It means he's old school NJ. Westfield, Georgetown (football & lacrosse), Penn.
Rutgers has a lot of connections to NJ's middle class, working class and multicultural constituencies, but Barchi has a background that comes from an older sort of NJ and may help us to bridge the gap with the part of the state that is skeptical of Rutgers.
And btw, I come from the working class, multicultural part of NJ.
Posted on 4/11 2:18 PM | IP: Logged
We shall see. I would still like to hear the speech myself but it seems promising from what I read on the football board.
He even took a shot at the media - for not focusing enough on the positive aspects of RU - which will please some folks here!
Haha.
Posted on 4/11 3:28 PM | IP: Logged
I'll eat some of my earlier words - I liked him a lot in his talk. Let's hope he is a fantastic leader for RU.
Posted on 4/11 9:00 PM | IP: Logged
I found Barchi *very* impressive. He has much more energy (and looks younger) than many men his age. (It may be a good thing that he's in his sixties; he's not looking for a stepping stone, but rather a place to cap his reputation.) And from what I understand from friends in Philadelphia, he really cares about promoting research and about giving an institution a firm financial footing. We'll see more emphasis on obtaining grant money and on promoting private philanthropy.
Posted on 4/11 9:25 PM | IP: Logged
I too like him a lot after that speech. Very impressed.
Originally posted by Scarlet Pride: Wow so much misery on this board. The negative comments are almost comical.
Agreed.
It is a bit much.
Posted on 4/12 9:09 AM | IP: Logged
I liked the speech too. It had energy - it hit the right notes in the right way (recogninzing some of RUs specific problems in more than a generic way) and while it didn't lay out any specifics, at least pointed the way to what he will likely do - emphasize life sciences and undergraduate experience, work to improve Rutgers reputation in the state, work hard to get non-state sources of funding (which is an area that RU also trails - in addition to our state funding defecit)etc.
This post was edited on 4/12 10:43 AM by derleider
Posted on 4/12 9:37 AM | IP: Logged
I'll eat some crow here. I didn't like the hire initially, but after hearing him speak, I've changed my tune. Very, very impressed.
Posted on 4/12 10:27 AM | IP: Logged
I don't know if our friends on the other boards have realized this, but I have the impression that, while Barchi is not opposed to athletics, his position is "academics first." I would expect that he will press the athletic programs to find ways to cut costs and bring in more revenue (such as by finding alums to help endow programs).
Posted on 4/12 12:19 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Jim_from_RU: I'll eat some crow here. I didn't like the hire initially, but after hearing him speak, I've changed my tune. Very, very impressed.
I agree. He's a definitely a better speaker than McCormick, which is not really an achievement but he did have some interesting things to say.
Posted on 4/12 12:27 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by camdenlawprof: I don't know if our friends on the other boards have realized this, but I have the impression that, while Barchi is not opposed to athletics, his position is "academics first." I would expect that he will press the athletic programs to find ways to cut costs and bring in more revenue (such as by finding alums to help endow programs).
Well, it would be crazy if any president didn't put academics first.
The ultimate goal should be for the athletics department to be self-sustaining. That can't happen overnight, so it seems like there should be reasonable targets for becoming increasingly self-sufficient - e.g., lower subsidy by, say, 2 million per year or something.
Posted on 4/12 1:26 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by camdenlawprof: I don't know if our friends on the other boards have realized this, but I have the impression that, while Barchi is not opposed to athletics, his position is "academics first." I would expect that he will press the athletic programs to find ways to cut costs and bring in more revenue (such as by finding alums to help endow programs).
It was mentioned on the football board.
Regarding the quote in italics, the trick is that the two issues are usually are opposed. Cutting spending will likely also result in decreased revenue, unless the cuts are made somewhere outside of Football or Men's Basketball (which would of course cause a tremendous uproar amongst the people calling for the cuts). Which brings me to the next paragraph.
I am hopeful our new school president will be successful, but talking about improving things and actually doing them are two very different animals.
Is there anyone who wouldn't want to increase OOS students? Is there anyone who wouldn't want Rutgers' achievements to get more publicity? Is there anyone who wouldn't want Rutgers' to improve its undergraduate experience? Is there anyone who wouldn't want the Athletic department to be less depending on the general budget? Is there anyone who wouldn't want to increase sources of private funding? Is there anyone who wouldn't want to increased the research profile? Is there anyone who wouldn't want the campus to look nicer?
