(02-27-2017 06:26 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017 12:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2017 04:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]Frank what your describing is the way the kids from high income families see things. You for example were someone from a higher socioeconomic background with your father a professor. Names and prestige is everything in higher socioeconomic circles.
I once worked with a project manager who said that he went to Utah State. He then said proudly that Utah State has one of the most conservative political science departments in the country. His decision was based on perceived political environment than anything else.
Middle class kids who are not part of the well to do establishment view schools differently.
Conservative campus
Liberal campus
School with the biggest parties
Climate
Highest female to male ratio
Scenery
High school friends
Girlfriends
Too far from home
Too close to home
Offers my major
Perceived strength of the major
I just don't think athletics are too high on the list for the middle class kid who's parents watch the Super Bowl and World Series and that's it. Unless they grew up in a P5 college town so they understood what it means to have that.
I think a lot of people in this thread are taking a narrow view of who is "high income", though. I'm NOT talking about the one-percenters at the tip-top of the income scale. It's easy to dismiss that group as not caring about tuition prices and being outliers that can "afford" to be frivolous.
Instead, I'm talking about, say, the top 25% of income households. They might be "only" 25% of the US population overall, but they're making up the plurality or even a majority of the households that live in large swaths of suburbs in large metro areas, and they further make up an even larger proportion of those that attend college overall. They're the "mass affluent", if you will (or who most would characterize as "upper middle class"). This is a very large group (if not the single largest group) of college "consumers" and they DO have the ability to shape the higher education market overall. This group cares about price (as they can't just pull $60,000 in tuition per year out of thin air), but they do care about prestige, as well, and they'll balance the two heavily. I think people here are underestimating how large this group is when looking at them as a proportion of the college population overall. This isn't anecdotal - people in suburban NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Dallas and other major metro areas pay out-of-state tuition for other schools at VERY high rates and these aren't the richest of the rich kids.
Once again, I'm not saying that sports is #1 on their list for a school. It's one factor of many. However, whether a school does have big-time sports or not certainly does have a material impact on the overall culture and atmosphere of a school and the group that I described certainly cares about that aspect.
It's no different than why cities want pro sports teams. Even though not everyone in a city might care about pro sports, the point is that's an indicator that you're in a "brand name city" when it has pro sports teams. (And once again, you can have the argument that it's wasteful to subsidize pro sports teams, and you might be right. However, mayors typically get rewarded when they attract new pro sports teams and they typically get punished when they lose them. Similarly, look at the heat applied to administrators at even low revenue schools like Idaho and UAB when they dared to drop football levels or even football entirely. People don't get fired for adding a football team, whether it's college or pro, but they certainly can get fired for losing one.)
This could apply to things outside of sports, too. For instance, I only go to the Lyric Opera of Chicago maybe once every year or two and it wouldn't be on my top 10 personal reasons why I like living in the Chicago area, but the mere fact that the Lyric Opera is here adds to the overall cultural landscape that makes the entire city attractive. Chicago would certainly survive without the opera, but it's one less differentiator in its total package of a cultural experience. Not every person can visit every museum, attraction, theater or sports team all of the time in their respective home cities, but that doesn't mean that any of those people would actually believe that their cities would be better off *without* them.
Once again, we can go back to the "correlation vs. causation" discussion and say that it's all just correlation... and I wouldn't disagree. However, big-time sports at a school does add to the TOTALITY of the experience at a college that is definitely different when it's not there. I can see it with the difference between Northwestern and University of Chicago grads that I work with every day. They basically go after the same types of students with the same types of grades and they're elite institutions that are only a few miles away from each other. Northwestern is hardly Michigan or Alabama in terms of a great sports campus, but you better believe that there's a huge difference in the school pride that Northwestern grads show compared to U of C grads and that translates into how much enthusiastically Northwestern alums help out their fellow alums compared to U of C alums. I think most Northwestern alums would say that being a Big Ten school was a net positive to their experience even if they weren't big sports fans (similar to Stanford, Duke, Vandy, etc.). It's a major differentiator for Northwestern in competing for top students against a place like U of C, Washington University in St. Louis and Ivy League schools.
