(06-04-2012 07:50 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 07:07 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 06:38 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 06:31 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  ----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Welcome back. I didn't expect to hear from you again. You probably know that Louisiana state law only allows universities to transfer a maximum of 3% of the general funds towards athletics. Tech chooses to use all of the 3%, whereas ULL does not use the entire 3%.

That is correct, I was double checking the numbers late last night, and they do fit within the three percent guidelines for both schools. The overall budget for UL is is around forty five percent larger than LTU. The overall amount of money used from the state revenues is about the same for either school with regards to athletics.

The only differences between the 2 athletic budgets that I could see were that Tech spent more in these areas:

Scholarships: + 1.1 Million
Travel: + 500K
Facility maintenance: + 1.4 Million
Uniforms and Equipment: + 700K

* Does Tech play more sports than ULL?

According to both athletic web sites each sponsor 14 sports. I did not attempt to find out how many athletic schlorships are available.

We just have nicer unifoms.

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 07:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Louisiana has more students, right?

This is a nice article on the state of the Cajuns' program.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/201...dy-move-up

----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Another thing: Why do you and Velton Knight believe this is how budgets are made? Do you think Tech just spends whatever amount they want to and then take whatever amount they need from the general fund? Or do you think they know how much they will be transferring from the general fund and budget around that amount? You and Velton keep calling this a loss, but that seems intellectually dishonest to me. General fund transfers are part of the budget. Right?

(06-04-2012 07:50 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 07:07 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 06:38 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 06:31 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  ----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Welcome back. I didn't expect to hear from you again. You probably know that Louisiana state law only allows universities to transfer a maximum of 3% of the general funds towards athletics. Tech chooses to use all of the 3%, whereas ULL does not use the entire 3%.

That is correct, I was double checking the numbers late last night, and they do fit within the three percent guidelines for both schools. The overall budget for UL is is around forty five percent larger than LTU. The overall amount of money used from the state revenues is about the same for either school with regards to athletics.

The only differences between the 2 athletic budgets that I could see were that Tech spent more in these areas:

Scholarships: + 1.1 Million
Travel: + 500K
Facility maintenance: + 1.4 Million
Uniforms and Equipment: + 700K

* Does Tech play more sports than ULL?

According to both athletic web sites each sponsor 14 sports. I did not attempt to find out how many athletic schlorships are available.

Each school sponsors 16 official NCAA Sports - Track and Field counts as two sports each (men and women) if you sponsor both indoor and outdoor track.

To be a FBS level school, 16 is the minimum number of sports.
FCS/non-football Division I requires 14 sports.

(06-04-2012 10:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 07:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Louisiana has more students, right?

This is a nice article on the state of the Cajuns' program.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/201...dy-move-up

----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Another thing: Why do you and Velton Knight believe this is how budgets are made? Do you think Tech just spends whatever amount they want to and then take whatever amount they need from the general fund? Or do you think they know how much they will be transferring from the general fund and budget around that amount? You and Velton keep calling this a loss, but that seems intellectually dishonest to me. General fund transfers are part of the budget. Right?

---------------------------------------------------------

I dont know why you keep mentioning a person named Velton Knight but if you want to know what he thinks then I suggest giving him a call. I talked to him one time, he was listed in the Baton Rouge directory.

So far as my opinion lets put it like this. Tech spent $17,135,283 on their athletic program for fiscal year ending 6-01-2011. The program generated through ticket sales, donations, guarantees, etc only $7,907,648 resulting on a LOSS on operations of $9,238,911. It makes no difference if they budgeted for the loss up front or was surprised by that amount when they closed the books-same thing-they lost over $9million bucks. ULL spent $13,946,204, generated only $7,308,123 for a LOSS on operations of $6,638,081. These losses, both LT and ULL, were covered by transferring money from the general fund (taxpayer dollars) except ULL used just $5,827,446 for that purpose thus carried a negative balance on their budget report.