The problem with solving any (or all) of the above issues is not that people don't want them to be done...its that solving those issues isn't always practical or even possible, and its certainly not obvious (or they would all have been solved by now).
Posted on 4/12 1:32 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by lawmatt78:
Originally posted by camdenlawprof: I don't know if our friends on the other boards have realized this, but I have the impression that, while Barchi is not opposed to athletics, his position is "academics first." I would expect that he will press the athletic programs to find ways to cut costs and bring in more revenue (such as by finding alums to help endow programs).
Well, it would be crazy if any president didn't put academics first.
The ultimate goal should be for the athletics department to be self-sustaining. That can't happen overnight, so it seems like there should be reasonable targets for becoming increasingly self-sufficient - e.g., lower subsidy by, say, 2 million per year or something.
FWIW, very few (something like the top 20 in the country) Athletic departments are self sustaining. Rutgers is only unusual in that our AD subsidy is SO large, not that there is a subsidy. If there was an expectation that all Athletic Departments be self sustaining, then almost no schools in the world would actually have intercollegiate athletics (because it is an unrealistic expectation outside of a few very elite schools).
Posted on 4/12 1:35 PM | IP: Logged
Like I said, it should be the ultimate goal. Perhaps our goal should exceed our grasp. Nothing wrong with that.
Of course it won't be easy. I know how few programs break even, let alone make money.
The bottom line is that the subsidy needs to be reduced. Progress at doing that will be seen as a positive.
Posted on 4/12 1:41 PM | IP: Logged
Matt
I'd argue that provincial types oppose OOS students. There is definitely a NJ constituency that blames OOS students for their kids' failure to be admitted- that's why we have the stupid law.
Posted on 4/12 2:29 PM | IP: Logged
Tony, both of your posts make a lot of sense. The key is whether Barchi can bring about change internally, and be successful in relations with the state and alumni. He sounds promising.
Yes, virtually everyone subsidizes athletics. But do we really need to put out so much money for women's basketball, a program that doesn't bring in that much revenue? Can we get alumni to endow some of the minor sports? (Cal did that.)
Posted on 4/12 2:37 PM | IP: Logged
Wasn't the problem that Mulcahey forbid private donors from sponsoring the minor sports? I forget the rationale.
The problem with WBB is that clueless people like Killingsworth are afraid to take on CVS and/or WBB for political correctness. At least FB breaks even, we only lose- and so does every program in America, including UConn and Tennessee- in WBB. Once CVS retires I expect RU to hire someone much cheaper.
Posted on 4/12 4:15 PM | IP: Logged
Others may remember better, but I *think* Mulcahy said that the money being put up would not support the programs permanently (as an endowment would), but would be adequate only for two or three years.
I understand we have to have a WBB team, and better a good one than a bad one. The financial loss, though, is over $ 1 million the last I heard. Is there anything that can be done about this to market the team better? Do we need such an expensive coach?
Posted on 4/12 4:24 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by camdenlawprof: Others may remember better, but I *think* Mulcahy said that the money being put up would not support the programs permanently (as an endowment would), but would be adequate only for two or three years.
I understand we have to have a WBB team, and better a good one than a bad one. The financial loss, though, is over $ 1 million the last I heard. Is there anything that can be done about this to market the team better? Do we need such an expensive coach?
I like CVS, but are there any other coaches making as much as her, who have been employed by the same school as long as she has, who have never won a title?
Posted on 4/12 6:14 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by camdenlawprof: Others may remember better, but I *think* Mulcahy said that the money being put up would not support the programs permanently (as an endowment would), but would be adequate only for two or three years.
I understand we have to have a WBB team, and better a good one than a bad one. The financial loss, though, is over $ 1 million the last I heard. Is there anything that can be done about this to market the team better? Do we need such an expensive coach?
I posted info on the football board some time ago regarding WBB programs across the country. We actually lose around 2.2 million if I remember correctly. The average loss around the country for WBB programs was 2 million. Even programs the most successful like UConn/Tenn lose in the vicinity of 500,000. I believe LSU or Auburn had the largest loss of around 3+ million. The most you're going to save on CVS' salary is a few hundred thousand if you intend to field a decent WBB program.
Posted on 4/12 6:29 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NotInRHouse: Wasn't the problem that Mulcahey forbid private donors from sponsoring the minor sports? I forget the rationale.
The problem with WBB is that clueless people like Killingsworth are afraid to take on CVS and/or WBB for political correctness. At least FB breaks even, we only lose- and so does every program in America, including UConn and Tennessee- in WBB. Once CVS retires I expect RU to hire someone much cheaper.
Mulcahy didn't forbid it. The donors offered up promises and smoke but very little actual cash. They wanted to try to fund the sports year to year without any firm commitments. If the donors had actually put up the money to endow the sports fully they'd still be here.
Posted on 4/12 7:53 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by camdenlawprof: Tony, both of your posts make a lot of sense. The key is whether Barchi can bring about change internally, and be successful in relations with the state and alumni. He sounds promising.
Yes, virtually everyone subsidizes athletics. But do we really need to put out so much money for women's basketball, a program that doesn't bring in that much revenue? Can we get alumni to endow some of the minor sports? (Cal did that.)
Women's basketball is the most successful sport at RU. And that includes pre CVS. No other sport has at RU has had that level of success for so sustained a period of time.
Posted on 4/13 6:18 AM | IP: Logged
WBB would logically seem to be a key point to cut costs - but as the posts above make clear - its a money loser everywhere, and a bigger one in other places with cheaper coaches. If we have any intentions of keeping it at a high level we will end up paying $4-600,000 a year for a coach in short order (even if we start out cheap - the coach will either do well and get a raise or do poorly and we pay another coach plus the buyout for the bad coach.) Which is a half a million savings - not chump change - but then again - out of a $25 million deficit its negligible - the SL isn't going to stop writing negative articles because the deficit is only $24.5 million.
We spend less than the BCS average on athetlics. Our problem isn't spending - its revenue. We have one of, if not THE smallest basketball arena in the BCS, and are still in the bottom 15 in general in football attendance, plus we have the worst bowl contracts and worst TV deal.
In other words - our issue isn't a spending problem, its a revenue problem. And the way to solve it is simply to win more. If we don't we won't solve it - because there are only so many costs to be cut.
The good news is - even without getting into a new conference, we wipe out a third or more of that deficit when the Big East gets a new TV deal. If Mike Rice and Flood live up to their potential we can probably wipe out another third with ease just by selling more tickets to see better teams.
Posted on 4/13 8:01 AM | IP: Logged
Are you sure we are in the bottom 15 in football attendance? I mean we pretty much outpace most of the BE and ACC in that regard, and that a bunch of less popular teams with smaller stadiums in other conferences.
Posted on 4/13 10:22 AM | IP: Logged
2010 data:
we were 50th in DIA football attendence per game with a larger attendance than 18 other BCS schools.
Originally posted by derleider: WBB would logically seem to be a key point to cut costs - but as the posts above make clear - its a money loser everywhere, and a bigger one in other places with cheaper coaches. If we have any intentions of keeping it at a high level we will end up paying $4-600,000 a year for a coach in short order (even if we start out cheap - the coach will either do well and get a raise or do poorly and we pay another coach plus the buyout for the bad coach.) Which is a half a million savings - not chump change - but then again - out of a $25 million deficit its negligible - the SL isn't going to stop writing negative articles because the deficit is only $24.5 million.
We spend less than the BCS average on athetlics. Our problem isn't spending - its revenue. We have one of, if not THE smallest basketball arena in the BCS, and are still in the bottom 15 in general in football attendance, plus we have the worst bowl contracts and worst TV deal.
In other words - our issue isn't a spending problem, its a revenue problem. And the way to solve it is simply to win more. If we don't we won't solve it - because there are only so many costs to be cut.
The good news is - even without getting into a new conference, we wipe out a third or more of that deficit when the Big East gets a new TV deal. If Mike Rice and Flood live up to their potential we can probably wipe out another third with ease just by selling more tickets to see better teams.
derleider, thanks for the info. Do we sell out the RAC regularly for men's basketball? If not, then it will be awfully hard to justify a new arena. In any case, the football stadium experience shows that a capital investment in sports attracts negative publicity.
As for women's basketball, they've got to attract revenue, too, primarily be putting fannies in the seats. A $2 million annual loss is simply not acceptable, no matter how much of a sacred cow women's basketball may be.
Posted on 4/13 10:43 AM | IP: Logged
Looks like I was a bit off - and of course we will rise when you include all of the new BE additions who we beat out easily. But hte point is still - even if we sell out our stadium isn't big enough to pay for MORE than football.
Camden - yes, we need to sell out the RAC regularly before we really consider expanding it. And the problem is that there aren't really cost effective ways to expand it. Unless we go on a Duke like decade long winning spree, we will always lag in MBB revenue.
And yes - they need to find a way to get people to go to women's BB games. I suspcet that having a good football team has taken away alot of the casual RU sports fans appetite for WBB (in the past WBB was the only outlet for 'major' winning sports at RU - now that football is winning you can support the school by supporting football). I'm not sure how to do that though other than have a top 10 team that competes with UConn for the conference title every year (which is probably more likely under Stringer than under someone significantly cheaper.)
Posted on 4/13 11:13 AM | IP: Logged
RU is in the top half of the 120 schools which is pretty solid in football (BCS is an odd metric when in football you have programs like BYU and Boise and then say Cuse and Duke which are considered BCS). Also, our stadium is comparatively on the smaller side- not like we are empty most of the time.
MBB actually generates a profit (probably in part because we totally underspend on it). Yet, Rice's salary was still criticized and people were blaming the football program- which breaks even- and now probably has a several hundred thousand dollar profit now that we are paying Flood instead of GS.
All of that tells me that there is no reason not to spend. It does tell me that we aren't getting the truth out, and that of course, the SL has no interest in hearing it. That is what Barchi needs to work on (and it seems like he wants to).
At the end of the day, if MBB does win, we will need a bigger and better arena. And if we join a new conference, that will likely go for football as well, especially if it's the B10. Granted we will have more money to spend in that case.
But RU can have no trepidation when it comes to spending of any kind. We need to do what's best for Rutgers. Let the star ledger blather, and let the money and OOS students come to RU, and we'll see who wins the battle.
Posted on 4/13 2:21 PM | IP: Logged
two quick observations:
1. Every major school makes a lot of money on men's basketball. It is a relatively cheap sport.
2. You write: "But RU can have no trepidation when it comes to spending of any kind." Rutgers does not have the kind of money required to have no trepidation. (Nor does any school.) Any decision we make to invest in one area means less to invest in another. Maybe athletics is the place to make the investment, but maybe it's not.
Posted on 4/13 3:07 PM | IP: Logged
Oh, athletics isn't the only one. You have the greening as well, generally improving buildings and facilities.
Of course we don't have all the money we need- but when we're spending, I don't think the media should be a factor. We could build the (needed) light rail through NB and Pway and hear from Killingsworth how the light rail could have leather seats if we didn't have football in the SL.
RU also passes remedies like OOS tuition and private/public partnerships, which is something we need to fix.
Posted on 4/13 7:38 PM | IP: Logged
When people say football "breaks even," does this mean that football takes NO money from the subsidy?
Does all $20 million (or whatever it was) go only to the OTHER sports?
I wouldn't say football "breaks even" if subsidies are included in the calculation. Otherwise, you could always say it breaks even, if you subsidize it enough to balance the books.
Posted on 4/14 1:20 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by lawmatt78: When people say football "breaks even," does this mean that football takes NO money from the subsidy?
Does all $20 million (or whatever it was) go only to the OTHER sports?
I wouldn't say football "breaks even" if subsidies are included in the calculation. Otherwise, you could always say it breaks even, if you subsidize it enough to balance the books.
First, I don't think Rutgers claims that football breaks even; in general, there is about a $1 million deficit that is subsidized by the students and by the Board of Governors. In any case, the statement is inexact.it is difficult to allocate between different sports; some expenses are common to all. I understand that, at least in the past, some schools have engaged in creative accounting to make football look like less of a loss than it is. I hope Rutgers does not do that.
At any rate, the bulk of the $25 million ( I think it is) subsidy goes to women's basketball and the nonrevenue sports.
Finally, it is necessary to keep in mind that Rutgers is on the hook for the bonds for the football stadium expansion; if the revenue doesn't happen as planned, RU has to pay.
Posted on 4/14 11:11 AM | IP: Logged
Doesn't the subsidy break down to a few dollars per student- who get free tix for everything anyway? I think too much is made of the subsidy. You can't expect our athletic programs to progress with no investment. Other schools that similarly subsidize don't get raked over the coals like we do.
And if we are short one million in football, we have a surplus now because Schiano and the Bucs just paid us several.
Posted on 4/14 11:54 AM | IP: Logged
Only at Rutgers does the faculty and students take turns slamming the athletic department at every available chance. Football, with its history of losing, is now a consistent winner yet takes it up the a$$ in the NJ media nonetheless.
I don't get it.
Posted on 4/14 1:28 PM | IP: Logged
To many here that have been so negative from the get-go, before hearing the man speak, should eat CROW! Now, words are meaningless, I understand. But after listening to him speak and nailing down certain provincial aspects of New Jersey and taking a great, and I mean a great slam at the despicable Star Ledger, I am even more impressed with the man, because he seems to get it.
He doesn't understand why Rutgers is not tooting its own horn on the great programs they have to offer. Where is the media blitz from the school? Nowhere, that's where. You want to get rid of the provincial nature that is so pervasive, then start acting like a NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL university. Tout your strengths from a national level and not a regional level. Start thinking more about raising funds privately, like Michigan and UVA and not be at the mercy of Trenton. I believe Dr. Barchi understands Rutgers needs to create a rebelliousness about itself with a chip on its shoulder.
Personally, I think this man will be a GREAT hire, and I have as much knowledge as all of the Negative Nancies (sp?) think they have.
Posted on 4/14 3:50 PM | IP: Logged
Rutgers lost 2.2m on football in 2010. See page 26 of the link under direct institutional support. This was slightly more than women's basketball, however, there is far more interest in football, and football will be profitable once the new BE contract comes in. Rutgers also subsidized olympic sports by 3.9m.
The big question then is of the 10.2m in unallocated subisidies, what is really going to which sport.
You can also see on this form that only 700k from student fees goes to football. 5.2m goes to olympic sports and 2.4m to unallocated.
Jim, that is not true in the sense that there is resentment of athletics at practically every university involved with them. The difference is that Rutgers does not have a history of winning, and precisely because they have not embraced a win at all costs mentality that would allow for things like cheating and corruption are the lies from Dowling, etc... tolerated.
Posted on 4/14 4:44 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by RU MAN: To many here that have been so negative from the get-go, before hearing the man speak, should eat CROW! Now, words are meaningless, I understand. But after listening to him speak and nailing down certain provincial aspects of New Jersey and taking a great, and I mean a great slam at the despicable Star Ledger, I am even more impressed with the man, because he seems to get it.
He doesn't understand why Rutgers is not tooting its own horn on the great programs they have to offer. Where is the media blitz from the school? Nowhere, that's where. You want to get rid of the provincial nature that is so pervasive, then start acting like a NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL university. Tout your strengths from a national level and not a regional level. Start thinking more about raising funds privately, like Michigan and UVA and not be at the mercy of Trenton. I believe Dr. Barchi understands Rutgers needs to create a rebelliousness about itself with a chip on its shoulder.
Personally, I think this man will be a GREAT hire, and I have as much knowledge as all of the Negative Nancies (sp?) think they have.
Originally posted by RU MAN: To many here that have been so negative from the get-go, before hearing the man speak, should eat CROW! Now, words are meaningless, I understand. But after listening to him speak and nailing down certain provincial aspects of New Jersey and taking a great, and I mean a great slam at the despicable Star Ledger, I am even more impressed with the man, because he seems to get it.
He doesn't understand why Rutgers is not tooting its own horn on the great programs they have to offer. Where is the media blitz from the school? Nowhere, that's where. You want to get rid of the provincial nature that is so pervasive, then start acting like a NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL university. Tout your strengths from a national level and not a regional level. Start thinking more about raising funds privately, like Michigan and UVA and not be at the mercy of Trenton. I believe Dr. Barchi understands Rutgers needs to create a rebelliousness about itself with a chip on its shoulder.
Personally, I think this man will be a GREAT hire, and I have as much knowledge as all of the Negative Nancies (sp?) think they have.
I think you pretty much nailed it.
Time to act big time, to be big time.
I had mine grilled. lol. In all seriousness, the more I listen to the man speak and outline the things he wants done, the more I'm impressed.
including a $1,200 meal for one finalist and members of the board of governors at the Peacock Inn in Princeton that included $216 worth of wine and liquor.
So if there were 10 people at this dinner, then the bar tab was $21 per person (which is essentially 2 drinks) and the full dinner bill (including tax and tip) was $120 per person.
Yeah, the Peacock Inn is expensive. But that is hardly outrageous.
Yahoo! Sports
