Here's the bang for the buck stats:

USM - 20 Million. 64 wins in past 9 yrs: ($34,778 per win)
La Tech - 17 Million. 55 wins in past 9 yrs: ($35,556 per win)
Tulsa - 31 Million. 76 wins in past 9 yrs: ($45,333 per win).
MTSU - 23 Million. 52 wins in past 9 yrs: ($49,111 per win)
UTEP - 24 Million. 48 wins in past 9 yrs: ($55,556 per win)
FAU - 22 Million. 44 wins in past 9 yrs: ($55,556 per win)
Marshall - 26 Million. 46 wins in past 9 yrs: ($62,778 per win)
UNT - 20 Million. 29 wins in past 9 yrs: ($76,556 per win)
Rice - 30 Million. 40 wins in past 9 yrs: ($83,333 per win)
FIU -27 Million. 35 wins in past 9 yrs: ($85,667 per win)
UAB - 27 Million. 36 wins in past 9 yrs: ($85,667 per win)

(01-10-2013 09:47 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  What happened to Ohio University from the MAC?

Guess he forgot them:
Ohio University-Main Campus
Rev. $28,669,498
Exp. $24,406,599

(01-10-2013 09:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 09:32 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 08:58 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  In defense of USM:

Our "small" budget is funded largely by ticket sales and donations. There are a lot of schools in the 15-35 million range that rely on student fees. Some of these fees were voted on (OK but still not a great way to fund), and some were just mandated by administrators (bad). I've seen numbers that imply that our ticket sales revenue is more than double that of certain schools that are above us in revenue.

USM probably has more capital assets than any other school at or below our budget level. Facilities just aren't reflected in these numbers. In fact, the opposite is true. Rent paid is a big component of some schools' numbers. This is not necessarily a bragging point.

Our AD supposedly has a pretty concrete plan to get us to a $30 million annual budget. I don't really trust him, but IF he can do this we will end up having one of the best balance sheets in college sports. It won't be the biggest, but it will be huge by MS standards, and will also be sustainable.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I keep seeing this $20 million figure tossed around as if it were a solid indicator of wealth, and it just isn't.

If you want to know what the real wealth of a school's sports program is, I'd suggest taking a hard look at ticket sales, facilities, and alumni giving. This is not just a pro-USM argument... I suspect that ECU exhibits a similar profile within their conference, e.g. the fact that Temple spends more per annum doesn't really make that much of a statement.

Another important factor, overlooked in the figures, is the amount each school transfers from its general fund (taxpayer support) to cover annual athletic operating budget yet counts it as generated revenue. USM and La Tech, according the list, are nearly equal in "total revenue" but Tech took over NINE Million or over half of their 17MLLION revenue from schools general fund whereas USM transferred only about ONE million of its almost 20million. What that list of generated monies mean is that the schools had that much to spend on athletics but DID NOT CLEARLY notate or explain its source. "Generated " as used in this topic is misleading.

According to this link to the USA Today database, which purports to show per school athletic department breakdowns, USM gets student fees and school funds to the tune of about $8 million per year. That's still a bit less than many schools but not insignificant either.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...54955804/1

I didn't say we were in great financial shape, just that we're probably higher up the totem pole than those figures reveal.

And I wasn't calling out Tech in my post. I was actually thinking about a couple of other schools. But I won't throw out names... my whole point was that this exercise is sillier than people realize.

(01-10-2013 09:52 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Here's the bang for the buck stats:

USM - 20 Million. 64 wins in past 9 yrs: ($34,778 per win)
La Tech - 17 Million. 55 wins in past 9 yrs: ($35,556 per win)
Tulsa - 31 Million. 76 wins in past 9 yrs: ($45,333 per win).
MTSU - 23 Million. 52 wins in past 9 yrs: ($49,111 per win)
UTEP - 24 Million. 48 wins in past 9 yrs: ($55,556 per win)
FAU - 22 Million. 44 wins in past 9 yrs: ($55,556 per win)
Marshall - 26 Million. 46 wins in past 9 yrs: ($62,778 per win)
UNT - 20 Million. 29 wins in past 9 yrs: ($76,556 per win)
Rice - 30 Million. 40 wins in past 9 yrs: ($83,333 per win)
FIU -27 Million. 35 wins in past 9 yrs: ($85,667 per win)
UAB - 27 Million. 36 wins in past 9 yrs: ($85,667 per win)

You do realize the first figure is the budget for the entire athletic department and it's only for one year?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I keep seeing this $20 million figure tossed around as if it were a solid indicator of wealth, and it just isn't.

If you want to know what the real wealth of a school's sports program is, I'd suggest taking a hard look at ticket sales, facilities, and alumni giving. This is not just a pro-USM argument... I suspect that ECU exhibits a similar profile within their conference, e.g. the fact that Temple spends more per annum doesn't really make that much of a statement.
[/quote]

Another important factor, overlooked in the figures, is the amount each school transfers from its general fund (taxpayer support) to cover annual athletic operating budget yet counts it as generated revenue. USM and La Tech, according the list, are nearly equal in "total revenue" but Tech took over NINE Million or over half of their 17MLLION revenue from schools general fund whereas USM transferred only about ONE million of its almost 20million. What that list of generated monies mean is that the schools had that much to spend on athletics but DID NOT CLEARLY notate or explain its source. "Generated " as used in this topic is misleading.
[/quote]
According to this link to the USA Today database, which purports to show per school athletic department breakdowns, USM gets student fees and school funds to the tune of about $8 million per year. That's still a bit less than many schools but not insignificant either.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...54955804/1
[/quote]

That is correct, about 1Mil was taken from school funds but that is different when discussing student athletic fees. Athletic fees are actually advance ticket sales-agree or disagree with its morality b ut thats a fact, some students disagree with being charged-others dont but all of them KNOW whats coming before enrolling. Its certainly different than just dipping into the schools general fund and taking out enough money to cover athletic expenses above what was actually generated (ticket sales, donations, etc).

(01-10-2013 10:02 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  That is correct, about 1Mil was taken from school funds but that is different when discussing student athletic fees. Athletic fees are actually advance ticket sales-agree or disagree with its morality b ut thats a fact, some students disagree with being charged-others dont but all of them KNOW whats coming before enrolling. Its certainly different than just dipping into the schools general fund and taking out enough money to cover athletic expenses above what was actually generated (ticket sales, donations, etc).

That's true. The best way to determine the health of an athletic dept is to throw out the student fees and general fund transfers and look at how much is being given by boosters.

Here are the football expenses for 2011:
Rice - $11.14 Million
Tulsa - $9.83 Million
FIU - $7.86 Million
UTEP - $7.68 Million
MTSU - $7.62 Million
USM - $7.35 Million
UAB - $7.33 Million
Marshall - $7.13 Million
FAU - $6.88 Million
UNT - $6.08 Million
La Tech - $6.07 Million
ODU - $5.93 Million*
UTSA- $5.14 Million*

*FCS in 2011

It's really tough to only look at budget because private schools will almost always have higher costs because their scholarship costs are much greater.

At Charlotte, a full scholarship for an in state player is probably worth only around $14,000. Out of state is probably a little over $20,000. At a private school, all scholarships are going to cost a minimum of $30,000 with some schools more in the $50,000 range.

What really separates schools is recruiting budget and how much schools are putting into improving facilities and marketing themselves.

Here's some info on subsidies: (I couldn't find every school)

Marshall: 45.5% of 26 Million budget subsidized (14 million from boosters)
USM: 38.8% of 20 Million budget subsidized (12 million from boosters)
UNT: 44.9% of 20 Million budget subsidized (11 million from boosters)
UTEP: 50.1% of 23.5 Million budget subsidized (11 million from boosters)
UAB: 64.7% of 27 Million budget subsidized (10 million from boosters)
La Tech: 53.9%o of 17 Million budget subsidized (8 million from boosters)
MTSU: 67.6% of 23 Million budget subsidized (8 million from boosters)
UTSA: 71.6% of ? budget subsidized ( ? )
FIU: 80.3% of 27 Million budget subsidized (5 million from boosters)

(01-10-2013 10:38 AM)Niner National Wrote:  It's really tough to only look at budget because private schools will almost always have higher costs because their scholarship costs are much greater.

At Charlotte, a full scholarship for an in state player is probably worth only around $14,000. Out of state is probably a little over $20,000. At a private school, all scholarships are going to cost a minimum of $30,000 with some schools more in the $50,000 range.

What really separates schools is recruiting budget and how much schools are putting into improving facilities and marketing themselves.

In California, a full ride to a UCLA or UC Berklely for an athlete is going to cost around 30-35K per year. It varies quite a bit per state.

I looked up the out of state costs for my kid to go back to ECU instead of going in state out here and the cost was almost identical.

USM gets more bang for the buck than any school I know of. Very good job done by the crew in Hattiesburg.

Marshall gets very little funding from the state and our student fees are ridiculously low. Our fans and boosters support the AD about as good as anyone in the land, all things considered - demographics and such.

(01-10-2013 08:38 AM)BkGold Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 12:46 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  09.) North Carolina State University - $65,507,243

Talk about doing less with more..............................

Wow! What a change "google friendly" babes. I travel and read the boards often in airports. When I come across your posts, I sometimes need to move on rather quickly lest someone take offense at your babes. I like'em but PC and all that

I know, they had a good run, I'm miss the Moo girl, rainbows, and Madeagle's sig.

(01-10-2013 08:58 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  In defense of USM:

Our "small" budget is funded largely by ticket sales and donations. There are a lot of schools in the 15-35 million range that rely on student fees. Some of these fees were voted on (OK but still not a great way to fund), and some were just mandated by administrators (bad). I've seen numbers that imply that our ticket sales revenue is more than double that of certain schools that are above us in revenue.

USM probably has more capital assets than any other school at or below our budget level. Facilities just aren't reflected in these numbers. In fact, the opposite is true. Rent paid is a big component of some schools' numbers. This is not necessarily a bragging point.

Our AD supposedly has a pretty concrete plan to get us to a $30 million annual budget. I don't really trust him, but IF he can do this we will end up having one of the best balance sheets in college sports. It won't be the biggest, but it will be huge by MS standards, and will also be sustainable.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I keep seeing this $20 million figure tossed around as if it were a solid indicator of wealth, and it just isn't.

If you want to know what the real wealth of a school's sports program is, I'd suggest



taking a hard look at ticket sales, facilities, and alumni giving. This is not just a pro-USM argument... I suspect that ECU exhibits a similar profile within their conference, e.g. the fact that Temple spends more per annum doesn't really make that much of a statement.

Well, for ECU, our stundent fees make up about 38% of our budget, not great, but not bad. UCF is around 52% which IMO is really bad. But our tixket sells is largest chunk by far.

(01-10-2013 09:47 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  What happened to Ohio University from the MAC?

Fixed

(01-10-2013 09:32 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 08:58 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  In defense of USM:

Our "small" budget is funded largely by ticket sales and donations. There are a lot of schools in the 15-35 million range that rely on student fees. Some of these fees were voted on (OK but still not a great way to fund), and some were just mandated by administrators (bad). I've seen numbers that imply that our ticket sales revenue is more than double that of certain schools that are above us in revenue.

USM probably has more capital assets than any other school at or below our budget level. Facilities just aren't reflected in these numbers. In fact, the opposite is true. Rent paid is a big component of some schools' numbers. This is not necessarily a bragging point.

Our AD supposedly has a pretty concrete plan to get us to a $30 million annual budget. I don't really trust him, but IF he can do this we will end up having one of the best balance sheets in college sports. It won't be the biggest, but it will be huge by MS standards, and will also be sustainable.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I keep seeing this $20 million figure tossed around as if it were a solid indicator of wealth, and it just isn't.

If you want to know what the real wealth of a school's sports program is, I'd suggest taking a hard look at ticket sales, facilities, and alumni giving. This is not just a pro-USM argument... I suspect that ECU exhibits a similar profile within their conference, e.g. the fact that Temple spends more per annum doesn't really make that much of a statement.

Another important factor, overlooked in the figures, is the amount each school transfers from its general fund (taxpayer support) to cover annual athletic operating budget yet counts it as generated revenue. USM and La Tech, according the list, are nearly equal in "total revenue" but Tech took over NINE Million or over half of their
17MLLION revenue from schools general fund whereas USM transferred only about ONE million of its almost 20million. What that list of generated monies mean is that the schools had that much to spend on athletics but DID NOT CLEARLY notate or explain its source. "Generated " as used in this topic is misleading.

Not true for every school and every state in North Carolina no tax money can go to atheletics

(01-10-2013 12:12 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Not true for every school and every state in North Carolina no tax money can go to atheletics

While this may seem obvious, and I think we might have been through this discussion before......I assume that athletic scholarships would an exception?

What would have been the Metro Conference.

Metro Conference

01.) University of Louisville - $87,840,504
02.) University of South Carolina - $87,608,352
03.) Florida State University - $81,444,039
04.) Virginia Polytechnic Institute - $64,801,681
05.) Georgia Institute of Technology - $60,253,966
06.) University of Memphis - $46,711,713
07.) University of Cincinnati - $39,577,731
08.) Tulane University - $27,952,840
09.) University of Southern Mississippi - $19,770,938

Sandman, if we had actually created that conference, USM's budget would be much bigger.

What would have been the Southwest Conference.

Southwest Conference

01.) The University of Texas - $163,295,114
02.) University of Arkansas - $99,757,483
03.) Texas A & M University - $79,026,849
04.) Texas Christian University - $68,050,907
05.) Baylor University - $67,823,109
06.) Texas Tech University - $59,596,519
07.) Southern Methodist University - $42,632,627
08.) University of Houston - $32,335,742
09.) Rice University - $30,256,637

(01-10-2013 01:00 PM)EnterSandman Wrote:  What would have been the Metro Conference.

Metro Conference

01.) University of Louisville - $87,840,504
02.) University of South Carolina - $87,608,352
03.) Florida State University - $81,444,039
04.) Virginia Polytechnic Institute - $64,801,681
05.) Georgia Institute of Technology - $60,253,966
06.) University of Memphis - $46,711,713
07.) University of Cincinnati - $39,577,731
08.) Tulane University - $27,952,840
09.) University of Southern Mississippi - $19,770,938

Terry Holland is working on our application right now. ECU would like to join.