Frank, I agree that many Illinois kids go to Iowa and Wisconsin etc and that many California kids go to Oregon, Arizona etc. Yes, they'd rather do this than go to a directional school in state or a lesser city state school. I couldn't agree more. My buddy from Chicago went to Arizona for his BA and New Mexico for his Masters. I remember him once saying he would have never gone to a school without football. However, he doesn't know what P5 and G5 is. He went to the schools he went to because they are big state flagship schools. He likes going to big college games in Texas due to the party/tail gate, he rarely even goes to the actual game anymore. He understands that Texas and A&M are big time and North Texas and UTSA are small fry. No middle class high school kid is going to college because of the "P5". They are going to schools that have both University and the name of a state in them minus direction, that have all the things that make college, college. Sports, fraternity and sorority houses, medical school, law school, bussiness school, dorms, on campus apartments, parties, fun and the name of a state on their diploma that they do not have to describe/explain to family friends and future employers.
Cheers!
Exactly. lol....Anyone thinking 17-18 year old kids are all making their college decisions based on academics and future earning don't know many 17-18 year kids. Some ARE very mature and no doubt make their decision based on academics and future earnings----but far more make their decision based on things like being fans of certain college sports teams, which schools are more "fun", where their friends are going, where their boyfriend/girlfriend is going, and any number of other even more silly reasons that would probably appall Frank the Tank. We don't let this age group drink for a reason.
I would agree with this statement 100% - if we were talking about over 10 - 20 years ago. A number of factors have changed from the time I made the decision on where I was going to college vs today. Consider: 1) The price has gone up way beyond the cost of inflation, 2) Simply getting any old degree no longer cuts it in the real world and 3) Mom and dad plus the states are no longer kicking in the amount of money they used to be able to as in the past (related to point 1). Let's say for the sake of argument that the majority of kids still think the way you stated in your points above. There is still mom and dad who are no longer willing to foot the bill simply because college campus life is a "right of passage". I know for my own children that there are certain majors that I will never fund. If my kids want to become engineers, scientists or even teachers - I'll fund that. But not a humanities/social science major that does not include an education degree to teach it to HS and/or MS kids. And most definitely any majors that have the word "studies" as part of the degree name.
Kids may not care about finances and geography; however, parents do. And in today's university climate - everything is much different. I would wager that most parents would prefer the right price over university athletics - or in general "campus atmosphere". The links I provided earlier are bearing that out.
While some put a great deal of care into the decision, many more do not. I completely agree with you about the type of degree obtained. I also made it clear to my kids they had to major in a field that made college economically reasonable. Had to be business, engineering, math, computer, etc...
That said, getting a degree in a field with strong income earning potential is a totally different argument from where you go to get it. Additionally, getting good grades from just about any state school in a solid field will land you pretty decent job opportunities. Even schools with significant athletic subsidies aren't making any real difference in what you pay for your education.
Think about it---as an example the UH athletics budget is about 52 million. The subsidy was about 17 million---on a total University of Houston budget of around 1.5 billion. Nobody is making a school decision based on about one tenth of 1% of the budget. I cant say for sure, but Im willing to bet that the UH "athletic subsidy to overall university budget ratio" is probably reasonably similar of most FBS G5 schools. Bottom line---its just not that big a deal and given that athletics effectively serves as the marketing arm of the university as well as a student amenity, its probably not an unreasonable expense.
Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
(02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost.
In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
(02-27-2017 10:07 AM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2017 11:00 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]Plenty of G4 schools spending hundreds of millions and they don't intend to voluntarily be demoted to Division II
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
no g-5 schools spend hundreds of millions on athletics. The budgets are typically 50m or less per year.
I am talking facilities. Colorado States stadium is $220M. Houston si spending about that on their stadium, arena and IPF. Our build out of the Turner Field acreage is conservatively $300M.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
(02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
You're going to go down the rabbit hole with this dude.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
(02-27-2017 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 07:32 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Here is a link to the database.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
I gave you the actual audited UH athletic budget for 2015-2016.
And I gave you the link to the USA today database which has the budget for 2014-15 and 9 previous years.
