In Defense of Rutgers

In Defense of Rutgers

I was listening to WFAN the other morning and there you had Boomer Esiason, a former star QB for the Bengals and the Jets, talking about how even though New York (New Jersey, really) has two first-place football teams, you wouldn't know it based on the media coverage.

There's something about this area that makes us supremely cynical and pessimistic, even when things are going well.

But this is not the case with Rutgers and, specifically, Rutgers football -- the Scarlet Knights. New Jersey has rallied behind the football team of the State University of New Jersey. New Jersey was, in fact, crying out for a good football program. Something we can hang our hats on when we say why we're proud to be New Jerseyans.

Now on gameday, there's unity and pride for school and sport. Undergrads, grads, and alumni are interacting in ways they never did.

But the Star-Ledger and some in the New Jersey Legislature are not having any of it. They point to impropriety, they point to scandal and corruption, they point to misappropriation of funds, and their arguments are weak at best, and destructive at worst.

Today, a group of dedicated fans, alumni, faculty, and staff, launched an information campaign to basically set the record straight about Rutgers. That group, assembled through Internet message boards and a Facebook group called I Got Rutgers' Back, of which the Bowie of Suburbia is a member.

The group, which organized only three weeks ago and raised upwards of $10,000 from over 200 individual donors in that time, is an indication of the hunger for a successful RU, both athletically and academically. But with RU's increased success, particularly since the Scarlet Knight's first bowl game in 2005 and now-fired RU Athletic Director and Political Fallguy Bob Mulcahy, the school and the athletic have fallen under increased scrutiny from the Ledger. And it ain't been good.

The group takes specific aim at the Ledger for a December 7 report, "Rutgers Football: A Game of Secrets", which claims that:

In the past five years, as Rutgers hiked tuition, eliminated six other varsity sports and canceled classes to cut costs, the university more than doubled annual spending on football, from $7.5 million to $15.6 million.

The obvious implication here is that is that money was moved from other areas to fund football, and that's patently untrue. The subsidy that RU actually provides football is less than it was five years ago, when the Knights went 4-7 in 2004. Increased spending has been offset 100% by increased revenue stemming from, what else? Increased quality of the Rutgers football program.

Further, the Star-Ledger distorted the findings of an Athletics Review Committee, heavily suggested impropriety in the November 20 report, "Report Says Rutgers Failed To Properly Oversee Athletics Department":

The Rutgers athletic department was allowed to become a virtually independent operation within the school - bending rules, answering to no one and spending freely.

That's the LEDE! If you were reading this with no prior knowledge, you would immediately conclude that this is a corrupt, back-room dealing, club. Only paragraphs later, the article acknowledges that the report found Mulcahy was not involved in any "wrongdoing," but that the University, in an accelerated attempt to improve the football program, moved too quickly and that oversight was lost. That's a legitimate gripe, but fortunately, that lack of oversight did not result in corruption, scandal, or mismanaged. In fact, the Athletics Review Committee audit found the program to be transparent, well run, and was producing dividends.

The report does call for:

• Establish a director of compliance/ethics
• Signatory authority for contracts
• Review and approval of sponsorship agreement policies and practices
• Review and approval of high-level employment contracts

Like I Got Rutgers' Back says "Athletics could have done bad things and nobody would have caught them, but fortunately they actually did great things."

Other areas of concern related to the Star-Ledger coverage included Coach Greg Schiano's alleged contract stipulation that offered an "out" if the stadium expansion were not completed (not true), and a Schiano salary subsidy from Nelligan, the school's sports marketing agency that was labeled as a "secret side deal." This kind of contract arrangement is so common in collegiate athletics.

The Ledger also characterizes the Rutgers Stadium expansion as mismanaged, and that bonds couldn't be sold as a result. Any superficial examination of large-scale development projects in the current economy -- institutional, medical, corporate, or otherwise -- would show just how difficult it is to get a project completed. But with all of that said, the first phase of the project was completed on time and on budget, the second phase as been scaled back in an acknowledgment of the economy, but will still provide increase revenue generators in the 11,500 additional seats

Star-Ledger should have known better, or if they did, they chose to avoid it, cynically looking for scandal.