Rutgers Revisited: Coalition to Save Our Sports Responds to Rutgers Media Statement

PISCATAWAY, New Jersey, August 27. RECENTLY, Rutgers released a media statement explaining just how successful its athletics program has been. The Coalition to Save Our Sports begs to differ in a response reprinted with the express written consent of the Coalition.

Just as a refresher, Rutgers elected to cut six sports in 2006, including men's swimming and diving, as part of a budgetary crackdown from the State of New Jersey. The explanation for the decision to completely cut six sports, instead of taking the state-mandated percentage cut across the board came under heavy fire at the time.

COALITION TO SAVE OUR SPORTS

Representing the Scarlet Six: Men's Lightweight & Heavyweight Crew, Men's and Women's Fencing, Men's Swimming & Diving, and Men's Tennis

A COALITION reply to Rutgers' August 12, 2008 Media Statement (Rutgers is Committed to a Successful and Accountable Intercollegiate Athletics Program)[1]

On August 12, 2008 Rutgers Office of Media Relations posted a "Fact Sheet" entitled "Rutgers is Committed to a Successful and Accountable Intercollegiate Athletics Program" (see http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/fact-sheets/2008/08/updated-rutgers-is-c-20080812/?printFact Sheet). Below is the Coalition's response to this statement.

KEY POINTS

• Rutgers claimed that it was forced to eliminate the teams due to reduction in funding received from Trenton. Yet, no savings resulted.

• In his May, 2006 memo recommending the elimination of the Scarlet Six, AD Mulcahy estimated the cost-savings at some $800,000. However, this estimate was grossly inaccurate, as it failed to account for:

1) Annual NCAA subsidies, which, had the six teams survived, would have been over $125,000 in 2007-08;

2) Loss of team alumni financial contributions, which exceeded $200,000 annually for each of the three prior fiscal years;

3) $711,734 increase in women's athletic scholarship spending triggered by the elimination of Women's Fencing which forced Rutgers into the Title IX "proportionality" test; and

4) The cost of new fencing and crew clubs, which was over $100,000 in 2007-08.

When these resultant costs are considered, any savings vanish, and the teams' elimination instead cost Rutgers money.

• In November 2006, Coalition team liaisons met with University representatives and offered financial support which would have limited the cost of all six teams to under $500,000 in total for the next three fiscal years. This offer was rejected. Had it been accepted and the teams reinstated, there would have been no need for the annual $700,000 increase in athletic scholarship funding, and Rutgers would have benefited by over $1 Million through receipt of alumni donations and NCAA subsidies during these three fiscal years.

• The Scarlet Six included incredibly high performing teams, producing numerous Olympians and NCAA All-Americans, Rutgers' only national championship performances, and Big East titles.

• The eliminated teams were Rutgers' top academic achievers, consistently producing 4 of the 5 highest GPA's of all teams, and a disproportionate number of Chi Alpha Sigma recipients, the highest academic honor bestowed on a varsity athlete. According to the latest available NCAA data, their graduation rate was 100%, compared to some 70% for the remaining NCAA men's teams.

• By terminating the Scarlet Six, Rutgers has eliminated the present and future financial contributions of some 4000 team alumni and supporters.

• SOS recognizes that the University, at a time of State budget cuts in 2006, wanted to make a public statement about the impact of that fiscal shortfall upon all aspects of University life, including the Athletic Department. However, not only did the elimination of the Scarlet Six result in no monetary savings, but the overall Athletic Department budget ballooned from some $40 million in 2005-06 to approximately $43 million in 2006-07 to some $48 million in 2007-08 to, admittedly, some $50 Million in 2008. Moreover, of the $48 Million 2007-08 budget, approximately $22 Million came from University support, which itself increased from 2006-07 to 2007-08 by some $2.2 Million. So despite repeated claims that the teams were being eliminated as part of an Athletic Department cutback, there was, in fact no cutback whatsoever!

