|
|
     
|
Football taking priority at Rutgers - Nov 25, 2008 | 11:54:49
posted by: Howard Smith
Rutgers has committed the financial resources to make itself a viable football school, including a rather large salary increase for football coach Greg Schiano and a $102 million stadium expansion. Some people are arguing that the athletics department's approach is excessive, and the school turned a blind eye to the athletic department's finances. In order to help fund these activities, the athletics department moved the tennis, fencing and swimming teams from varsity to intramural status. Some argue the school is compromising academics by spending millions on football. Is Rutgers being responsible with how its allocating its financial resources? If not, who should be held accountable? 
CommentsThis post is filled with misinformation. The school did not eliminate sports because of football. It eliminated sports because it had too many for it's budget size. The sports cuts were part of a $66 million university-wide cut. Until those cuts Rutgers had 30 sports teams. Only 3 other schools have 30 sports ??? Ohio State (100 mil budget vs. RU???s 40 mil), Stanford, and Boston College. They now have 24 teams and the average of 6 major conferences is 22 sports. Football actually provides revenue that supports non-revenue sports but the reality was that these cuts had been necessary for years. You can either fund 30 sports at mediocre rates or 24 with an eye toward excellence for every sport. Finally the report that this post references found no wrongdoing on the part of the athletic department. It merely observed that some oversight was lacking and necessary but that lack of oversight did not result in any wrongdoing. This is very much a media created firestorm driven largely by the reporting of one NJ newspaper looking for a big splash. Post a Comment |
  
It means that two very good teams with very good coaches made it to the final game.
- Marie
   
|