The final year end results are what counts, not how calculations are made up front. Just because the state allows the money to be sucked from the general fund DOES NOT transpose it into legitimately generated revenue.

(06-04-2012 04:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 07:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Louisiana has more students, right?

This is a nice article on the state of the Cajuns' program.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/201...dy-move-up

----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Another thing: Why do you and Velton Knight believe this is how budgets are made? Do you think Tech just spends whatever amount they want to and then take whatever amount they need from the general fund? Or do you think they know how much they will be transferring from the general fund and budget around that amount? You and Velton keep calling this a loss, but that seems intellectually dishonest to me. General fund transfers are part of the budget. Right?

---------------------------------------------------------

I dont know why you keep mentioning a person named Velton Knight but if you want to know what he thinks then I suggest giving him a call. I talked to him one time, he was listed in the Baton Rouge directory.

So far as my opinion lets put it like this. Tech spent $17,135,283 on their athletic program for fiscal year ending 6-01-2011. The program generated through ticket sales, donations, guarantees, etc only $7,907,648 resulting on a LOSS on operations of $9,238,911. It makes no difference if they budgeted for the loss up front or was surprised by that amount when they closed the books-same thing-they lost over $9million bucks. ULL spent $13,946,204, generated only $7,308,123 for a LOSS on operations of $6,638,081. These losses, both LT and ULL, were covered by transferring money from the general fund (taxpayer dollars) except ULL used just $5,827,446 for that purpose thus carried a negative balance on their budget report.

The final year end results are what counts, not how calculations are made up front. Just because the state allows the money to be sucked from the general fund DOES NOT transpose it into legitimately generated revenue.

Tech got the call from CUSA. ULL didn't. Now, what did you say it was that counts again?

(06-04-2012 07:56 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 04:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 07:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Louisiana has more students, right?

This is a nice article on the state of the Cajuns' program.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/201...dy-move-up

----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Another thing: Why do you and Velton Knight believe this is how budgets are made? Do you think Tech just spends whatever amount they want to and then take whatever amount they need from the general fund? Or do you think they know how much they will be transferring from the general fund and budget around that amount? You and Velton keep calling this a loss, but that seems intellectually dishonest to me. General fund transfers are part of the budget. Right?

---------------------------------------------------------

I dont know why you keep mentioning a person named Velton Knight but if you want to know what he thinks then I suggest giving him a call. I talked to him one time, he was listed in the Baton Rouge directory.

So far as my opinion lets put it like this. Tech spent $17,135,283 on their athletic program for fiscal year ending 6-01-2011. The program generated through ticket sales, donations, guarantees, etc only $7,907,648 resulting on a LOSS on operations of $9,238,911. It makes no difference if they budgeted for the loss up front or was surprised by that amount when they closed the books-same thing-they lost over $9million bucks. ULL spent $13,946,204, generated only $7,308,123 for a LOSS on operations of $6,638,081. These losses, both LT and ULL, were covered by transferring money from the general fund (taxpayer dollars) except ULL used just $5,827,446 for that purpose thus carried a negative balance on their budget report.

The final year end results are what counts, not how calculations are made up front. Just because the state allows the money to be sucked from the general fund DOES NOT transpose it into legitimately generated revenue.

Tech got the call from CUSA. ULL didn't. Now, what did you say it was that counts again?

Huh??

(06-04-2012 07:56 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  Tech got the call from CUSA. ULL didn't. Now, what did you say it was that counts again?

I got to say man, "getting the call from CUSA" isn't really that impressive anymore. Congratulations on having your dream come true though.

Now enjoy getting stomped by FIU, ECU, and USM every year (until they leave yall), then playing Tulane, UTSA, Rice, UAB, North Texas, and Old Dominion. My my, what a mighty football roster.

I'd choose Troy, stAte, Louisiana, Florida Atlantic, MTSU, Texas State, and WKU any day of the week over C-USA's sad little roster.

(06-04-2012 08:24 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 07:56 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  Tech got the call from CUSA. ULL didn't. Now, what did you say it was that counts again?

