[split] How the candidates stack up against each other
North Texas will only get in this Alliance conglomeratoin the same way SMU got into the Big East, ie, TV market. SMU and UNT's records and attendance the last 25 years is comparable except we have been to 4 bowl games to their 2(?) I think UNT's true "butts in seats" attendance numbers are probably more, though.
UNT w/o a large metro area TV market to bring to the table would simply join a cast of thousands of small to medium market schools all presently wanting in and this league needs large TV markets no matter what some small market school posters say to the point of ad nausem.
The loss of Temple U for this Alliance is huge but moreso unfortunate quite frankly, but they like 1 or 2 others in the present Alliance would have been biding time in an Alliance until they got their Big East invite. Those presently in Alliance conferences should sorta' know the more they advertise their want for something different, the less voice and influence they will have in a future Alliance with the other established schools in CUSA/MWC. Why listen to someone else talk about cleaning your backyard when they don't even want to be in their own backyard and have made that clear for all to know?
Addendum:
The Memphis Business Journal has UNT's athletic budget at $22,417,616 so is the $17 million I keep seeing posted on this board from another fiscal year?
* UNT student service fees has provided for our budget to go up an additional (ascending) $2 million for the next 2 or more years, ie, $24M then $26M and so forth...
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 12:41 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:39 PM)oldtiger Wrote: I don't know if I'm even "allowed" to post in an expansion thread, so I'll delete this post if my comments aren't relevant.
Is it of any concern that ODU's budget is $30 million and $23.6 million of that is financed by student fees?
Is that sustainable?
I would be more concerned with half of Louisiana Tech's budget being subsidized by its General Fund.
Nah, Tech generates more revenue from ticket sales and contributions from boosters than any of the other candidates.
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 12:58 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:41 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:39 PM)oldtiger Wrote: I don't know if I'm even "allowed" to post in an expansion thread, so I'll delete this post if my comments aren't relevant.
Is it of any concern that ODU's budget is $30 million and $23.6 million of that is financed by student fees?
Is that sustainable?
I would be more concerned with half of Louisiana Tech's budget being subsidized by its General Fund.
Nah, Tech generates more revenue from ticket sales and contributions from boosters than any of the other candidates.
Really? Tech has being trying to build an enzone complex for years but can't get contributions for it. And if that were the case there would be no need to subsidize athletics from its General Fund. North Texas on the other had was able to raise over 40 million in private funds for its stadium construction and didn't have to put it off due to lack of funding.
Tech has raised about $9 Million in 2 years (I think). Do you have a link for the private funds raised by UNT? That sounds kind of high to me.
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 12:28 PM)T_Won1 Wrote: This thread is just inviting the pimps to come out.
No its not. Its something I've provided for CUSA fans on this board to look at and evaluate on their own for our discussion. If the pimps come on this thread, I have confidence that the Mods will take action. They have already been warned ahead of time per this link: http://www.csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=555940
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2012 01:28 PM by MUHERD76.)
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 01:32 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 01:17 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:58 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:41 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote: I would be more concerned with half of Louisiana Tech's budget being subsidized by its General Fund.
Nah, Tech generates more revenue from ticket sales and contributions from boosters than any of the other candidates.
Really? Tech has being trying to build an enzone complex for years but can't get contributions for it. And if that were the case there would be no need to subsidize athletics from its General Fund. North Texas on the other had was able to raise over 40 million in private funds for its stadium construction and didn't have to put it off due to lack of funding.
Tech has raised about $9 Million in 2 years (I think). Do you have a link for the private funds raised by UNT? That sounds kind of high to me.
State schools in Texas have to have 50% of the funding for athletic facilites come from the private sector. I don't have a link, but that is the law, if they didn't have the funding the state would never approve construction. The private funds can include suite sales, club sales, donations, revenue from other events at the facilty, and a couple other things.
I know. So 50% of the cost came from student fees, Apogee is giving $20 Million for naming rights, and then the other $20 Million came from private donations? Do you know if that $20 Million has already been secured or is it an ongoing thing?
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 01:34 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:41 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:39 PM)oldtiger Wrote: I don't know if I'm even "allowed" to post in an expansion thread, so I'll delete this post if my comments aren't relevant.
Is it of any concern that ODU's budget is $30 million and $23.6 million of that is financed by student fees?
Is that sustainable?
I would be more concerned with half of Louisiana Tech's budget being subsidized by its General Fund.
Nah, Tech generates more revenue from ticket sales and contributions from boosters than any of the other candidates.
According to the USA Today database, La Tech generated just over 18% of it's athletic budget by ticket sales (5.95%) and contributions (12.65%). It took in 39.96% of it's budget from direct intitutional support and another 12.36% from indirect facilities and administrative support.
Not saying that any of that is bad, it just is what was reported
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 01:34 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:41 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:39 PM)oldtiger Wrote: I don't know if I'm even "allowed" to post in an expansion thread, so I'll delete this post if my comments aren't relevant.