(02-27-2017 08:33 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
You're going to go down the rabbit hole with this dude.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Attackcoog is a reasonable person.
You are just mad becasue you made a fool of yourself in a couple of thread recently. You claimed Colorado St hd no TV contract which was why the game with CU needed to end and the latest is that becasue UMAss has a big operating budget its' not a big deal to take money from that side to support the athletic side in it's quest for FBS football even with an 80% subsidy.
You are one of the least intelligent posters on this board. But you are entertaining.
(02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
This reminds me of someone trying to justify using a credit card for something they can't afford.
If it's not a big deal then why not do it more so you won't lose coaches. Jus pull an extra 10 million per year out and keep a coach. Heck why not pull an extra 50 out an operate a 100m AD. It's no big deal right?
Unfortunately it is a big deal. And schools can't just keep spending while putting that much burden on academics, students, or taxpayers. Schools like UMAss, UConn, Houston, and Cinci have maxed out the credit cards trying to keep up. IT's' not sustainable and not realistic to just keep taking from the overall school budget. At some point they simply can't afford to give more to athletics. I personally think many schools are at that point or beyond already.
That being said I think Houston can justify what they are doing becasue there is tremendous upside and they are nowhere near the 80% that UMAss is approaching for subsidy.eI can only imagine the upside if they they got in the Big 12 or PAC. I dont' see that same upside for UMAss.
(02-27-2017 11:36 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 08:33 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
You're going to go down the rabbit hole with this dude.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Attackcoog is a reasonable person.
You are just mad becasue you made a fool of yourself in a couple of thread recently. You claimed Colorado St hd no TV contract which was why the game with CU needed to end and the latest is that becasue UMAss has a big operating budget its' not a big deal to take money from that side to support the athletic side in it's quest for FBS football even with an 80% subsidy.
You are one of the least intelligent posters on this board. But you are entertaining.
Yeah sure that's what happened...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
(02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
Attackcoog you are a well informed poster. However, you seem to be missing the point I asked you before. If I understand you correctly, your analogy is that the athletics program serves as the marketing department of the university.... and I do not disagree with that thought.
However, you seem to promote that as a great thing for all concerned. That I disagree with. It is a great thing for the University Administration, it provides job security etc., but not for all concerned..
As I pointed out to you before, on average a student's tuition and fees pays for about 1/3 of the cost of their education. The taxpayers and donors pay the rest. So every increase in enrollment cost the taxpayers and uses donor funds. Not to mention the cost of adding dorms, classrooms etc. Do you remember when the State of Texas paid students to go to private universities and not enroll at UT, A&M etc. I explained that in my previous post.
So at a State supported University, who besides the
administration, benefits from this increase in student enrollment? Who loses?
IMO increasing enrollment numbers at a state university is not necessarily the good thing that you advocate.
(02-15-2017 10:46 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 07:31 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 12:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2017 11:35 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Tail wagging the dog. It's not football that attracts students to the U of Illinois. It's the fact that it is the school that gets the most resources from the state and can thus offer the most variety of subjects to major in. C'mon, most of the marketing is being done at the HS level with guidance counselors trying to funnel kids to school and showing the chart where you earn X amount of dollars based on Y level of education. Once again, for the vast majority of students, you are going to the larger state funded schools because of your parental income (middle class), your grade/test entrance exams (good to great, not brilliant) and your desire for the most diverse choices for majors. So let's get this straight. You are a HS student living in the state of Illinois, and you "discover" that the U. of Illinois exists because they play football in the B1G? Nevermind the fact that U of I has been mediocre at best for the majority of it's time in the B1G - just the fact they play in a "big boy conference" has gotten there name out to people who never thought to go there before??? You can't be serious. These land grant schools are making most of their enrollment decisions on in state students. Most of these schools are equivalent from state to state. Cookie cutter institutions. You go to the one that best fits your budget and course offering variety. "Big State U" will have the variety of majors and the economy of scale to have the resources you need to do well. Plus it will have the right cost - instate tuition break for the local student.
If CFB completely goes away tomorrow - the school rankings in the USNews, the name recognition for instate students and the fact these schools have resources based on research contracts and state funding will not change.