I got to say man, "getting the call from CUSA" isn't really that impressive anymore. Congratulations on having your dream come true though.

Now enjoy getting stomped by FIU, ECU, and USM every year (until they leave yall), then playing Tulane, UTSA, Rice, UAB, North Texas, and Old Dominion. My my, what a mighty football roster.

I'd choose Troy, stAte, Louisiana, Florida Atlantic, MTSU, Texas State, and WKU any day of the week over C-USA's sad little roster.

Who would have thought so many posts over a budget?

Conference USA football:

- ECU, Southern Miss, Tulsa, FIU, and UTEP are all solid programs. I won't say anything negative about them.

- UNT, Old Dominion, Tulane, UTSA, Rice, UAB, and Charlotte are nothing less than laughable. Hell three of them were FCS last year!

- Marshall and Tech are OK, but can really lay an egg on a regular basis. Both are far too inconsistent to join the top 5 in football, but I don't consider them bottom feeders like the rest.

Seems like a tale of two leagues. There is a LOT of seperation from the top programs to the bottom ones. I expect the top 5 teams to leave the bottom ones eventually, putting C-USA in a very familiar situation as before. Only the next time, there won't be anyone left to attract new programs to join them...except perhaps FCS move-ups.

Sun Belt Conference football:

- Troy, stAte, Louisiana, MTSU, and WKU are all solid programs.

- Florida Altantic is inconsistent, Texas State and GSU are former FCS newcomers.

- ULM is a bottom dweller.

the SBC is much closer all around and our stability and tight footprint make us attractive. Once the TV contracts and bowl tie-ins shift appropriately the Belt will either match or surpass CUSA...especially once ECU, USM, and FIU leave Conference USA.

(06-04-2012 08:32 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  Sun Belt Conference football:

- Troy, stAte, Louisiana, MTSU, and WKU are all solid programs.

- Florida Altantic is inconsistent, Texas State and GSU are former FCS newcomers.

- ULM is a bottom dweller.

Said the guy whose team has lost 3 of its last 4 games to the Warhawks. You just said that to get a reaction, didn't you? Worked. Good job.

Sadly if given the call any Belt school would jump at the chance to move to CUSA.

Eager - glad you found somewhere to post after getting banned from the CUSA board.

(06-04-2012 09:15 PM)winston70 Wrote:  Sadly if given the call any Belt school would jump at the chance to move to CUSA.

Eager - glad you found somewhere to post after getting banned from the CUSA board.

Sadly, you may be correct. If the nucleus stays together, UL, stAte, MT, WKY, S Al, Troy, an FAU then we will be as strong as CUSA within 2 years.

Z

(06-04-2012 09:05 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:32 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  Sun Belt Conference football:

- Troy, stAte, Louisiana, MTSU, and WKU are all solid programs.

- Florida Altantic is inconsistent, Texas State and GSU are former FCS newcomers.

- ULM is a bottom dweller.

Said the guy whose team has lost 3 of its last 4 games to the Warhawks. You just said that to get a reaction, didn't you? Worked. Good job.

No, that post as a whole was accurate. ULM has done really well against Troy and I can't deny that, but step back and look at the two programs and you can't argue who is better. I am proud to have ULM in the Belt, I have never advocated kicking yall out or trading you guys...but the Warhawks are consistently the worst football team in the Conference. Troy on the other hand is the best, despite a down year in 2011, so please don't try to make my previous statement personal...because it wasn't meant to be so.

I'll say this, Kolton Browning is one hell of a QB. I have a ton of respect for that kid and I always hate having to see him on the opposing sideline.

(06-04-2012 04:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 07:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Louisiana has more students, right?

This is a nice article on the state of the Cajuns' program.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/201...dy-move-up

----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Another thing: Why do you and Velton Knight believe this is how budgets are made? Do you think Tech just spends whatever amount they want to and then take whatever amount they need from the general fund? Or do you think they know how much they will be transferring from the general fund and budget around that amount? You and Velton keep calling this a loss, but that seems intellectually dishonest to me. General fund transfers are part of the budget. Right?