"SUCCESS OF THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM" – COALITION THOUGHTS

The Coalition welcomes football success just as it welcomes the success of every other Rutgers team. However, we believe that if the University aggressively pursues football success, it must not sacrifice a host of other teams along the way. It is also important to note that while some have suggested otherwise, football does not produce revenues to support other teams, and never did.[2] If, in future years, football somehow produced a significant surplus to be used for "Olympic" sports, it would be a shame if the Scarlet Six, six of the highest-achieving and lowest budget teams, were not around to benefit from these available funds.

We firmly believe that there is room for both football success and for survival of the fencing, crew, swimming, and tennis teams. These teams are looking for a few "scraps from the table." Let football take its lion's share, but leave enough on the table for the survival of these six teams whose combined real costs amount to less than $500,000, less than 1% of the FY2008 Athletic Department budget of some $50 Million.

RUTGERS' ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT BUDGET – COALITION RESPONSE: THE $2.2 MILLION LIE

What the University fails to communicate in its media statement is that, at a time when its tuition was increasing annually, staff and faculty were being terminated, and student services reduced, the University's level of general support for the Athletic Department went up by $2.2 Million from 2006-07 to 2007-08.

Indeed, the University's own records counter Athletic Director Mulcahy's July, 2006 public avowal that some $2 million will be "slashed" from the Athletic Department's budget over the next two years. ("Budget ax falls swiftly on Rutgers programs," Bergen Record, 7/15/06, citing Mulcahy). Instead, according to University documents, the Athletic Department budget jumped from some $40 million in 2005-06 to approximately $43 million in 2006-07 to some $48 million in 2007-08 to, admittedly, some $50 Million in 2008. Approximately $22 Million of the $48 Million 2007-08 budget sum, close to 46% of the budget total, comes from University support, which itself increased from 2006-07 to 2007-08 by some $2.2 Million, i.e., from $19,839,659 in 2006-07 to $22,036,270 in 2007-08. Mulcahy's promised "slashing" never materialized.

These increases totally belie the University's repeated claims that cuts were being made across all departments, and that it was "heartbreaking" but "absolutely necessary" to cut the Scarlet Six given Rutgers' "financial situation." (7/28/06 Mulcahy letter).

"RUTGERS SAVED MORE THAN $700,000 FROM REDUCED EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSITION OF THE SIX VARSITY SPORTS TO CLUB STATUS, EVEN AFTER INCREASING WOMEN'S ATHLETICS SCHOLARSHIPS" — COALITION RESPONSE: MATH 101—THE NUMBERS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY

Alleged savings from the elimination of the Scarlet Six

Rutgers initially claimed a potential savings of $1.2 million from the elimination of the six teams. Most recently, Rutgers spokesman Greg Trevor reiterated this two year old claim. ("Rutgers Athletic Spending Criticized," Courier-News, 7/26/08). Rutgers, with this media release, now alleges a savings of some $700,000. Whatever happened to the $1.2 million savings claimed by Trevor the week before?

In any case, neither of these claimed "savings" holds any water. Rutgers' estimates of alleged savings have always conveniently failed to specifically address the following:

(1) Unilaterally diverted Student Fees sufficient to cover the costs of all six teams – A portion of Rutgers' student fees is dedicated to the Athletic Department, an allocation instituted in an effort to assist the 27 teams which do not generate revenue. In 2004, however, without the benefit of any student input, student fees were allocated to all of the varsity sports programs, including the revenue-producing sports, through a policy change made by Athletic Director Bob Mulcahy, a move strongly criticized in the Daily Targum ("Rutgers Increase Student Athletics Fees Without Student Input," 4/28/06). The 2005-06 budget allotted some $828,000 in student fees to the two sports, football and basketball, originally intended to be excluded from the student fee allocation, a sum which exceeds the combined real cost of all six eliminated teams.

When asked about this issue at a September 13, 2006 meeting of the Student Athlete Advisory Committee, Mulcahy explained that these fees are, in effect, being used to pay for the "free" basketball and football tickets given to students — in other words, paying for spectators, rather than funding athletic teams.

