A day after the Rutgers athletics department detailed a “plan to reach competitiveness in a fiscally responsible manner,’’ the university’s faculty union offered another strong rebuke of what it called “a mismanaged Athletics program.’’

Deepa Kumar, president of the Rutgers faculty union, AAUP-AFT, said the 58-page report — which athletics officials say is intended to provide a map to transform Rutgers into a competitive Big Ten program — is a plan that “robs from our educational mission’’ and “saddles (students) with greater debt to subsidize’’ the state university’s sports teams.

"We need to restore the balance, and re-prioritize the academic mission,’’ Kumar said in a statement.

The faculty union’s rebuke is the latest in a long history of criticism aimed at a Rutgers athletics program that has relied on support from the university’s operating budget for nearly two decades.

Rutgers' annual fiscal-year documents obtained by NJ Advance Media show the athletics department’s deficit to be $399.3 million since 2003-04 and $193.2 million since university President Robert Barchi took office in 2012.

Kumar’s statement also comes as the faculty union remains embroiled in a contentious contract dispute with Rutgers' administration. At the university’s most recent Board of Governors meeting in December, dozens of professors threatened a strike and later blasted Barchi’s handling of contract talks to the board.

In the statement Friday, Kumar said that Rutgers ranks first among Big Ten schools in underpaid adjunct part-time faculty, next-to-last among full-time faculty, and last in support for graduate students.

The Rutgers report, furnished by College Sports Solutions at a cost of $95,000, detailed the struggles the Scarlet Knights face as they compete in the Big Ten.

While the majority of Rutgers' 24 teams have finished at or near the bottom of the conference standings since joining the Big Ten five years ago, the report cites the $27 million gap between Rutgers’ league-payout and the distribution directed to other Big Ten schools.

“The long-term benefits of Big Ten membership for the university as a whole are significant and immeasurable,’’ the report states. “In terms of academics Rutgers was well prepared. However, its athletics programs were ill prepared for Big Ten competition (and) its budget for athletics was substantially below the conference average. In short, Rutgers was facing a substantial period of time where it would be competing in the Big Ten with significantly fewer resources than its conference competitors.’’

According to Rutgers' most recent Fiscal Year report filed to the NCAA, the athletics program had a $47.4 million shortfall in a $99.2 million budget that was made up by $21.3 million in support from the university’s operating budget, $11.8 million in student fees and a $14.3 million internal loan.

The CSS reports recommends that Rutgers athletics "seek forgiveness or reduction of the principal and/or interest of current university loans’’ and “seek increase in the current student fee to support athletics.’’

The faculty union said Barchi’s focus on athletics “is costing Rutgers students ten to 15 times more in fees than their peers across the country.’’

“These resources would be better spent on teaching and research," Kumar said.

But while the student-fee subsidy has increased each year this decade and is set to remain on the athletics budget in future years, Rutgers distributes 10,000 free tickets for football home games and permits students in for free at all other sporting events on campus.

Mark Killingsworth, a Rutgers economics professor and longtime critic of the school’s athletics spending, questioned whether the athletics program will cease borrowing efforts from the university fund and students in the future.

“The CSS report recommends even more spending, and even more raids on student fees and the academic budget,’’ Killingsworth said. “If President Barchi has a shred of integrity left, he will stand up for the academic mission of the university, and stop this move to take even more money from students and academic programs. But does he have the guts to do this?’’

A spokesperson for Barchi didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the faculty union’s criticism.

A spokesperson for Hobbs referred to the Rutgers AD’s statement Thursday: "The CSS report provides independent confirmation of the challenges and opportunities before us as we continue the work of transforming Rutgers Athletics into a competitive program. ... We will digest their findings, and develop and execute an action plan to exploit every identified opportunity.'’

As part of its conclusion, the CSS report noted a failure on the part of Rutgers officials to acknowledge the challenges the athletics program faced as it entered the Big Ten.

“Rutgers did not prepare its faculty, students, alumni, state government, and various constituencies for the fiscal and competitive realities of joining the Big Ten, particularly in its first six years of membership,’’ the report stated. “There was likely underestimation of the extraordinary initial expenses connected to Big Ten membership and the long-term deficit spending plan needed to reach competitive parity.

“It is, however, CSS’s belief that, despite understandable apprehension, this continued extraordinary investment in athletics will result in a substantial, game-changing upside for the future of Rutgers athletics and the university as a whole, a significant step in raising awareness of Rutgers and enhancing the school’s image, while at the same time reducing athletics’ dependence on University financial support.’’

Keith Sargeant may be reached at ksargeant@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @KSargeantNJ. Find NJ.com Rutgers Football on Facebook.