I'm serious as a heart attack. By the time a kid even enters middle school---long before he even has a clue what he wants to be when he grows up--he has heard the names of hundreds of schools thousands of times. Not once has he heard those names with any connection to academics. He has heard them in connection with sports. Hell---many kids already know where they want to go to school before they select thier major. They became fans of the schools sports teams long before they knew what a "major" was. There's a reason schools spend money and fight to stay in FBS.
More than half of college applicants have no idea what they want to major in. So half the kids deciding on a college aren't looking for the best astrophysics department. They are picking thier school based on some other appeal---probably just the one they "like" best.
You are correct, many kids are getting inundated with college names thru athletics. However, Ohio State killing it on the gridiron is not attracting Connecticut students. Alabama isn't attracting the best and brightest from the nation because of their trophies. Most of us are choosing which university to attend based on price, scope of degree offerings and geography. In fact, I didn't emphasize the geography point enough. A number of states have more than one prominent university, and I would contend that the students you described above are choosing the closest one that fits the bill for offering a wide variety of choices. Most of the P5 and G5 schools are commodity schools. An undergrad degree in English, mathematics, economics will basically be the same.
Your contention is that sports is the difference maker. It's not. It's a combination of price, quality and geography. Conference affiliation plays no role.
Alabama is the fastest growing flagship university in the nation. It aint due to the astrophysics department. There are mulitple reasons that football makes a difference. There are some kids who wont even consider a school that doesn't play major football. There are others who equate FBS football programs with prestige or being a "major" university. There are reasons that only one school has dropped from the FBS ranks over the lastvious reasons. quarter century.
Why would a taxpayer in Alabama want the school's enrollment to increase? What is the benefit?
Remember a student at a state university on average, pays only about 1/3 of the total cost of their education. It is probably a lot less when you consider the cost to build new classrooms etc. Who pays the rest? Taxpayers and donors.
Naturally school administrators want enrollment to increase for obvious reasons. Job security, ratings etc. No doubt winning football does increase donations, but a lot of that goes to athletics..
When my daughter was entering college, the State of Texas offered something called Tuition Equalization Grants to any student that would attend one of the private schools in the state in lieu of attending a State school. My daughter went to a private school and collected several thousand dollars in TEG grants.
Why did the State do this? Because of the cost to build new classrooms, housing etc. Plus the fact that the State pays a portion for the cost of each student's education.
So the argument that football increases enrollment at Alabama is correct........ BUT that does not mean it is a positive thing or is desirable for all concerned. Because is is not.
Sorry about that. I must have missed your response. I think the overall general answer is the legislature believes a highly educated workforce is the key to a successful economic future for the state.
One of the things the state legislature is concerned about is "brain drain". Bright kids who leave the state for college have a good chance of never returning. This brain drain is something the legislature wants to avoid (which is one reason the legislature is trying to develop more Tier One state supported higher education options outside of Texas and A&M).
That said, the reality is the state school system is receiving a lower and lower percentage of tuition support from the state. That's not limited to Texas---its a national trend. This year, due to lower oil prices and reduced tax revenues, all the state supported higher education options are facing budget cuts in the current legislative 2-year state budget session.
Long story short, the state's portion of tuition support for higher education students is dropping---not increasing---and has been for years.
On a side note---One area of savings for students attending school that I never see addressed is books. Ive got two kids in college and I know there are text books that are over $300 dollars for some courses (one accounting text was over that amount for example---many many text books are well over $100). It would not cost the state a dime to reform this aspect of higher education. If I can buy a printed hardback John Grisham book for $25, then no text book should cost much more than that (since we are not paying John Grisham millions to write it). Statewide standardization of text books for "basic" courses like history, government, English should be part of the reform. The same could be done for many courses in education, business, engineering, etc. Going to a digital books system on a common platform would reduce costs even further. I just think that's a place where simple state regulations could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the actual costs of higher education for state students and it wouldn't cost the state a dime.
(02-27-2017 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 06:26 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017 12:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017 12:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2017 04:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I think a lot of people in this thread are taking a narrow view of who is "high income", though. I'm NOT talking about the one-percenters at the tip-top of the income scale. It's easy to dismiss that group as not caring about tuition prices and being outliers that can "afford" to be frivolous.
Instead, I'm talking about, say, the top 25% of income households. They might be "only" 25% of the US population overall, but they're making up the plurality or even a majority of the households that live in large swaths of suburbs in large metro areas, and they further make up an even larger proportion of those that attend college overall. They're the "mass affluent", if you will (or who most would characterize as "upper middle class"). This is a very large group (if not the single largest group) of college "consumers" and they DO have the ability to shape the higher education market overall. This group cares about price (as they can't just pull $60,000 in tuition per year out of thin air), but they do care about prestige, as well, and they'll balance the two heavily. I think people here are underestimating how large this group is when looking at them as a proportion of the college population overall. This isn't anecdotal - people in suburban NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Dallas and other major metro areas pay out-of-state tuition for other schools at VERY high rates and these aren't the richest of the rich kids.
Once again, I'm not saying that sports is #1 on their list for a school. It's one factor of many. However, whether a school does have big-time sports or not certainly does have a material impact on the overall culture and atmosphere of a school and the group that I described certainly cares about that aspect.
It's no different than why cities want pro sports teams. Even though not everyone in a city might care about pro sports, the point is that's an indicator that you're in a "brand name city" when it has pro sports teams. (And once again, you can have the argument that it's wasteful to subsidize pro sports teams, and you might be right. However, mayors typically get rewarded when they attract new pro sports teams and they typically get punished when they lose them. Similarly, look at the heat applied to administrators at even low revenue schools like Idaho and UAB when they dared to drop football levels or even football entirely. People don't get fired for adding a football team, whether it's college or pro, but they certainly can get fired for losing one.)
This could apply to things outside of sports, too. For instance, I only go to the Lyric Opera of Chicago maybe once every year or two and it wouldn't be on my top 10 personal reasons why I like living in the Chicago area, but the mere fact that the Lyric Opera is here adds to the overall cultural landscape that makes the entire city attractive. Chicago would certainly survive without the opera, but it's one less differentiator in its total package of a cultural experience. Not every person can visit every museum, attraction, theater or sports team all of the time in their respective home cities, but that doesn't mean that any of those people would actually believe that their cities would be better off *without* them.
Once again, we can go back to the "correlation vs. causation" discussion and say that it's all just correlation... and I wouldn't disagree. However, big-time sports at a school does add to the TOTALITY of the experience at a college that is definitely different when it's not there. I can see it with the difference between Northwestern and University of Chicago grads that I work with every day. They basically go after the same types of students with the same types of grades and they're elite institutions that are only a few miles away from each other. Northwestern is hardly Michigan or Alabama in terms of a great sports campus, but you better believe that there's a huge difference in the school pride that Northwestern grads show compared to U of C grads and that translates into how much enthusiastically Northwestern alums help out their fellow alums compared to U of C alums. I think most Northwestern alums would say that being a Big Ten school was a net positive to their experience even if they weren't big sports fans (similar to Stanford, Duke, Vandy, etc.). It's a major differentiator for Northwestern in competing for top students against a place like U of C, Washington University in St. Louis and Ivy League schools.
Frank, I agree that many Illinois kids go to Iowa and Wisconsin etc and that many California kids go to Oregon, Arizona etc. Yes, they'd rather do this than go to a directional school in state or a lesser city state school. I couldn't agree more. My buddy from Chicago went to Arizona for his BA and New Mexico for his Masters. I remember him once saying he would have never gone to a school without football. However, he doesn't know what P5 and G5 is. He went to the schools he went to because they are big state flagship schools. He likes going to big college games in Texas due to the party/tail gate, he rarely even goes to the actual game anymore. He understands that Texas and A&M are big time and North Texas and UTSA are small fry. No middle class high school kid is going to college because of the "P5". They are going to schools that have both University and the name of a state in them minus direction, that have all the things that make college, college. Sports, fraternity and sorority houses, medical school, law school, bussiness school, dorms, on campus apartments, parties, fun and the name of a state on their diploma that they do not have to describe/explain to family friends and future employers.
