Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #101
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
If a school has a balanced operating budget based on an average of $15k/year of tuition being paid ... then raises all tuition rates by $5k/year, and yet the same number of students keep applying and enrolling ..... then it can't be said that the extra $5k/year is being "taken" from academics.

Instead, it must be said that those students who are choosing to apply and enroll and pay that tuition increase, are voting to pay for the extra money to go to a top notch athletics dept.


And you just have to sit there and take that, Todge. Because there's nothing wrong with it ... the free market has spoken.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2017 01:19 PM by MplsBison.)
07-10-2017 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-10-2017 01:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-10-2017 01:03 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(07-09-2017 10:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers.
But, properly, those contribution ought to be "capitalized" ... put into a per year value for the projects they are helping to fund with the per-year value added into the non-institutional revenue.

Any school then could issue bonds for a large athletic project, to be financed over 20 years at 20 million per year and increase the budget by 20 million dollars.

Call it the Rutgers plan for pumping up your athletic budget.

If this can be done then what is to stop any G5 from approaching a P5 conference with a proposal of a 300 million dollar stadium expansion if accepted to the conference? It may be a non-starter for other reasons of course (e.g. academics).

this is like saying you are going to show all your neighbors that are members of the country club that "you belong" by raiding your kids college fund to join the country club and buy an expensive car

while the neighbors all pay for the country club after paying into the college fund and after maxing out their IRA and they pay for the fancy car with cash

no conference is going to be impressed with a school that can take a ton of money from the academic side (that will not last) and pay for stuff for a short term on the athletic side before it all falls apart

or that can inflate their budget hoping to get into a conference and get larger conference revenues and then cut their academic side support so that their budget falls right back down to the level it was prior to being in the conference which would make it much lower than the rest of the conference
It worked for Rutgers.

They built a new 40k seater for the Big East (opened in 1994 after BE play started) then moved to 50k seats and issued debt to pay for it.

Bottom line fattened and now they have an $85 million dollar budget.

Any G5 then could effectively take a 30 million dollar budget into a P5, issue 30 million a year in stadium expansion debt, renegotiate marketing rights to the P5 level for 10 million and then take a 30 million dollar revenue contribution from the conference.

An instant 100 million dollar athletic budget is created. Revenues from the P5 go directly to debt service payments. The thought from there is ticket sales will go up within a few years (Rutgers needed about 10 years in the BE to move on from 20,000 avg) and then provide a greater profit margin.

Those AAC schools who have spent 100 million on facilities to get ahead in the realignment discussion can be out done by one that commits to a 200 or 300 million plan.

He who laughs last laughs the loudest.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app
07-10-2017 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #103
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-10-2017 01:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If a school has a balanced operating budget based on an average of $15k/year of tuition being paid ... then raises all tuition rates by $5k/year, and yet the same number of students keep applying and enrolling ..... then it can't be said that the extra $5k/year is being "taken" from academics.

Instead, it must be said that those students who are choosing to apply and enroll and pay that tuition increase, are voting to pay for the extra money to go to a top notch athletics dept.

The only schools where enrollment demand is relatively inelastic to major tuition increases are the top-notch Ivy schools, the big-time academic schools, never the big-time athletic ones.

Harvard or Princeton raises its tuition 5K (for those who actually pay)? Heck, enrollment applications probably go up, not down.

FSU or Boise State raises its tuition 5K a year, and kids start enrolling at other schools.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 07:07 AM by quo vadis.)
07-13-2017 07:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #104
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The market for students to choose schools is a free market and very competitive.

If a school tries to raise its price too much, students will look elsewhere.


So that should solve your concern, quo. Just get rid of all fees, and make everything be one price of tuition. Students vote with their dollars, every year.

And here would be one last cherry on top to really allay concerns: have it be so that when a person first enrolls in a school ... that tuition rate is locked in for say five or six years. If they get their degree done in that time, they're essentially immune from increases during their time. Only new incoming students will ever have to pay the newest higher rates.
07-13-2017 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #105
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 10:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The market for students to choose schools is a free market and very competitive.

If a school tries to raise its price too much, students will look elsewhere.


So that should solve your concern, quo. Just get rid of all fees, and make everything be one price of tuition. Students vote with their dollars, every year.

The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.
07-13-2017 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #106
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-10-2017 01:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If a school has a balanced operating budget based on an average of $15k/year of tuition being paid ... then raises all tuition rates by $5k/year, and yet the same number of students keep applying and enrolling ..... then it can't be said that the extra $5k/year is being "taken" from academics.

Instead, it must be said that those students who are choosing to apply and enroll and pay that tuition increase, are voting to pay for the extra money to go to a top notch athletics dept.


And you just have to sit there and take that, Todge. Because there's nothing wrong with it ... the free market has spoken.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Athletics is a part of the package and the extra charges have not deterred student enrollment, despite there being fine academic choices without athletics. Different students are looking for different experiences. Athletics is part of the desired experience for many college students.
07-13-2017 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #107
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

No school is ever going to let you have that level of a choice, for what you want your money to go towards and what not. No more than you'll get to say "I'm a history major ... I don't want to any of my money to go towards the chemistry dept".

It's either all or nothing. I did put a line at the bottom of my post that you cut out, but would potentially still address some of the concern.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 12:17 PM by MplsBison.)
07-13-2017 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #108
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 10:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The market for students to choose schools is a free market and very competitive.

If a school tries to raise its price too much, students will look elsewhere.


So that should solve your concern, quo. Just get rid of all fees, and make everything be one price of tuition. Students vote with their dollars, every year.

The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

Thats not a prudent method of operation for the school. The university makes a financial commitment to create an athletic department it needs to pay those bills. If a hotel builds on a more expensive beach lot it charges a higher room rate. It cant make that premium "voluntary" because you say you arent interested in the beach. If you aren't interested in the beach---then rent a room at a hotel that's not on the beach.

If Im not in engineering, then why do I have to pay a higher building use fee because the school Im at built a new engineering building. Let just the engineering students pay for that. Surely you see the ultimate folly in this argument?

(EDIT--lol, MplsBison and I typed almost the same thought at almost the same time).
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 12:12 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-13-2017 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #109
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
quo wants to try to rig the system to cut out athletics. Very few students would pay a voluntary athletics fee. That's his personal opinion, which he is entitled.

But I don't think that's anywhere near a popular opinion.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 12:34 PM by MplsBison.)
07-13-2017 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #110
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

No school is ever going to let you have that level of a choice, for what you want your money to go towards and what not. No more than you'll get to say "I'm a history major ... I don't want to any of my money to go towards the chemistry dept".

It's either all or nothing. I did put a line at the bottom of my post that you cut out, but would potentially still address some of the concern.

I read the bottom line, but no it doesn't address the concern. IMO, your chemistry/history analogy fails, because history and chemistry are both academic pursuits, so it makes sense that all students pay something towards both. Of course, there is still differentiation, because if I become a chemistry major, more of my tuition money will go towards chemistry than towards history. And that's fair too.

In other posts, you seem to recognize that football and basketball teams are in no way shape or form part of the core mission of a university, and that's true. That implies that they are severable, which they are. But here, you act as if they are integral, like the heart or lungs or stomach, and therefore must be funded in totality, like chemistry and history, when that just isn't the case.

Mission-core activities should be mandatory-supported by everyone. Non-core activities, such as intercollegiate athletics, should be funded by, essentially, user fees.

It doesn't make sense that supporting a non-mission-critical aspect of a university should be a requirement for participating in mission-critical aspects of the same. That's literally a perversion of the mission which, sadly, we see at many universities.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 01:23 PM by quo vadis.)
07-13-2017 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #111
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

No school is ever going to let you have that level of a choice, for what you want your money to go towards and what not. No more than you'll get to say "I'm a history major ... I don't want to any of my money to go towards the chemistry dept".

It's either all or nothing. I did put a line at the bottom of my post that you cut out, but would potentially still address some of the concern.

I read the bottom line, but no it doesn't address the concern. IMO, your chemistry/history analogy fails, because history and chemistry are both academic pursuits, so it makes sense that all students pay something towards both. Of course, there is still differentiation, because if I become a chemistry major, more of my tuition money will go towards chemistry than towards history. And that's fair too.

In other posts, you seem to recognize that football and basketball teams are in no way shape or form part of the core mission of a university, and that's true. That implies that they are severable, which they are. But here, you act as if they are integral, like the heart or lungs or stomach, and therefore must be funded in totality, like chemistry and history, when that just isn't the case.

Mission-core activities should be mandatory-supported by everyone. Non-core activities, such as intercollegiate athletics, should be funded by, essentially, user fees.

It doesn't make sense that supporting a non-mission-critical aspect of a university should be a requirement for participating in mission-critical aspects of the same. That's literally a perversion of the mission which, sadly, we see at many universities.

Your alma mater disagrees. Maybe you should have chosen a different school.


http://usfweb2.usf.edu/AAS/MISSION%20STATEMENT.HTML
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 01:42 PM by mturn017.)
07-13-2017 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #112
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
I hope you know that I do understand your opinion that the line should be drawn between academic and non-academic, and that you don't think I am dismissive or unsympathetic of that opinion. It's a valid opinion.