---------------------------------------------------------

I dont know why you keep mentioning a person named Velton Knight but if you want to know what he thinks then I suggest giving him a call. I talked to him one time, he was listed in the Baton Rouge directory.

So far as my opinion lets put it like this. Tech spent $17,135,283 on their athletic program for fiscal year ending 6-01-2011. The program generated through ticket sales, donations, guarantees, etc only $7,907,648 resulting on a LOSS on operations of $9,238,911. It makes no difference if they budgeted for the loss up front or was surprised by that amount when they closed the books-same thing-they lost over $9million bucks. ULL spent $13,946,204, generated only $7,308,123 for a LOSS on operations of $6,638,081. These losses, both LT and ULL, were covered by transferring money from the general fund (taxpayer dollars) except ULL used just $5,827,446 for that purpose thus carried a negative balance on their budget report.

The final year end results are what counts, not how calculations are made up front. Just because the state allows the money to be sucked from the general fund DOES NOT transpose it into legitimately generated revenue.

I see. So based on these numbers, USM lost about 7 Million in 2010 and had to borrow 6 Million from the students and 1 Million from the state to balance their budget?

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/um/2010/0...-and-usm/#

And really all Non-AQ schools lose about 20 Million a year, but then transfer money the students have to pay for athletics to cover the losses.

(06-05-2012 06:12 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 04:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 07:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Louisiana has more students, right?

This is a nice article on the state of the Cajuns' program.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/201...dy-move-up

----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Another thing: Why do you and Velton Knight believe this is how budgets are made? Do you think Tech just spends whatever amount they want to and then take whatever amount they need from the general fund? Or do you think they know how much they will be transferring from the general fund and budget around that amount? You and Velton keep calling this a loss, but that seems intellectually dishonest to me. General fund transfers are part of the budget. Right?

---------------------------------------------------------

I dont know why you keep mentioning a person named Velton Knight but if you want to know what he thinks then I suggest giving him a call. I talked to him one time, he was listed in the Baton Rouge directory.

So far as my opinion lets put it like this. Tech spent $17,135,283 on their athletic program for fiscal year ending 6-01-2011. The program generated through ticket sales, donations, guarantees, etc only $7,907,648 resulting on a LOSS on operations of $9,238,911. It makes no difference if they budgeted for the loss up front or was surprised by that amount when they closed the books-same thing-they lost over $9million bucks. ULL spent $13,946,204, generated only $7,308,123 for a LOSS on operations of $6,638,081. These losses, both LT and ULL, were covered by transferring money from the general fund (taxpayer dollars) except ULL used just $5,827,446 for that purpose thus carried a negative balance on their budget report.

The final year end results are what counts, not how calculations are made up front. Just because the state allows the money to be sucked from the general fund DOES NOT transpose it into legitimately generated revenue.

I see. So based on these numbers, USM lost about 7 Million in 2010 and had to borrow 6 Million from the students and 1 Million from the state to balance their budget?

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/um/2010/0...-and-usm/#

And really all Non-AQ schools lose about 20 Million a year, but then transfer money the students have to pay for athletics to cover the losses.

It matters not if it is from the school general fund, fees applied to students,or a combination of both, the cost of education is impacted by NCAA sports. With fees, which neither UL nor LTU currently have, the cost is direct.

(06-05-2012 06:31 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-05-2012 06:12 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 04:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 10:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 08:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  ----------------------------------------------------

I am back, been on a "working vacation" for a month with no time for trivial matters like message boards. However, its fun and I will initially start pitching in only with factual stuff, holding personal opinions until later.