Cheers!
Exactly. lol....Anyone thinking 17-18 year old kids are all making their college decisions based on academics and future earning don't know many 17-18 year kids. Some ARE very mature and no doubt make their decision based on academics and future earnings----but far more make their decision based on things like being fans of certain college sports teams, which schools are more "fun", where their friends are going, where their boyfriend/girlfriend is going, and any number of other even more silly reasons that would probably appall Frank the Tank. We don't let this age group drink for a reason.
I would agree with this statement 100% - if we were talking about over 10 - 20 years ago. A number of factors have changed from the time I made the decision on where I was going to college vs today. Consider: 1) The price has gone up way beyond the cost of inflation, 2) Simply getting any old degree no longer cuts it in the real world and 3) Mom and dad plus the states are no longer kicking in the amount of money they used to be able to as in the past (related to point 1). Let's say for the sake of argument that the majority of kids still think the way you stated in your points above. There is still mom and dad who are no longer willing to foot the bill simply because college campus life is a "right of passage". I know for my own children that there are certain majors that I will never fund. If my kids want to become engineers, scientists or even teachers - I'll fund that. But not a humanities/social science major that does not include an education degree to teach it to HS and/or MS kids. And most definitely any majors that have the word "studies" as part of the degree name.
Kids may not care about finances and geography; however, parents do. And in today's university climate - everything is much different. I would wager that most parents would prefer the right price over university athletics - or in general "campus atmosphere". The links I provided earlier are bearing that out.
While some put a great deal of care into the decision, many more do not. I completely agree with you about the type of degree obtained. I also made it clear to my kids they had to major in a field that made college economically reasonable. Had to be business, engineering, math, computer, etc...
That said, getting a degree in a field with strong income earning potential is a totally different argument from where you go to get it. Additionally, getting good grades from just about any state school in a solid field will land you pretty decent job opportunities. Even schools with significant athletic subsidies aren't making any real difference in what you pay for your education.
Think about it---as an example the UH athletics budget is about 52 million. The subsidy was about 17 million---on a total University of Houston budget of around 1.5 billion. Nobody is making a school decision based on about one tenth of 1% of the budget. I cant say for sure, but Im willing to bet that the UH "athletic subsidy to overall university budget ratio" is probably reasonably similar of most FBS G5 schools. Bottom line---its just not that big a deal and given that athletics effectively serves as the marketing arm of the university as well as a student amenity, its probably not an unreasonable expense.
You make a number of points that bolsters my position. The original premise was that it was the P5 moniker and how these schools doing athletics are the significant draw to the detriment of the G5 and lower schools. My point is that university costs and geography trump the "P5 draw". Even with Frank's "Alabama is making inroads into Chicago" point, those students showed zero interest until Alabama kicked in enough money to make cost off attendance cost neutral for instate Illinois tuition at a minimum (and probably more money than that). Far from a ringing endorsement that sports is a great marketing tool for Alabama to reach so far up north if they have to ultimately kick in 10's of thousands of dollars to entice students anyways.
If you read my posts on this, I think I did a pretty good job dispelling that myth. Having said that, it's not the same as my philosophical view on how college athletics needs to go away in favor of D-Leagues being developed by professional sports. I did opine that there COULD be savings there - probably more than you think. The reason is that a lot of that budget is tied up in research endeavors if the school is a large research center. Those views can be discussed in another thread because that is not the crux of the original argument that the P5 draw is primarily sports related.
(02-28-2017 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 10:46 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 07:31 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-15-2017 12:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm serious as a heart attack. By the time a kid even enters middle school---long before he even has a clue what he wants to be when he grows up--he has heard the names of hundreds of schools thousands of times. Not once has he heard those names with any connection to academics. He has heard them in connection with sports. Hell---many kids already know where they want to go to school before they select thier major. They became fans of the schools sports teams long before they knew what a "major" was. There's a reason schools spend money and fight to stay in FBS.
More than half of college applicants have no idea what they want to major in. So half the kids deciding on a college aren't looking for the best astrophysics department. They are picking thier school based on some other appeal---probably just the one they "like" best.