Is it of any concern that ODU's budget is $30 million and $23.6 million of that is financed by student fees?
Is that sustainable?
I would be more concerned with half of Louisiana Tech's budget being subsidized by its General Fund.
Nah, Tech generates more revenue from ticket sales and contributions from boosters than any of the other candidates.
According to the USA Today database, La Tech generated just over 18% of it's athletic budget by ticket sales (5.95%) and contributions (12.65%). It took in 39.96% of it's budget from direct intitutional support and another 12.36% from indirect facilities and administrative support.
Not saying that any of that is bad, it just is what was reported
Techs results for last year, just released, showed $9,238,841 or 53.9% of their $17,146,559 budget was covered by the state. Contributions were $2,523,734 or l4.7%. Ticket sales were (all sports) $1,360,274 or 7.9%. Football, included in ticket sales above, was $1,138,044 or an average of $162,577 per game-an avg of about 8,000 paying fans per game at avg $20. ticket.
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 04:01 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 03:31 PM)Observer1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 02:53 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 02:18 PM)Observer1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 12:58 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote: Really? Tech has being trying to build an enzone complex for years but can't get contributions for it. And if that were the case there would be no need to subsidize athletics from its General Fund. North Texas on the other had was able to raise over 40 million in private funds for its stadium construction and didn't have to put it off due to lack of funding.
That stadium was suppose to be done 3 or 4 years ago... Must of taken so long cause of bad weather. And since your an expert will you tell me how many built dorms UNT has and then tell me their enrollment.
The stadium was only approved 3 and a half years ago....I have no idea how many dorm they have, look it up.
Ya the stadium had been in the works for along time before that... Kind of like La Tech deal had been in talks but just recently was approved. And to Anwser the dorm question they have about 6 dorms for 30 thousand kids (one of those being an athlete dorm). Can you say commuter school?
Of course it was in the works, they didn't just one day say lets build a stadium and start on it the next day....A student fee was passed by the students and then the state had to approve the project. After that three years later there is a complete stadium, not some crummy end zone facility that has been in planning for 7 years but none of your dirt poor alumni want to contribute to it. A higher percentage of students live on campus at UNT the first two years of college than do at the University of Texas, I guess they are a commuter school as well. You probably also don't know that there is luxury student apartments on campus...In fact you probably don't know alot. At Tech your students don't have any other option besides living on campus because there is nothing around your school which is why nobody wants you.
The $20 Million South End Zone project was announced in 2010. Half the revenue has been collected and ground breaking will begin this Summer. It is part of an overall $250 Million campus-wide project. Approximately half of those total funds were self-generated.
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 04:34 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:26 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:01 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 03:31 PM)Observer1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 02:53 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote: The stadium was only approved 3 and a half years ago....I have no idea how many dorm they have, look it up.
Ya the stadium had been in the works for along time before that... Kind of like La Tech deal had been in talks but just recently was approved. And to Anwser the dorm question they have about 6 dorms for 30 thousand kids (one of those being an athlete dorm). Can you say commuter school?
Of course it was in the works, they didn't just one day say lets build a stadium and start on it the next day....A student fee was passed by the students and then the state had to approve the project. After that three years later there is a complete stadium, not some crummy end zone facility that has been in planning for 7 years but none of your dirt poor alumni want to contribute to it. A higher percentage of students live on campus at UNT the first two years of college than do at the University of Texas, I guess they are a commuter school as well. You probably also don't know that there is luxury student apartments on campus...In fact you probably don't know alot. At Tech your students don't have any other option besides living on campus because there is nothing around your school which is why nobody wants you.
The $20 Million South End Zone project was announced in 2010. Half the revenue has been collected and ground breaking will begin this Summer. It is part of an overall $250 Million campus-wide project. Approximately half of those total funds were self-generated.
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 04:42 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:26 PM)T_Won1 Wrote: The $20 Million South End Zone project was announced in 2010. Half the revenue has been collected and ground breaking will begin this Summer. It is part of an overall $250 Million campus-wide project. Approximately half of those total funds were self-generated.
So if I read this right, of the $20 million, half has been collected ($10 Million) and half is self-generated ($5 million). So Tech has received $5 million in donations toward this project.
I hate to say it, but this basically the number that eagereagle has been throwing out there - $5 mill in cash has been raised.
No, half of the 250 Million is self-generated. Last I heard, they had collected about 9 Million towards the football stadium upgrade. (which is also close to half).
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 04:47 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:17 PM)eager eagle Wrote: Techs results for last year, just released, showed $9,238,841 or 53.9% of their $17,146,559 budget was covered by the state.
That's the general fund, which I would presume includes tuition and state appropriation.
But still that's $2 mill more than last year and nearly double of a few years ago. Weird as I thought La was cutting budgets to schools and that this supplement was based on a static percentage of the general fund. I guess they made it up (and more) from tuition.