The reason why La Tech has a bigger budget is because they transfer more from the university general fund to cover their expenses than does ULL. Last Louisiana Legislative Auditor report shows Tech came up short on last years budget (income vs expenses) by $9, 238,000 and transferred that amount from school funds (taxpayer dollars) in order to get a balance. ULL lacked only $5,827,000 in generating enough funds to cover their $13,556,000 budget and transferred that amount for a balance. Thus, Tech used $3,411,000 more in taxpayer funds, the difference in Lt and Ull budget was $3,590,000 so if ULL transferred as much to cover their shortage as LT then budgets would be basically the same.

Donations to ULL was $2,041,000 compared to Tech fan donations of $2,523,000, a difference of about a half mil.

Another thing: Why do you and Velton Knight believe this is how budgets are made? Do you think Tech just spends whatever amount they want to and then take whatever amount they need from the general fund? Or do you think they know how much they will be transferring from the general fund and budget around that amount? You and Velton keep calling this a loss, but that seems intellectually dishonest to me. General fund transfers are part of the budget. Right?

---------------------------------------------------------

I dont know why you keep mentioning a person named Velton Knight but if you want to know what he thinks then I suggest giving him a call. I talked to him one time, he was listed in the Baton Rouge directory.

So far as my opinion lets put it like this. Tech spent $17,135,283 on their athletic program for fiscal year ending 6-01-2011. The program generated through ticket sales, donations, guarantees, etc only $7,907,648 resulting on a LOSS on operations of $9,238,911. It makes no difference if they budgeted for the loss up front or was surprised by that amount when they closed the books-same thing-they lost over $9million bucks. ULL spent $13,946,204, generated only $7,308,123 for a LOSS on operations of $6,638,081. These losses, both LT and ULL, were covered by transferring money from the general fund (taxpayer dollars) except ULL used just $5,827,446 for that purpose thus carried a negative balance on their budget report.

The final year end results are what counts, not how calculations are made up front. Just because the state allows the money to be sucked from the general fund DOES NOT transpose it into legitimately generated revenue.

I see. So based on these numbers, USM lost about 7 Million in 2010 and had to borrow 6 Million from the students and 1 Million from the state to balance their budget?

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/um/2010/0...-and-usm/#

And really all Non-AQ schools lose about 20 Million a year, but then transfer money the students have to pay for athletics to cover the losses.

It matters not if it is from the school general fund, fees applied to students,or a combination of both, the cost of education is impacted by NCAA sports. With fees, which neither UL nor LTU currently have, the cost is direct.

But the students do get to vote for how much they want to pay to the athletic dept to cover the huge losses. I guess at some point Louisiana residents must have voted that they would rather fund athletic dept's than pass that obligation on to their children.

I see. So based on these numbers, USM lost about 7 Million in 2010 and had to borrow 6 Million from the students and 1 Million from the state to balance their budget?

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/um/2010/0...-and-usm/#

And really all Non-AQ schools lose about 20 Million a year, but then transfer money the students have to pay for athletics to cover the losses.
[/quote]---------------------------------------------

USM used the authorized 1 million direct transfer from their general fund and 6 million charged to students as "athletic fees", neither of these categories are considered by the school as "borrowing". They did actually "lose" that 7 million on operations, expenses less generated income. The cure for that is to stop the direct and indirect institution support, stop the student athletic fees, and then CHARGE the students at the gate as does LSU. This gets the taxpayers off the hook which after all they are not obligated to provide sports programs for the schools and their fans.

It would hurt. La Techs budget would drop to about 7.9mil and USM down to about 13mil in addition to the amounts each could collect on ticket sales. That would be the route to take though, each and everyone operating at what their PAYING FANS want to spend.

I see. So based on these numbers, USM lost about 7 Million in 2010 and had to borrow 6 Million from the students and 1 Million from the state to balance their budget?

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/um/2010/0...-and-usm/#

And really all Non-AQ schools lose about 20 Million a year, but then transfer money the students have to pay for athletics to cover the losses.