You are correct, many kids are getting inundated with college names thru athletics. However, Ohio State killing it on the gridiron is not attracting Connecticut students. Alabama isn't attracting the best and brightest from the nation because of their trophies. Most of us are choosing which university to attend based on price, scope of degree offerings and geography. In fact, I didn't emphasize the geography point enough. A number of states have more than one prominent university, and I would contend that the students you described above are choosing the closest one that fits the bill for offering a wide variety of choices. Most of the P5 and G5 schools are commodity schools. An undergrad degree in English, mathematics, economics will basically be the same.
Your contention is that sports is the difference maker. It's not. It's a combination of price, quality and geography. Conference affiliation plays no role.
Alabama is the fastest growing flagship university in the nation. It aint due to the astrophysics department. There are mulitple reasons that football makes a difference. There are some kids who wont even consider a school that doesn't play major football. There are others who equate FBS football programs with prestige or being a "major" university. There are reasons that only one school has dropped from the FBS ranks over the lastvious reasons. quarter century.
Why would a taxpayer in Alabama want the school's enrollment to increase? What is the benefit?
Remember a student at a state university on average, pays only about 1/3 of the total cost of their education. It is probably a lot less when you consider the cost to build new classrooms etc. Who pays the rest? Taxpayers and donors.
Naturally school administrators want enrollment to increase for obvious reasons. Job security, ratings etc. No doubt winning football does increase donations, but a lot of that goes to athletics..
When my daughter was entering college, the State of Texas offered something called Tuition Equalization Grants to any student that would attend one of the private schools in the state in lieu of attending a State school. My daughter went to a private school and collected several thousand dollars in TEG grants.
Why did the State do this? Because of the cost to build new classrooms, housing etc. Plus the fact that the State pays a portion for the cost of each student's education.
So the argument that football increases enrollment at Alabama is correct........ BUT that does not mean it is a positive thing or is desirable for all concerned. Because is is not.
Sorry about that. I must have missed your response. I think the overall general answer is the legislature believes a highly educated workforce is the key to a successful economic future for the state.
One of the things the state legislature is concerned about is "brain drain". Bright kids who leave the state for college have a good chance of never returning. This brain drain is something the legislature wants to avoid (which is one reason the legislature is trying to develop more Tier One state supported higher education options outside of Texas and A&M).
That said, the reality is the state school system is receiving a lower and lower percentage of tuition support from the state. That's not limited to Texas---its a national trend. This year, due to lower oil prices and reduced tax revenues, all the state supported higher education options are facing budget cuts in the current legislative 2-year state budget session.
Long story short, the state's portion of tuition support for higher education students is dropping---not increasing---and has been for years.
On a side note---One area of savings for students attending school that I never see addressed is books. Ive got two kids in college and I know there are text books that are over $300 dollars for some courses (one accounting text was over that amount for example---many many text books are well over $100). It would not cost the state a dime to reform this aspect of higher education. If I can buy a printed hardback John Grisham book for $25, then no text book should cost much more than that (since we are not paying John Grisham millions to write it). Statewide standardization of text books for "basic" courses like history, government, English should be part of the reform. The same could be done for many courses in education, business, engineering, etc. Going to a digital books system on a common platform would reduce costs even further. I just think that's a place where simple state regulations could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the actual costs of higher education for state students and it wouldn't cost the state a dime.
The legislatures are missing the point also. The college administrations are very self serving. They evidently do not care about the students or the taxpayers. They water down courses to keep students in school and worse offer degree programs that are worthless. Recent statistics show that 50% of college grads in the last five years cannot find employment in their major. That defeats the argument of brain drain or developng a highy educated work force for economic development.
In some states colleges admit up to 47% of their entering freshmen that are not qualified to enter college. Therefore they must take remedial courses that they did not take in high school. Why do colleges let them in school? Because it makes them money. The student and taxpayers pay the college the full tuition and fees and the college has a grad student that is paid minimum wage teach the course instead of a professor paid $100,000 per year.
Another problem is that students take up to 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program, thus adding to the taxpayers expense.
I could go on forever, but suffice to say, having successful athletic programs to attract more students is not a positive thing for state schools. Long story short, all states may or may not be decreasing support. I have no way of knowing that.......... but they are still paying huge sums to support the schools.
For example in Arkansas , 55% of the TOTAL state budget goes for education. That includes all public schools of course.
Have we considered the possibility that one motivation a state has for subsidizing higher education is that it keeps a lot of young people out of the unemployment statistics? A hard fact of economic life in America, like much of the rest of the world, is that there aren't enough jobs to absorb young adults entering the workforce when more and more of their parents and grandparents are retiring later because they are living longer.
I don't see that changing any time soon.
(02-28-2017 09:38 AM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 11:36 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 08:33 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?
Because they can't.
Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.
62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
You're going to go down the rabbit hole with this dude.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Attackcoog is a reasonable person.
You are just mad becasue you made a fool of yourself in a couple of thread recently. You claimed Colorado St hd no TV contract which was why the game with CU needed to end and the latest is that becasue UMAss has a big operating budget its' not a big deal to take money from that side to support the athletic side in it's quest for FBS football even with an 80% subsidy.
You are one of the least intelligent posters on this board. But you are entertaining.
Yeah sure that's what happened...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
That's exactly what happened. The posts are there for anyone to see.
You think the reason the Rocky Mountain Showdown is not being played is becasue CSU has no TV deal and no TV provider will put it on TV.
Then we pointed out that the MW does indeed have a TV deal and the game was carried by ESPN. LOL
The UMAss threads was even worse.
Thanks for the entertainment.
(03-01-2017 09:31 AM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2017 09:38 AM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 11:36 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 08:33 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266
My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.
The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.
Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.
For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.
You're going to go down the rabbit hole with this dude.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Attackcoog is a reasonable person.
You are just mad becasue you made a fool of yourself in a couple of thread recently. You claimed Colorado St hd no TV contract which was why the game with CU needed to end and the latest is that becasue UMAss has a big operating budget its' not a big deal to take money from that side to support the athletic side in it's quest for FBS football even with an 80% subsidy.
You are one of the least intelligent posters on this board. But you are entertaining.
Yeah sure that's what happened...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
That's exactly what happened. The posts are there for anyone to see.
You think the reason the Rocky Mountain Showdown is not being played is becasue CSU has no TV deal and no TV provider will put it on TV.
Then we pointed out that the MW does indeed have a TV deal and the game was carried by ESPN. LOL
The UMAss threads was even worse.
Thanks for the entertainment.
I was part of both debates. In all fairness, Panama did not say the Rocky Mountain Showdown was ending due to CSU having no "media contract". That was another poster. That poster was proven wrong.
Panama did get into it with us about UMASS paying for its athletics from the university's general fund.
I try to call them as I see them.
Cheers!
(03-01-2017 03:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-01-2017 09:31 AM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-28-2017 09:38 AM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 11:36 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-27-2017 08:33 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]You're going to go down the rabbit hole with this dude.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Attackcoog is a reasonable person.
You are just mad becasue you made a fool of yourself in a couple of thread recently. You claimed Colorado St hd no TV contract which was why the game with CU needed to end and the latest is that becasue UMAss has a big operating budget its' not a big deal to take money from that side to support the athletic side in it's quest for FBS football even with an 80% subsidy.
You are one of the least intelligent posters on this board. But you are entertaining.
Yeah sure that's what happened...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
That's exactly what happened. The posts are there for anyone to see.
You think the reason the Rocky Mountain Showdown is not being played is becasue CSU has no TV deal and no TV provider will put it on TV.
Then we pointed out that the MW does indeed have a TV deal and the game was carried by ESPN. LOL
The UMAss threads was even worse.
Thanks for the entertainment.
I was part of both debates. In all fairness, Panama did not say the Rocky Mountain Showdown was ending due to CSU having no "media contract". That was another poster. That poster was proven wrong.
Panama did get into it with us about UMASS paying for its athletics from the university's general fund.
I try to call them as I see them.
Cheers!
My bad. I probably got mixed up.