(2) Loss of Current NCAA team subsidies of $23,000 for each of the four NCAA teams, Men's and Women's Fencing, Men's Tennis, and Men's Swimming & Diving, for a total loss of $92,000

(http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/eb7d8201a630662/Revenue%20Distribution%20Plan.pdf?MOD=AJPERES , p. 19).

(3) Loss of NCAA scholarship subsidies of some $4,542 per athletic scholarship. This figure is the applicable NCAA subsidy given for each full athletic scholarship awarded by a Division I university in excess of 150. As Rutgers annually awards upwards of some 250 athletic scholarships, the applicable subsidy lost by Rutgers is, as noted, some $4,542 per athletic scholarship (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/eb7d8201a630662/Revenue%20Distribution%20Plan.pdf?MOD=AJPERES , p. 12).

(4) Costs to Rutgers totaling well over $100,000 of running new club sport programs to replace four of the eliminated teams, Men's & Women's Fencing, and Men's Lightweight & Heavyweight Crew (Data from RU 5/9/08 OPRA response regarding Club expenditures and budgets).

(5) Scarlet R contributions from team-specific donations to the eliminated programs, which, in 2005-06, accounted for some 24% of their budgets (in comparison to overall Scarlet R giving of 20% for all Rutgers teams' budgets).

Nor does Rutgers ever mention the following:

• Over $900,000 in committed Coalition pledges to defray 2007-08 annual program costs, with additional pledge amounts obtained for subsequent years, which SOS obtained and, in a formal meeting with administrative representatives of the University, volunteered to turn over to Rutgers by a date certain if Rutgers were to reinstate the teams.

• Loss of the present and future financial support of the thousands of team alumni and supporters, and the loss of support of significant million dollar donors to Rutgers who vowed to withdraw future financial contributions as a result of a decision that one multi-million donor described as "bad" and based on "arguments [that] are getting shopworn and more outdated and distant from the people who love this university …." ("Rutgers' other lesson in winning and losing," Star-Ledger, 4/14/07; and 4/12/07 letter of Rutgers donor Bruce Nicholas to McCormick and BOG Chair Gamper).

• Neither Rutgers nor its athletic fund-raising arm, the Scarlet R Club, ever embarked on a concerted fundraising effort to save these six teams, or gave alumni, athletes, and supporters any real opportunity to raise money to save these teams before their elimination was announced in July, 2006.

While Rutgers can claim anything it likes with respect to savings, the facts, including those set forth in Rutgers' own documents obtained by the Coalition via OPRA requests, tell a different story. Based on actual Rutgers 2005-06 budget numbers, the net operating cost for these programs was some $550,000 for all six teams, exclusive of NCAA scholarship subsidies and relatively minimal general department overhead and support costs, such as trainers (shared with other teams) and academic support (not utilized or needed equally by all teams). By deducting the referenced NCAA team and scholarship subsidies, club costs, and the $700,000 scholarship expenditures described below, cutting the Scarlet Six most likely cost, rather than saved, the University money.
Women's Athletic Scholarship Expenditures

At the April 13, 2007 meeting of the Rutgers Board of Governors, SOS pointed out that the elimination of the six teams would result in Rutgers having to spend over $700,000 annually for additional athletic scholarships due to Title IX requirements triggered solely by the elimination of these teams, a fact which Rutgers had never publicly addressed. On the record, in taped proceedings, the then Chairman of the Board of Governors, Al Gamper, and the then Chairman of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, Ron Giaconia, each vehemently denied that would be the case, maintaining that there would be no such expenditure because "we don't have" those funds. Gamper maintained that Rutgers would simply "reallocate scholarships from men to women to meet those Title IX requirements." Giaconia echoed that assertion (Per Giaconia, "There will be no additional $700,000; there will be no additional $200,000. There will be a reallocation of resources.").

And McCormick, in his May 14, 2007 Memorandum (see footnote 4), essentially reiterated Gamper's and Giaconia's misrepresentations, calling the Coalition "incorrect as a matter of fact and law" as "[a]n institution does not need to spend additional money in order to comply with Title IX under these circumstances."

Yet, just over one year later, in his July 2008 Memo to members of his "Administrative Council," McCormick admitted that "the university increased women's athletic scholarships by more than $600,000 from the 2006-07 to 2007-08 academic year." Men's athletic scholarship spending was not, in the 2007-08 school year, cut from 2006-07 levels; there was no "reallocation." Documents recently obtained by OPRA requests disclose that, instead, men's athletic scholarship spending increased by $7,865 from 2006-07 to 2007-08, and women's athletic scholarship spending increased by over $700,000, i.e., by $711,734, despite Gamper's statement that this additional expenditure would not occur because "we don't have it."[3]

As noted, that annual expenditure alone is enough to carry these six teams, year in and year out.

The University has also publicly attributed this scholarship increase in part to tuition increases. However, tuition increased by some 8% from 2006-07 to 2007-08, while the University's own figures show that overall women's athletic scholarship spending ballooned by some 25.5%. Indeed, 2007-08 scholarship money for women's crew was hiked from $72,000 to $208,000, a substantial (almost triple) increase that certainly belies the tuition increase explanation.

AN "EXCEPTIONALLY INCLUSIVE" INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS PROGRAM" WITH "24 INTERCOLLEGIATE SPORTS, FAR MORE THAN MOST OF ITS PEER INSTITUTIONS" — COALITION RESPONSE: OPPORTUNITY LOSS AND THE UCONN CONNECTION[4]

It is important to realize that Rutgers is the only public institution in New Jersey now offering Division I teams in the eliminated sports. Rutgers' elimination of the sole opportunity for those engaged in the eliminated sports to compete on a Division I team at a public university in New Jersey forces those capable of competing at the highest intercollegiate level to leave the State, which, for many, is not an affordable option, or to forego competing in the sport to which they have devoted years.

New Jersey already lags behind its peers in the provision of athletic opportunities for its high school athletes. States with comparable populations offer, through their public university systems, far more Division I teams than the 30 previously (i.e., pre-cuts) offered by Rutgers: North Carolina (68 teams at 4 schools), Virginia (46 at 4 schools), and Georgia (39 at 2 schools). Even West Virginia, with less than 15% of New Jersey's high school athlete population, offers more (32 at 2 schools).

The UConn Comparison: The University's reliance on UConn, another Big East school, as a standard for comparison to Rutgers is simply not appropriate, as it fails to take account of significant differences between the institutions and the states these institutions serve. Using UConn as a model for athletic offerings is no more logical than using UConn as a model for deciding how many academic departments to have, what courses to offer, or how many faculty to employ.

Pertinent numbers undercut the University's attempted comparison: UConn has approximately 15,000 undergraduate students; Rutgers New Brunswick has some 24,000. UConn serves a state with 3.5 million people, and 103,000 high school athletic participants. Rutgers serves a state with 8.7 million people, and 243,000 high school athletic participants. UConn, together with Central Connecticut State University, gives Connecticut 42 NCAA Division 1-A and Division 1-AA (the two highest NCAA divisions) athletic teams. Only Rutgers now provides such opportunities for New Jersey students. If Rutgers does not offer these opportunities, students desiring to compete at the highest intercollegiate level must leave the State, and studies show that over 50% do not come back.
The Rutgers to UConn comparison is one which equates apples to oranges. The relative population of both the University and the State of New Jersey dictates a much more sizeable role for Rutgers as a provider of opportunities. For Rutgers to be "equal" to UConn in sports opportunities is, by virtue of the above numbers, not a satisfactory standard.

"WITH MORE THAN 50 RECREATION AND CLUB SPORTS, RUTGERS PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATION TO THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS" – COALITION RESPONSE: THE CLUB SPORT COMPARISON

Club status is for recreational athletes, many of whom are novices. It offers informal and infrequent opportunities for training and competition at a level totally different from NCAA Division I competitions. Club status does not confer athletic scholarships, and although the Olympic sports program receives a meager scholarship allotment compared to the spectator sports, athletic scholarships have encouraged and/or enabled some of our top Olympic sport athletes to attend Rutgers. The simple and unassailable fact is that top athletes do not matriculate at a school to be part of a club or recreational program.

Club sport offerings currently include, inter alia, baseball and softball, women's basketball, men's and women's lacrosse, volleyball, golf, and wrestling. These clubs are not substitutes for varsity programs in these sports, which instead serve highly trained, dedicated, and accomplished athletes who demand competition with similarly accomplished athletes at the highest intercollegiate level that only varsity status can provide.

Tennis, fencing, and swimming & diving are NCAA sports. From a monetary standpoint, the NCAA makes an annual per team payment to Rutgers of $23,000 for each NCAA team in its varsity program. The NCAA also provides scholarship subsidies of some $4,542 per athletic scholarship. These stipends, combined with pledges received from supporters, can result in a varsity program at virtually no cost to Rutgers. A club program, which does not have the backing of supporters, and does not receive the per team NCAA stipends, instead costs the University money to run. How does this make any sense?

In a desperate attempt to show that its clubs are more successful than the eliminated varsity teams, Rutgers' media statement brags that "[t] here are more fencers in the program since its transition from a varsity team to a club sport." This would be like claiming that the replacement of a 12-man varsity basketball team with a 20-man basketball "club" is a mark of success – obviously a laughable claim. Moreover, the fact that the fencing club has a high participation rate only mirrors the explosion of interest in this particular sport in New Jersey. Indeed, Diane Bonnano, Rutgers Associate Dean of Recreation, in a presentation made to the University's Board of Governors at its 10/13/06 Camden meeting referred to New Jersey as "a hotbed of fencing."

"RUTGERS IS GAINING AN ATHLETICS REPUTATION TO MATCH ITS ACADEMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS" — COALITION RESPONSE: ATHLETIC AND ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND THE SCARLET SIX

While the University apparently believes that Rutgers' future will involve "an athletics reputation to match its academic accomplishments, for the eliminated teams and terminated student-athletes, that reputation ALREADY existed. Indeed, by axing the Scarlet Six, Rutgers damaged its reputation.

Athletic Excellence

• Men's Crew – Rutgers' oldest organized sport, dating back to 1864, Men's Crew has produced 15 Olympians since the 1992 Games, including alum Sam Stitt, who represented the US in Beijing.

• Men's and Women's Fencing – One of Rutgers' oldest teams, dating back to the turn of the century, fencing was the only Rutgers team to send a finalist to the NCAA championships for the last 21 consecutive years, and for 31 of the last 32 years. Other notable accomplishments: six NCAA individual championship performances, two team championships; 34 All-American awards in the last 21 years; several U.S. Olympians; number 2 of Rutgers' 28 NCAA varsity teams in Director's Cup points over the last 5 years, awarded by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) based on NCAA Championship results.

• Men's Swimming – Top four finisher in Big East for the past several years; 10 Big East event titles in last 5 years; 6 Olympians, 6 World Record Holders, and 13 National Champions.

• Men's Tennis – Dating back to 1890 or earlier, Men's Tennis was ranked in the top 16 teams in the Eastern Region 17 out of the last 20 years. Other successes: second place in Big East (2005); since 1996, seven fourth place or higher finishes in the Big East; 1995 Atlantic 10 Champion.

Highest Ratings by the Rutgers Athletic Department

In the Athletic Department's very own November 2000 Strategic Plan (obtained via OPRA request), Men's Fencing, Men's Swimming, and Men's Lightweight Crew were given the highest "Positive" rating for "current level of success," and those teams, along with Heavyweight Crew and Women's Fencing, were given the same highest rating for potential level of championship success on a national or Big East level. All of these teams, as well as Men's Tennis, were given the same, highest rating for their respective "recruiting area" quality.

