OT: Reducing sports?

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
In a perfect world non revenue sports get fund raised to the point that they are self suffucient. If a budget was $500k then $10.000.000 gets it done.
 

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
Perhaps. But it doesn't matter.

If the edict is "self sufficient atheltics" then every sport that loses $1 should be cut.

At what level should Rutgers University and NJ taxpayers fund collegeite sports?
Only $2m as a subsidy? Ok then cut a bunch of sports to get down to $2m.

Cutting football or basketball spending isnt going suddenly make the other sports profitable.
In 2025 I dont think taxpayer money should be anywhere near college sports. Taxpayer money is helping increase FMV of players.
 
Sep 29, 2006
2,048
627
0
I just learned last year that the SEC doesn’t have soccer offered. That blew my mind. Reason being that would be too expensive to maintain a non-revenue generating soccer program because you’d have to create more opportunities for women sports, which are also non-revenue generating and just exacerbates the problem. They’d rather spend their money on football and basketball.

I’m not suggesting getting rid of Soccer because I love that sport and I think that schools in the Big Ten and ACC should have strong soccer programs given the strong soccer history in those areas of the country. I just had no idea that was the case and it’s really comes down to money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow

newell138

Heisman
Aug 1, 2001
36,920
47,367
112
Cutting sports will go over real well... I can see the headlines on NJ.COM.... Rutgers cuts women's golf to pay football players more $$$$
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greene Rice FIG

RUskoolie

Hall of Famer
Aug 1, 2007
221,410
112,094
63
Why would it be suicide ? If the programs are losers all-around , why continue to do it ? There is nothing in the university’s mission statement about playing professional sports .
Because it's our most successful marketing arm by a mile? Not to mention the academic ties with being in the B1G. Don't be obtuse.
 

RUskoolie

Hall of Famer
Aug 1, 2007
221,410
112,094
63
Wrong. Sorry you're thinking ,shave some expense by eliminating a team or two whose expenses by the way pale in regards to football or basketball, what will happen inevitably is forces in this state that are not Ru friendly will demand ending it all. By the way why would the BIG even sanction us cutting teams and in any event the savings would be miniscule compared to football and basketball and by the way some of our more successful BIG teams are in the lesser sports.
You sound like the people who are complaining DOGE is trying to cut waste in the federal government. I am not going to repeat myself, simply put some of our sports teams need to be taken out back and shot. I am guessing you don't follow them and how putrid they are YOY.
 

Plum Street

Heisman
Jun 21, 2009
27,306
23,009
0
Because it's our most successful marketing arm by a mile? Not to mention the academic ties with being in the B1G. Don't be obtuse.
I am not being obtuse . Asking real questions. Is it really our most successful marking arm by a mile? It’s a complete disaster and bad PR so many times. That is sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow

RUskoolie

Hall of Famer
Aug 1, 2007
221,410
112,094
63
I am not being obtuse . Asking real questions. Is it really our most successful marking arm by a mile? It’s a complete disaster and bad PR so many times. That is sad.
No it's not where are you getting this from. Thats what many at RU still don't get. Athletics is our marketing department, nothing else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow