(12-26-2013 08:46 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  scholarships are seperate matter, that's the PC, any short fall is covered by the budget. But, they do want to raise PC revenue by 2 million to fully cover scholarships.

So what are you hearing the approximate $15 million extra revenue will be spent on?

What exactly do you mean when you say "Total Revenues by Team"? Are you referring to the sum of revenues accrued by each university, or do those numbers actually reflect revenues by a team? If it's a team, is it safe to assume you're talking about football? Just seeking clarification on what exactly we're looking at.

(12-26-2013 12:23 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  What exactly do you mean when you say "Total Revenues by Team"? Are you referring to the sum of revenues accrued by each university, or do those numbers actually reflect revenues by a team? If it's a team, is it safe to assume you're talking about football? Just seeking clarification on what exactly we're looking at.

This list is for the total revenues for the entire athletic program for each school.

(12-26-2013 12:59 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  This list is for the total revenues for the entire athletic program for each school.

I think that is $5M more than the prior year which included the 2011 football season for UTSA.

Not bad. This report includes the 2012 football season when we were in the WAC. That should go up when the 2013 football season is captured in the next reporting cycle.

These are not the figures from the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures reports for fiscal year 2012-2013 since those are not even due to the NCAA until January 15. Those figures are what USA Today and ESPN use when they post athletic financial databases since those provide consistent reporting between universities.

Took just a few minutes to start finding discrepancies...

Oklahoma State has posted its 2012-2013 NCAA AUP report online here http://vpaf.okstate.edu/sites/default/fi...0FINAL.pdf

That report shows athletic revenues of $93,664,337, while the list in the top post shows Oklahoma State at only $76,638,487.

These statistics are mostly meaningless for most institutions. All kinds of allocations and revenues includes student fees and other transfers from the university. UTSA, FAU, FIU for example have enormous student funding, and others are not far behind. This is more of a subsidy than a revenue.

There are few universities that make money in sports and I doubt any in CUSA are remotely close.

Self-generated revenue is always a better measure than the total revenue since that removes student fees and state subsidies.

And finally we have a database posted for 2012-2013...ESPN database

There are only 123 FBS schools listed in this database, and transition schools are not included (UTSA, ODU, Charlotte, etc.).

19 private schools do not have complete information listed, so that leaves 104 schools for comparison to see total subsidy figures that include stuident fees as quoted in the main article...ESPN article

"Operating revenue listed by athletic departments includes what's often referred to as a subsidy -- money the university (including student fees) or a state government provides to an athletic department to help it cover its expenses."

16 of the 104 schools with figures available reported 2012-2013 subsidies over 60% of total revenues.
1) South Alabama 78.26%
2) Florida International 77.19%
3) Akron 74.30%
4) Massachusetts 74.07%
5) Texas State 70.67%
6) Buffalo 69.37%
7) Kent State 68.84%
8) Ball State 68.56%
9) Miami (OH) 67.60%
10) Central Michigan 67.10%
11) San Jose State 65.43%
12) Western Michigan 63.19%
13) UAB 62.55%
14) Houston 62.14%
15) Florida Atlantic 61.98%
16) North Texas 61.09%

Here are 2012-2013 self-generated revenue and subsidy figures for 2013-2014 C-USA members (excluding the private and transition FBS schools):

East Carolina--$23,069,399 self-generated revenue, $12,735,833 (35.57% of total revenue) subsidy
UTEP--$17,242,370 self-generated, $11,775,478 (40.58%) subsidy
Marshall--$15,737,409 self-generated, $11,849,865 (42.95%) subsidy
USM--$13,423,642 self-generated, $9,352,774 (41.06%) subsidy
Middle Tennessee--$11,494,806 self-generated, $16,172,746 (58.45%) subsidy
Louisiana Tech--$11,339,786 self-generated, $7,230,707 (38.94%) subsidy
North Texas--$11,207,301 self-generated, $17,593,135 (61.09%) subsidy
UAB--$10,546,697 self-generated, $17,612,552 (62.55%) subsidy
Florida Atlantic--$9,329,822 self-generated, $15,208,589 (61.98%) subsidy
Florida International--$6,462,605 self-generated, $21,869,656 (77.19%) subsidy

Conference USA – Revised to include ODU
(I could not find Charlotte’s data.)

01.) Old Dominion University - $35,217,421
02.) Rice University - $32,294,612
03.) Florida International University - $28,332,259
04.) University of Alabama at Birmingham - $27,430,624
05.) Western Kentucky University - $26,109,720
06.) University of North Texas - $25,910,370
07.) Marshall University - $25,724,120
08.) The University of Texas at El Paso - $25,723,452
09.) Middle Tennessee State University - $24,845,231
10.) The University of Texas at San Antonio - $24,828,401
11.) Florida Atlantic University - $22,854,201
12.) University of Southern Mississippi - $19,667,859
13.) Louisiana Tech University - $16,876,487

the 104 schools with figures available reported 2012-2013 subsidies over 60% of total revenues.
1) South Alabama 78.26%
2) Florida International 77.19%
3) Akron 74.30%
4) Massachusetts 74.07%
5) Texas State 70.67%
6) Buffalo 69.37%
7) Kent State 68.84%
8) Ball State 68.56%
9) Miami (OH) 67.60%
10) Central Michigan 67.10%
11) San Jose State 65.43%
12) Western Michigan 63.19%
13) UAB 62.55%
14) Houston 62.14%
15) Florida Atlantic 61.98%
16) North Texas 61.09%

Here are 2012-2013 self-generated revenue and subsidy figures for 2013-2014 C-USA members (excluding the private and transition FBS schools):

East Carolina--$23,069,399 self-generated revenue, $12,735,833 (35.57% of total revenue) subsidy
UTEP--$17,242,370 self-generated, $11,775,478 (40.58%) subsidy
Marshall--$15,737,409 self-generated, $11,849,865 (42.95%) subsidy
USM--$13,423,642 self-generated, $9,352,774 (41.06%) subsidy
Middle Tennessee--$11,494,806 self-generated, $16,172,746 (58.45%) subsidy
Louisiana Tech--$11,339,786 self-generated, $7,230,707 (38.94%) subsidy
North Texas--$11,207,301 self-generated, $17,593,135 (61.09%) subsidy
UAB--$10,546,697 self-generated, $17,612,552 (62.55%) subsidy
Florida Atlantic--$9,329,822 self-generated, $15,208,589 (61.98%) subsidy
Florida International--$6,462,605 self-generated, $21,869,656 (77.19%) subsidy
[/quote]

These figures do not agree with the information reported BY the Louisiana Tech Athletic Dept TO the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. They disclosed the state supplement to their athletic budget for the year mentioned as $9,214,682 or 49.6% which was CONFIRMED by the auditor. Self generated was only $7,875,789. Tech guys, don't point finger at me. If you think it is incorrect then contact your athletic dept to see why they reported that.

(05-03-2014 08:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  Conference USA – Revised to include ODU
(I could not find Charlotte’s data.)

01.) Old Dominion University - $35,217,421
02.) Rice University - $32,294,612
03.) Florida International University - $28,332,259
04.) University of Alabama at Birmingham - $27,430,624
05.) Western Kentucky University - $26,109,720
06.) University of North Texas - $25,910,370
07.) Marshall University - $25,724,120
08.) The University of Texas at El Paso - $25,723,452
09.) Middle Tennessee State University - $24,845,231
10.) The University of Texas at San Antonio - $24,828,401
11.) Florida Atlantic University - $22,854,201
12.) University of Southern Mississippi - $19,667,859
13.) Louisiana Tech University - $16,876,487

You've got Southern Miss wrong. Should be about 22.7M according to figures above. Looks like you are using old data.