(06-05-2012 09:43 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  USM used the authorized 1 million direct transfer from their general fund and 6 million charged to students as "athletic fees", neither of these categories are considered by the school as "borrowing". They did actually "lose" that 7 million on operations, expenses less generated income. The cure for that is to stop the direct and indirect institution support, stop the student athletic fees, and then CHARGE the students at the gate as does LSU. This gets the taxpayers off the hook which after all they are not obligated to provide sports programs for the schools and their fans.

It would hurt. La Techs budget would drop to about 7.9mil and USM down to about 13mil in addition to the amounts each could collect on ticket sales. That would be the route to take though, each and everyone operating at what their PAYING FANS want to spend.

That will never happen. The majority of students prefer to support the athletic department and the athletic department will not tell them, "No thanks." Same with the Louisiana schools... if the government allows them to use 3% of the general funds towards athletics, they are going to do it. You are fighting a losing battle.

(06-05-2012 09:54 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  I see. So based on these numbers, USM lost about 7 Million in 2010 and had to borrow 6 Million from the students and 1 Million from the state to balance their budget?

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/um/2010/0...-and-usm/#

And really all Non-AQ schools lose about 20 Million a year, but then transfer money the students have to pay for athletics to cover the losses.

(06-05-2012 09:43 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  USM used the authorized 1 million direct transfer from their general fund and 6 million charged to students as "athletic fees", neither of these categories are considered by the school as "borrowing". They did actually "lose" that 7 million on operations, expenses less generated income. The cure for that is to stop the direct and indirect institution support, stop the student athletic fees, and then CHARGE the students at the gate as does LSU. This gets the taxpayers off the hook which after all they are not obligated to provide sports programs for the schools and their fans.

It would hurt. La Techs budget would drop to about 7.9mil and USM down to about 13mil in addition to the amounts each could collect on ticket sales. That would be the route to take though, each and everyone operating at what their PAYING FANS want to spend.

That will never happen. The majority of students prefer to support the athletic department and the athletic department will not tell them, "No thanks." Same with the Louisiana schools... if the government allows them to use 3% of the general funds towards athletics, they are going to do it. You are fighting a losing battle.

-----------------------------------------------

Well, I believe it was ole Winston Churchhill who once said, in Englands darkest hours, "we will never give up, never give up, never, never, never".

(06-05-2012 10:01 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(06-05-2012 09:54 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  I see. So based on these numbers, USM lost about 7 Million in 2010 and had to borrow 6 Million from the students and 1 Million from the state to balance their budget?

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/um/2010/0...-and-usm/#

And really all Non-AQ schools lose about 20 Million a year, but then transfer money the students have to pay for athletics to cover the losses.

(06-05-2012 09:43 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  USM used the authorized 1 million direct transfer from their general fund and 6 million charged to students as "athletic fees", neither of these categories are considered by the school as "borrowing". They did actually "lose" that 7 million on operations, expenses less generated income. The cure for that is to stop the direct and indirect institution support, stop the student athletic fees, and then CHARGE the students at the gate as does LSU. This gets the taxpayers off the hook which after all they are not obligated to provide sports programs for the schools and their fans.

It would hurt. La Techs budget would drop to about 7.9mil and USM down to about 13mil in addition to the amounts each could collect on ticket sales. That would be the route to take though, each and everyone operating at what their PAYING FANS want to spend.

That will never happen. The majority of students prefer to support the athletic department and the athletic department will not tell them, "No thanks." Same with the Louisiana schools... if the government allows them to use 3% of the general funds towards athletics, they are going to do it. You are fighting a losing battle.

-----------------------------------------------

Well, I believe it was ole Winston Churchhill who once said, in Englands darkest hours, "we will never give up, never give up, never, never, never".

I agree with you on principle. The athletic departments should be funded by interested parties only. It is crazy to me that some schools draw 10,000 fans to football games, but have $30 Million budgets due to student fees.

But you single Louisiana schools out like they are the only schools using funds from disinterested parties and that is dishonest. Louisiana schools have the lowest budgets in the nation because we don't charge student fees.