My opinion is that students demand a wide range of non-academic amenities, and schools who are fiercely trying to compete for student applicants (especially "good" applicants), are always going to be battling each other to provide more and better of such amenities. And I just don't see a problem with that. Truly, I don't.


There is a tangible, political idea out there of making fees voluntary at public schools. There was an article in Mpls paper not long ago (maybe a month ago?) about a MN state rep who proposed just that. We could get there, sooner rather than later. And that's where I think you'll just see schools switch to tuition increases instead of fees. Because like I said, I don't see why many students at all would electively pay more for school when they'd get all the same access to amenities as everyone else.
07-13-2017 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #113
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

No school is ever going to let you have that level of a choice, for what you want your money to go towards and what not. No more than you'll get to say "I'm a history major ... I don't want to any of my money to go towards the chemistry dept".

It's either all or nothing. I did put a line at the bottom of my post that you cut out, but would potentially still address some of the concern.

I read the bottom line, but no it doesn't address the concern. IMO, your chemistry/history analogy fails, because history and chemistry are both academic pursuits, so it makes sense that all students pay something towards both. Of course, there is still differentiation, because if I become a chemistry major, more of my tuition money will go towards chemistry than towards history. And that's fair too.

In other posts, you seem to recognize that football and basketball teams are in no way shape or form part of the core mission of a university, and that's true. That implies that they are severable, which they are. But here, you act as if they are integral, like the heart or lungs or stomach, and therefore must be funded in totality, like chemistry and history, when that just isn't the case.

Mission-core activities should be mandatory-supported by everyone. Non-core activities, such as intercollegiate athletics, should be funded by, essentially, user fees.

It doesn't make sense that supporting a non-mission-critical aspect of a university should be a requirement for participating in mission-critical aspects of the same. That's literally a perversion of the mission which, sadly, we see at many universities.

No--what Im suggesting is that athletics are a key part of the puzzle in the attendance decision for many students and require the university to undertake a significant financial commitment in order to offer that amenity. The commitment is real and the cost is real. One cannot "undue" the building of a stadium because a number of students have decided they don't voluntarily want to support it. In fact, many who DO want athletics wont voluntarily pay the fee once athletics is already available---why would you pay for an amenity you can get for "free"? If I made ANY student fee "voluntary" the income derived from it would likely drop off the table. Students aren't stupid. I mean, if you made toll road fee's "voluntary" use of the toll roads would go UP dramatically while a revenue graph would look like an upside down hockey stick.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 02:48 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-13-2017 02:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #114
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 01:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

No school is ever going to let you have that level of a choice, for what you want your money to go towards and what not. No more than you'll get to say "I'm a history major ... I don't want to any of my money to go towards the chemistry dept".

It's either all or nothing. I did put a line at the bottom of my post that you cut out, but would potentially still address some of the concern.

I read the bottom line, but no it doesn't address the concern. IMO, your chemistry/history analogy fails, because history and chemistry are both academic pursuits, so it makes sense that all students pay something towards both. Of course, there is still differentiation, because if I become a chemistry major, more of my tuition money will go towards chemistry than towards history. And that's fair too.

In other posts, you seem to recognize that football and basketball teams are in no way shape or form part of the core mission of a university, and that's true. That implies that they are severable, which they are. But here, you act as if they are integral, like the heart or lungs or stomach, and therefore must be funded in totality, like chemistry and history, when that just isn't the case.

Mission-core activities should be mandatory-supported by everyone. Non-core activities, such as intercollegiate athletics, should be funded by, essentially, user fees.

It doesn't make sense that supporting a non-mission-critical aspect of a university should be a requirement for participating in mission-critical aspects of the same. That's literally a perversion of the mission which, sadly, we see at many universities.

Your alma mater disagrees. Maybe you should have chosen a different school.


http://usfweb2.usf.edu/AAS/MISSION%20STATEMENT.HTML

You put in a link for USF instead of LSU by accident friend.
07-13-2017 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #115
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 12:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 10:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The market for students to choose schools is a free market and very competitive.

If a school tries to raise its price too much, students will look elsewhere.


So that should solve your concern, quo. Just get rid of all fees, and make everything be one price of tuition. Students vote with their dollars, every year.

The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

Thats not a prudent method of operation for the school. The university makes a financial commitment to create an athletic department it needs to pay those bills. If a hotel builds on a more expensive beach lot it charges a higher room rate. It cant make that premium "voluntary" because you say you arent interested in the beach. If you aren't interested in the beach---then rent a room at a hotel that's not on the beach.

If Im not in engineering, then why do I have to pay a higher building use fee because the school Im at built a new engineering building. Let just the engineering students pay for that. Surely you see the ultimate folly in this argument?

(EDIT--lol, MplsBison and I typed almost the same thought at almost the same time).

