(02-27-2017 10:57 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:32 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 09:50 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  What I'm saying is correct. Most schools do not take money out of there general funds to pay for their athletics....maybe some start ups from SB/CUSA/Liberty.
If sports are paid by the schools general budgets, then why do they even have such a thing as an Athletic Department???

Cheers!

Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

I thought we had already identified where that 4.5 million came from looking at the budgets.

UMAss is just an extreme case as far as budgets and receiving money from the school, but they have no choice as the fans are simply not providing much income to the AD.

Looking at the budgets UMAss is right there with the most subsidized AD's in FBS.

I think Panama's claims that it was no big deal to just take a little more from the academic side or from students becasue the budget is so big that it won't matter is the thought that is absolutely incorrect. There is a reason that other FBS flagships in the country do not do this. Most have large budgets and could simply move over 100m from academics and put it in the AD, but they don't, becasue that' not how FBS schools fund thier AD's.

That's where this got off track when Panama decided that a 3.2 billion $ budget was big enough to throw millions at the AD each year to increase the AD budget to compete at the FBS level becasue the fans aren't doing so.

That is absolutely wrong. It's a predictable fallback for people when faced with athletic issues to to refer to things like overall budget or endowment.

AT the end of the day it's about the fans. If the fans will support it them by all means move forward. Unfortunately UMAss has fan support issues and likely belongs with the other heavily subsidized New England flagship AD's in FCS. I see no benefit to UMAss and like I said earlier if you asked a random person in most of the country what level of football UMass plays they wouldn't know. Donations have not increased, ticket sales have not increased. I just dont' see the benefit.

You get that the Operating Budget for a university is not just "the academic side", right? Its everything! Its sweeping the floors and cafeteria lunches and the fees for the school paper. Someone on here has already mentioned that in recent years UMass has spent $2B on new academic buildings i.e., they are not exactly hurting the academic side by having FBS football. You armed with your numbers have decided that UMass should not have FBS football when that decision resides with the president and trustees. You say there is no benefit as if you're embedded in Lowell and know all the particulars of their situation.

How many schools have started football in the last 25 years and/or moved up to FBS? How many have moved down? That in itself might indicate that there is a value beyond your balance sheet.


Also its pretty disingenuous for a P5 fan to be combing through the balance sheets of a mid major when for decades before the TV Revenue era power conference schools were gorging themselves on state money to go from 15k stadiums to 75k and 80k seat stadiums.

So now we are back to talking about academics and academic building construction.

Pretty safe to say you have not presented much of a case for UMAss in FBS. All you do is talk overall school budget and academics when faced with actual numbers. But at least you aren't' just making them up like Zack is. He thinks FBS football made 7.5 million for the AD when they took in less than that for ticket sales, licensing, and donations for the entire AD so there is literally no way that the FB is worth 7.5 million. More bogus claims.

For one reason or another you guys just struggle with numbers it seems.