Academic Excellence

The Scarlet Six represent academic excellence at a level far beyond the norm at Rutgers: In 2007, 12 Rutgers male student-athletes were inducted into the New Jersey Chapter of Chi Alpha Sigma, the National College Athlete Honor Society, which honors varsity student-athletes in their junior or senior years with a cumulative GPA of 3.4 or higher. Of the 12 inductees, seven were from the eliminated teams. Although the male athletes on the eliminated teams represent under 30% of Rutgers' total male athletes, collectively, for 2005, 2006 and 2007, 62.5% of Rutgers' male student-athlete inductees were from eliminated teams.

According to the latest available NCAA data, NCAA-measured graduation success rates for the eliminated men's teams are 100%, compared to some 70% for the remaining NCAA men's teams. The eliminated teams have been repeatedly recognized for the highest GPA's. For six out of the past ten years, one of the eliminated teams received the Director's Excellence Award for having the highest GPA of all 30 varsity teams.

Rutgers is fond of touting the NCAA "APR" statistics. APR does not in any way measure academic excellence, nor is it supposed to. It measures, instead, minimal progress towards a degree. It ignores Grade Point Averages, except to determine compliance with minimum eligibility requirements, nor does it reward honors program participation. It is, therefore, hardly a real measure of academic success.

"PRESIDENT McCORMICK AND HIS LEADERSHIP TEAM ARE REINFORCING THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND INTEGRITY IN ALL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSITY" — COALITION RESPONSE: THE FOX WATCHES THE HENHOUSE

Recent press outlined the existence of a February 2008 report of findings by University internal auditors, who noted a lack of oversight in financial management of the Athletic Department, "uncertain business practices," and spending and accounting abuses. (See "Rutgers internal audit raised alarm on sports," Star-Ledger, 8/20/08). Subsequent to the announcement of the State Comptroller Office's probe of the Athletic Department, and without acknowledging the existence of this earlier internal audit and report (which Rutgers then refused to release to media on the grounds that it was "advisory)," the University, in August, announced the formation of an in-house committee to review Athletic Department policies and practices. It is clearly indicative of Rutgers' lack of sincere commitment to a genuinely independent inquiry for President McCormick to have named Mr. Gamper, the recent Board of Governors Chairman, a BOG member since 1997, and current Intercollegiate Athletics Committee Chair, as the co-chair of this purportedly independent committee. Mr. Gamper presided at the very time that Rutgers eliminated these six teams and implemented the subject increases in, and partial concealment of, Athletic Department spending.

To compound this clear conflict of interest, the committee has been divided into two groups, those external to the University and those internal to the University, the latter being those who presently serve on University governance boards. According to the University's media statement, it is the "internal" group which will focus on issues involving university governance and internal controls. If any wrongdoing or lack of oversight is found, it is the "internal group" of governing board members — including its recent Chairman and current Intercollegiate Athletics Committee Chair Al Gamper — that may very well bear ultimate responsibility. Can Mr. Gamper be expected to spearhead an aggressive, independent investigation of the spending and questionable practices which have occurred during his watch? Only time will tell.

RUTGERS STADIUM EXPANSION — COALITION COMMENT

Again, it is what is NOT said that is telling.

There is no discussion of process – no mention that Rutgers' own student governing body had significant enough doubts to have issued a statement to the Board of Governors expressing disappointment with the timeline given for voting on the Rutgers Stadium expansion ("RUSA irked by stadium voting haste" Daily Targum, 2/1/08; see also op-ed from 2008 RC Class President, "Rutgers' Recession Stimulus Plan," Daily Targum 2/08/08). There is no mention of the $5 Million spent BEFORE holding any public/student forum on the stadium. As reported ("RU students ask $102M question," Star-Ledger, 1/25/08), Rutgers' officials acknowledged that while it had prior approval for only $2 Million of expenditures, Rutgers had already actually spent $5 Million on the project, requiring so-called "retroactive" approval of the $3 Million in overspending.