If a student doesn't want corn dogs to be put in the lunch line, they should build a new lunch line sans corn dogs for just him.
07-13-2017 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #116
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 01:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The problem here is one of differentiation. If athletic fees are lumped in with academic fees, and I want to attend a school with good academics, then athletics can piggy-back on that.

So IMO the best solution is to make non-mission-critical activities such as athletic fees voluntary: Meaning you don't have to pay them if you don't want to. That solves the problem.

No school is ever going to let you have that level of a choice, for what you want your money to go towards and what not. No more than you'll get to say "I'm a history major ... I don't want to any of my money to go towards the chemistry dept".

It's either all or nothing. I did put a line at the bottom of my post that you cut out, but would potentially still address some of the concern.

I read the bottom line, but no it doesn't address the concern. IMO, your chemistry/history analogy fails, because history and chemistry are both academic pursuits, so it makes sense that all students pay something towards both. Of course, there is still differentiation, because if I become a chemistry major, more of my tuition money will go towards chemistry than towards history. And that's fair too.

In other posts, you seem to recognize that football and basketball teams are in no way shape or form part of the core mission of a university, and that's true. That implies that they are severable, which they are. But here, you act as if they are integral, like the heart or lungs or stomach, and therefore must be funded in totality, like chemistry and history, when that just isn't the case.

Mission-core activities should be mandatory-supported by everyone. Non-core activities, such as intercollegiate athletics, should be funded by, essentially, user fees.

It doesn't make sense that supporting a non-mission-critical aspect of a university should be a requirement for participating in mission-critical aspects of the same. That's literally a perversion of the mission which, sadly, we see at many universities.

Your alma mater disagrees. Maybe you should have chosen a different school.

Not at all. I'm very proud that I matriculated at USF. And nobody with any credibility at USF would ever think that only those who are in lock-step with the present administration's definition of 'mission' should attend. Robust debate/discussion about such things were part of campus life at USF when i was there, and I'm sure they still are.

In this case, the university is wrong: Intercollegiate athletics isn't, by any sensible definition, a core aspect of our mission. It's been inserted there by the kind of wrong-headed thinking that, sadly, is present in many places, not just USF.

What happens is, as a result of trying to force a square peg into a round hole, we end up with indefensible statements, like this one from your link:

"The most important priority of the program is the progress of the student athletes toward graduation."

Now, USF has done a good job in recent years of improving the graduation of our football players. That trend has been upward for several years now and we've gone from being below average among FBS to being above average. But, what this implies is that if a football coach goes 12-1 each year, but only 50% of his athletes graduate, he will be more likely to be fired than a coach who goes 5-7 each year, but graduates 80% of his athletes.

We all know that is completely untrue, not just at USF but just about anywhere, which makes the mission statement seem ridiculous.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 04:30 PM by quo vadis.)
07-13-2017 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #117
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
Well, that link was dated 2003 ...

Anyway ... what's so wrong with "non-core mission" features of a school? You seem to express an almost religious belief against them ... but I don't think I've seen an explanation on your part of why they are so bad.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017 04:47 PM by MplsBison.)
07-13-2017 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #118
Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
No one is underwriting bonds backed by voluntary fees.

That ends this being anything other than a philosophical chat.
07-13-2017 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #119
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, that link was dated 2003 ...

Anyway ... what's so wrong with "non-core mission" features of a school? You seem to express an almost religious belief against them ... but I don't think I've seen an explanation on your part of why they are so bad.

Not sure why you think I have a 'religious belief' against them? As my signature shows, I've supported USF football for 20 years.

It's just that I think that's how intercollegiate athletics should be supported - voluntarily, the way alumni support them. Students shouldn't be compelled to. That's my only complaint.
07-13-2017 06:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #120
RE: Top G5 Athletic Revenue Schools (Minus Academic side transfers) ...
(07-13-2017 06:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-13-2017 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, that link was dated 2003 ...

Anyway ... what's so wrong with "non-core mission" features of a school? You seem to express an almost religious belief against them ... but I don't think I've seen an explanation on your part of why they are so bad.

Not sure why you think I have a 'religious belief' against them? As my signature shows, I've supported USF football for 20 years.

It's just that I think that's how intercollegiate athletics should be supported - voluntarily, the way alumni support them. Students shouldn't be compelled to. That's my only complaint.

I think that athletics enhance a school in a number of ways, and as such, have a positive effect on a degree's value. As such, it makes sense for the academic side of a school to support the athletic side *to some extent.* and, since money is fungible, that's the economic equivalent of an explicit student subsidy (vs. higher tuition and then athletics coming out of a general budget).

However, I think that some schools subsidize way more than they should.
07-13-2017 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.