That isn't an inordinate amount, I guess, if one compares it to schools with student fees (I think I read that a school like Rutgers uses $20 million from the general fund and fees). But it just seems like a risky funding source. Fees are tougher for smaller schools like tech; it's hard to generate the money you need off of 15,000 students. It would take, what, a $600 fee to cover that $9 mill? That would never fly.
Correct, it's the same as student fees. Louisiana just prefers the state taxpayers fund college athletics rather than the students.
Tech's budget is funded 53% by transfers from the general fund.
FIU's budget is funded 76% from student fees.
North Texas's budget is funded 54% from student fees.
It's six in one, half-dozen the other. Their budgets are bigger because they have a lot of students.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2012 04:59 PM by T_Won1.)
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 05:06 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:58 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:47 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:17 PM)eager eagle Wrote: Techs results for last year, just released, showed $9,238,841 or 53.9% of their $17,146,559 budget was covered by the state.
That's the general fund, which I would presume includes tuition and state appropriation.
But still that's $2 mill more than last year and nearly double of a few years ago. Weird as I thought La was cutting budgets to schools and that this supplement was based on a static percentage of the general fund. I guess they made it up (and more) from tuition.
That isn't an inordinate amount, I guess, if one compares it to schools with student fees (I think I read that a school like Rutgers uses $20 million from the general fund and fees). But it just seems like a risky funding source. Fees are tougher for smaller schools like tech; it's hard to generate the money you need off of 15,000 students. It would take, what, a $600 fee to cover that $9 mill? That would never fly.
Correct, it's the same as student fees. Louisiana just prefers the state taxpayers fund college athletics rather than the students.
Tech's budget is funded 53% by transfers from the general fund.
FIU's budget is funded 76% from student fees.
North Texas's budget is funded 54% from student fees.
It's six in one, half-dozen the other. Their budgets are bigger because they have a lot of students.
Where do you get this information? The student fee at North Texas just started this year...Are you saying we can expect their budget to increase from 22M to 48M?
This is the only place I know to go to get everybody's budget info:
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 06:15 PM)panama Wrote:
(02-23-2012 06:11 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 05:06 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:58 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:
(02-23-2012 04:47 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote: That's the general fund, which I would presume includes tuition and state appropriation.
But still that's $2 mill more than last year and nearly double of a few years ago. Weird as I thought La was cutting budgets to schools and that this supplement was based on a static percentage of the general fund. I guess they made it up (and more) from tuition.
That isn't an inordinate amount, I guess, if one compares it to schools with student fees (I think I read that a school like Rutgers uses $20 million from the general fund and fees). But it just seems like a risky funding source. Fees are tougher for smaller schools like tech; it's hard to generate the money you need off of 15,000 students. It would take, what, a $600 fee to cover that $9 mill? That would never fly.
Correct, it's the same as student fees. Louisiana just prefers the state taxpayers fund college athletics rather than the students.
Tech's budget is funded 53% by transfers from the general fund.
FIU's budget is funded 76% from student fees.
North Texas's budget is funded 54% from student fees.
It's six in one, half-dozen the other. Their budgets are bigger because they have a lot of students.
Where do you get this information? The student fee at North Texas just started this year...Are you saying we can expect their budget to increase from 22M to 48M?
This is the only place I know to go to get everybody's budget info:
It shows UNT's budget at $10.2 Million and student fees of $5 Million.
Would love better info though... that seems awfully low.
How did we lose where to get budget info on e THE SAME THREAD...LOL
Once again...http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
Its official
Its the latest available numbers
I saw that. For some reason it doesn't break-down how the revenue is obtained (ticket sales, contributions, student fees, guarantee games, gov't support, etc...).
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2012 06:23 PM by T_Won1.)
RE: How the candidates stack up against each other
(02-23-2012 01:34 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote: Market or no market...no thanks to North Texas.
Old Dominion should be #1 candidate for the East for ALL SPORTS.
Not that it matters, but 5 legit reasons as to why "no thanks to North Texas." I think some of us out here know the real #1 reason, but that one reason will never flow from your keyboard to this forum under any circumstances.
We were playing UT, Houston, Florida States (a home game in 1976), Miss. St., Okla. St, etc, etc, etc, while your Marshall U was knocking em' down in 1-AA. In fact, yall (in deed) beat us 7 to 0 in one of those 1-AA playoff games yet during the very same season we beat the Texas Tech Red Raiders, the Rice Owls and would have beaten the UT Longhorns if not for the worst homer call I've ever seen in person as linked below. So yes, we fully understand why some of you do not want a North Texas functioning on all cylinders in this Alliance....it's pretty obvious and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to "get it" either.
The call in the link below took the heart and soul out of our 1988 football team that the rest of the season was all but anti-climatic-- including a NCAA 1-AA play-off game to say the least.
/
[split] How the candidates stack up against each other
![[Image: Pimpin_170791_2385702.jpg]](http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Pimpin_170791_2385702.jpg)