (not exactly sure). If you want to allocate the money we get from NJ to payment of professors to feel better that is great. If I look at the database of NJ state employees Schiano and Pikiell are on the same list as the professors you want to direct NJ taxpayers money to.
Pay to play by *the school* is fine. But the school is limited by the overall cap on compensation. Pay to play by boosters is not. Both are technically NIL payments, but the two categories are considered very different in the settlement.
I'm not sure I know what you're driving at, but the $500 million is specifically allocated to paying fringes. The other $560 million goes to costs of instruction. Neither sum can be used for other purposes. As I pointed out above in my reply to @PSAL_Hoops, the subsidy comes from reserve money -- the University's savings account. Again, the key question is whether the next University president wants to continue to have reserves used to balance the athletic department's budget.
I'm sure you know what a fringe is -- it's, for instance, the health insurance an employer buys for employees.
My point is that it is all mental accounting.....
Student fees do not go to paying professors. Maybe it would go to other things student fees pay for, such as health services, intermurals and career help - maybe fees would diminish. Money is not as interchangeable as you suggest.
Heavens knows I do not want to take this thread on a political tangent, but the indirect cost allocation for government grants has usually been more like 50-60% than 15%. That's why universities like Rutgers are fighting so hard against the Trump Administration's attempt to cut it back to 15%. That money basically pays for the building, support staff, etc. Probably a little leaks through to pay for costs of instruction,, but not much.
The game changed and RU is behind the eight ball yet again.
Almost all the $20 M is going to come from the increased Big Ten Media payout, which is going to be $80M - $100M this year.
The increased payout in the future was the rationale given why it wasn't a big deal for the huge deficit. Now the increase is being used to pay players. What is the projected YoY increase of media rights?
Yes, but that means, of course , that the $20 M is not going to be available to pay other expenses and so the deficit will not be reduced and may instead rise.
But the Ivies are not a power conference, and @Fat Koko was only talking about schools in power conferences -- see his first sentence.
Media rights 2023 2024 % change
B1G signed big media contract in the middle of 2024..i think they were hoping it adds $15M to payout. (still short of $20M)
They are also separately getting $21 million from the expanded college football playoff agreement:
