<p>^^^ I agree, this past fall I must admit it was actually FUN following RU football, anticipating the televised games, seeing red sweatshirts everywhere. Was nice for a change to not have to root for only Penn State, the closest college with a "real" football team. Jersey pride!</p>
<p>I am sad and surprised about the loss of the other sports, particularly rowing. Is that true? I'm pretty sure I just read of a local girl who just committed to RU for rowing. Our (shore) area has produced lots of recruited rowers to some of the best schools, including Rutgers. Local rowing recruits who aren't recruited by Penn or Princeton often attend Rutgers, close enough for family members to attend the races.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I stand by the view that the sports that are being cut provide few benefits for the rest of the student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are student sports for if not for the student athletes themselves? Is the amusement of other students (and, presumably, alumni) the primary reason for collegiate athletics? If so, let's drop the sham that these programs have something to do with providing athletic opportunity to the student participants.</p>
<p>2331clk-
The six sports that Rutgers is cutting are men’s heavyweight and lightweight crew, men’s and women’s fencing, men’s swimming and diving, and men’s tennis.</p>
<p>What I can't believe is the legislature's desire to get involved. They don't think the university should have the autonomy to decide what sports its offers?</p>
<p>the legislature cuts HighEd funding for the state by drastic amounts and then they ***** about Rutgers AD cutting sports? Typical politicians.</p>
<p>the fencing and crew cuts seems to make no sense. both are sports that have alot of students to pick from in the NE, would appear to be cheap to run. Crew in particular is a sport that, although it does not generate any revenue, alumni surveys in many schools have shown it to be a sport that alums care about and want to keep. Seems to fit the perception of a college experience.</p>
<p>Sometimes NO is an answer. There is no point to dragging on discussions after the decision has been made. Perhaps they can collect the cash and raise the issue in the future with the money in the bank. Talk is always cheap and plentiful. Writing checks is not so easy.</p>
<p>As several million $$ in pledges were secured, I think it is more than money fueling this decision. I think it is disgraceful that a kid with an 890SAT is welcomed aboard while the true scholar/athletes are told to take a hike. It appears that Rutgers administrators quickly became addicted to the publicity that the football success brought. </p>
<p>Yet another reason why my kids won't be Rutgers legacies.</p>
<p>Well, it did bring in more national good pub than all those "scholar athletes" combined in the last 30 years. With 40,000 students there is room for a few 890's.</p>
<p>Barrons, I don't agree. An 890 kid should be heading to a community college, not the state flagship university. I believe in cutting athletes a break, because their arduous training & competition schedule cuts into academic stats. But not that much of a break.</p>
<p>Ron Dayne came to Wisconsin from NJ with something around that SAT score. With more direction and extra academic help he needed he graduated with his class, won the Heisman and was a fine young man. You never hear anything bad about him during his NFL career except he was a better runner in the college game.</p>
<p>I would venture to guess there are probably a number of 890 SAT non-atheletes at Rutgers. The school average is around 1090 so you can probably expect to find as many 890's as 1390's there and the 1390 could probably have a C average and no EC's.</p>
<p>Rutger's and New Jersey are both having financial woes. High taxes and a fleeing middle class aren't helping and the state legislature has been cutting appropriations for Rutgers. </p>
<p>Somebody mentioned the football program is losing money but that probably is not the case. Football is usually the engine that finances the other sports at a school and given Rutgers' attendence the last two years and their membership in a strong conference with lots of TV revenue in both basketball and football I would have to think football is doing quite well. Title IX on the other hand has proven to be a killer for men's olympic sports at colleges and universities. The need to offset the 85 football full scholarships with womens sports and scholarships has led to the drastic reduction of non-revenue men's sports and their replacement with women's bowling and rowing scholarships.</p>
<p>Thanks for the great link supermtt.
higherlead: my son was in the upper SAT range you mentioned. He maintained an A average all through high school, and was involved in activities. I don't get the feeling he is the exception which proves the rule at Rutgers.</p>