The University, as noted above, clearly has a problem with math (See also "Stadium doesn't add up," Daily Targum, 2/4/08). And the University fails to address the many what-ifs listed so cogently referenced in much of the state-wide coverage regarding this extravaganza, including the fact that the initially touted gubernatorial fundraising efforts have, for a variety of reasons, fallen far short of the mark (See Star-Ledger, 7/27/08, "Fundraising woes have Rutgers scarlet-faced").

Rutgers' surreptitious expenditure of millions which it claims that it did not have, and its post-disclosure pursuit of retroactive approval, is glaring proof that any notion of fiscal responsibility, prudence and accountability has long been abandoned.

The Stadium "Escape" Clause

Regarding the various University efforts to deal with recent media disclosures relating to Athletic Department fiscal mismanagement, the Coalition is struck by apparent inconsistencies in the public record which represent the same pattern of misrepresentations which characterized Rutgers' futile efforts to justify its elimination of the Scarlet Six. These include the following most recent inconsistency with respect to the stadium "escape" clause.

President McCormick, in late July, expressly acknowledged the existence of a buy-out or "escape" clause that would allow Coach Schiano to leave Rutgers without a $500,000 contractual financial penalty if the stadium expansion was not timely completed. He explained its purported rationale and apologized for the University's lack of transparency regarding this provision. Schiano and Athletic Director Robert Mulcahy reportedly declined to respond to press requests for comment about this side-deal. (See "Rutgers gave coach Schiano a secret guarantee: Schiano's escape clause is latest RU revelation," Star-Ledger, 7/23/08; see also "The $2 million coach says he's focused: Schiano says it's football, not details about pay and perks, that's important," Star-Ledger, 7/24/08)

Nevertheless, a mere three weeks later, Rutgers' August 12 media release denies the existence of this clause. And, in August, by way of a published Op-Ed, Mulcahy similarly denied its existence (Mulcahy, "Rutgers football brings great benefit to the state," 8/7/08).
——————————————————————————–

[1] The Coalition will provide any reader with copies of any of the referenced documents and articles cited by way of support for the factual assertions contained in this Response. We can be contacted at CoalitiontoSOS@comcast.net. Please feel free to direct any questions or comments to us.

[2] Football produced a $3.4 million deficit on a budget of $9.6 million in 2005-06, the last available year for which Rutgers produced such team by team budget information pursuant to SOS OPRA requests. Due to Rutgers' shrinking paper trail, blatant lack of transparency, and OPRA denials relating to subsequent years, the financial status of the Football program cannot be evaluated absent a forensic audit of the Athletic Department as a whole. See "Rutgers internal audit raised alarm on sports," Star-Ledger, 8/20/08.

[3] A verbatim transcription of colloquy between SOS and the BOG is contained on a tape of the April 14, 2007 BOG meeting obtained via an OPRA request from the University.

While the Coalition certainly champions opportunities for both men and women, opportunities for women should not have come at the expense of men OR at the expense of Rutgers' high-achieving women fencers, the only varsity team at Rutgers to have produced a national champion. The $700,000 women's scholarship increase was put in place for 2007-08 after athletes had already made their enrollment decisions. Accordingly, women athletes on Rutgers teams with no expectation of scholarships received them "out of the blue" simply because Title IX proportionality requirements caused by the elimination of a women's team and the voluntary move to a different standard of Title IX compliance required Rutgers to expend this sum, monies which the Board of Governors expressly claimed Rutgers did not have.

[4] Data in this section was tabulated and provided to the University in May, 2007 by way of a Coalition Point by Point response to President McCormick's May 14, 2007 Memorandum to governing board members, Trustees Emeriti; faculty and student representatives to RU's governing boards and to members of the State Assembly ("Sports at Rutgers"). We will provide copies of these documents and back-up data upon request.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x