Month: February 2007

I read my Daily Targum articles yesterday and came upon an op-ed piece on Rutgers University President McCormick.

While I can understand the author’s complaint about the athletic department and the decision to cut six sports, he goes well beyond that in his vague remarks in the following sections:

Unfortunately, the letter missed the mark. They should have been directed, not to Mulcahy, but to the man responsible for the whole picture, University President Richard McCormick – someone who has severely disappointed many of us alumni who looked to his promises of making Rutgers an even better school.

…

However, those on campus, faculty and students, alike, have an obligation and greater role to play by keeping his feet to the fire daily until he either accepts the leadership role which has been proffered to, and accepted by him, or he offers his resignation in disgrace and in recognition of his unwillingness or inability to demonstrate true academic leadership and to do what is right.

Given that the author is a member of the Class of 1955, he may be forgiven for being somehwat out of touch. It is true that within the athletic department an emphasis has been placed on the visible, “revenue” sports of basketball and football over the “Olympic” sports of swimming & diving, fencing, etc. And while I may or may not agree with that decision, I have an issue with an article that vaguely acuses McCormick of not accepting the leadership role that he owns.

The President has staked his entire reputation at Rutgers on reorganizing undergraduate education and University services in order to no longer discriminate against members of various “colleges”, which truly existed in name only after the creation of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) in 1982. He has invested a significant amount of his time, of the resources of the University, and the dedication of the members of the administration on undertaking this task so that undergraduates on New Brunswick will finally have a more seamless experience at Rutgers.

This has resulted in a complete overhaul of the University, from housing policies to student government to counseling services to admission and graduation requirements. Essentially all services with the exception, perhaps, of the academic departments, which were already reorganized in 1982, are impacted by the change in New Brunswick. To argue that President McCormick should accept the leadership role or resign is ridiculous, as this man has already done more in his short time at Rutgers to improve the University than the previous president did in his 10 years.

You may not agree with all his decisions, but you can’t tell me he’s not leading. If you do, it’s clear you’re just out of touch.

You have to love Geno Auriemma, head coach of the UConn women’s basketball team. After beating Marquette in a close game, he has these remarks on the fans.

It was a loss for Marquette, but a record home crowd of 4,000 was another sign that the Golden Eagles’ program is progressing.

“The crowd really lifted us and carried us,” Mitchell said.

Auriemma complemented the rowdy Marquette fans — sort of, anyway. The coach deadpanned that he couldn’t believe some of the things fans were yelling near the Connecticut bench.

“I’m losing faith in the Catholic education,” Auriemma said. “I know it’s Milwaukee, and people drink a lot.”

But, Auriemma, added, the crowd could “never be worse” than the fans at Rutgers.

“Rutgers fans, they’re just born miserable and they stay miserable all their life,” Auriemma said.

Don’t worry Geno. We don’t obsess over you like you clearly do about us.

I’m sick and tired of hearing all the analysis on the Rutgers sports cutting that’s just plain wrong. The Athletic Director has made his logic pretty straightforward, and the budget cuts are the secondary reason, not the primary. They were merely the opportunity he needed.

Seriously, another example of someone who’s missing the boat was found in the Opinions section of the Daily Targum.

Their argument is as follows: New Jersey is facing an enormous fiscal problem – a $4 billion deficit – and a taxpayer revolt, for which no solution is currently visible. Support for Rutgers has never been enthusiastic in the Legislature, and tuition has been rising steadily for the past seven years. Last year’s budget cuts resulted in widespread layoffs, course cancellations and a freeze on hiring. The prospects for the future look grim, and the total amount of money coming to the University from all sources is finite. Beyond these facts, there is a basic assumption about the role of the University in New Jersey.

The real reason for the cuts is that Rutgers had 30 Division 1A sports, which put Rutgers significantly above the average size of a Division 1A athletic department around the country. Combine that with the fact that of the three programs that had 30 sports, Rutgers had the smallest budget, $38 million, vs. $60 million and $100 million at other schools. The end result is that ALL the sports programs were being shortchanged by competing for scarce resources.

The budget cuts merely highlighted the fact that the athletic department would only be receiving limited, targeted funding increases in the next few years. Given the overall cuts to the University, Rutgers athletic budget was not about to double in the next few years to make up the funding gap with other peer insitutions. Hence, some sports were cut to try to fund all the remaining sports.

Yes, as I said, some sports will receive increased funding (i.e. football). However, within any space, if your ability to acquire external funding is limited at best, you have to maximize your ability to produce internal growth. Of all the sports in the mix at Rutgers, only three have any shot of being revenue generators, specifically football, and men’s and women’s basketball.

Granted, these are also among the most costly programs to run. And they cost even more money to run well enough to have a chance to achieve the success required to produce a positive return. So, while other sports are being cut, an investment is being made in to the revenue generating sports with the idea that at a minimum they can become self-sufficient and in a best case scenario begin producing a return that will help increase the overall atheltic budget, benefiting all programs.

I don’t pretend to know if this scenario will turn out to be true. I have seen plenty of ink spilled on the idea that very few atheltic programs have revenue-positive basketball and football programs, and I don’t know if Rutgers will prove to be an exception. I do know, however, that the budget cuts were simply not the primary cause of these cuts, even if they were the opportunity. And if you want to get them back, you need to understand this fundamental idea. Simply offering up the funding alone won’t get the job done, because it’s not really about money in the short term.