(05-04-2014 07:57 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  the 104 schools with figures available reported 2012-2013 subsidies over 60% of total revenues.
1) South Alabama 78.26%
2) Florida International 77.19%
3) Akron 74.30%
4) Massachusetts 74.07%
5) Texas State 70.67%
6) Buffalo 69.37%
7) Kent State 68.84%
8) Ball State 68.56%
9) Miami (OH) 67.60%
10) Central Michigan 67.10%
11) San Jose State 65.43%
12) Western Michigan 63.19%
13) UAB 62.55%
14) Houston 62.14%
15) Florida Atlantic 61.98%
16) North Texas 61.09%

Here are 2012-2013 self-generated revenue and subsidy figures for 2013-2014 C-USA members (excluding the private and transition FBS schools):

East Carolina--$23,069,399 self-generated revenue, $12,735,833 (35.57% of total revenue) subsidy
UTEP--$17,242,370 self-generated, $11,775,478 (40.58%) subsidy
Marshall--$15,737,409 self-generated, $11,849,865 (42.95%) subsidy
USM--$13,423,642 self-generated, $9,352,774 (41.06%) subsidy
Middle Tennessee--$11,494,806 self-generated, $16,172,746 (58.45%) subsidy
Louisiana Tech--$11,339,786 self-generated, $7,230,707 (38.94%) subsidy
North Texas--$11,207,301 self-generated, $17,593,135 (61.09%) subsidy
UAB--$10,546,697 self-generated, $17,612,552 (62.55%) subsidy
Florida Atlantic--$9,329,822 self-generated, $15,208,589 (61.98%) subsidy
Florida International--$6,462,605 self-generated, $21,869,656 (77.19%) subsidy

These figures do not agree with the information reported BY the Louisiana Tech Athletic Dept TO the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. They disclosed the state supplement to their athletic budget for the year mentioned as $9,214,682 or 49.6% which was CONFIRMED by the auditor. Self generated was only $7,875,789. Tech guys, don't point finger at me. If you think it is incorrect then contact your athletic dept to see why they reported that.

Better check again, EE. These figures MATCH EXACTLY the Tech 2012-2013 AUP report posted by the LLA.

Total Tech revenues--$18,570,493 (note that equals 11,339,786 plus 7,230,707 broken down as posted above).

And if you have a problem with the university subsidy figures reported in the ESPN database, you had better go check with them. They don't include indirect facilities and administrative expenses that EVERY university is supposed to report. Since those figures are not found in the ESPN database, they are not valid for the comparison I posted. Until we have EVERY school's figure (and EVERY school must report some amount or it is violating the NCAA reporting guidelines if its athletic department is not run 100% apart from the rest of the university), this is an apples to apples comparison.

Of course, EE, we know what your agenda is regarding Louisiana Tech.

The figures posted by Noodles are from some other source and do not match the NCAA 2012-2013 AUP report figures used for the ESPN database. Those figures don't belong in this thread.

(05-04-2014 10:01 AM)Noodles Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 08:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  Conference USA – Revised to include ODU
(I could not find Charlotte’s data.)

01.) Old Dominion University - $35,217,421
02.) Rice University - $32,294,612
03.) Florida International University - $28,332,259
04.) University of Alabama at Birmingham - $27,430,624
05.) Western Kentucky University - $26,109,720
06.) University of North Texas - $25,910,370
07.) Marshall University - $25,724,120
08.) The University of Texas at El Paso - $25,723,452
09.) Middle Tennessee State University - $24,845,231
10.) The University of Texas at San Antonio - $24,828,401
11.) Florida Atlantic University - $22,854,201
12.) University of Southern Mississippi - $19,667,859
13.) Louisiana Tech University - $16,876,487

You've got Southern Miss wrong. Should be about 22.7M according to figures above. Looks like you are using old data.

It is probably "old data", but the latest document to have every team. So it may be "old data", but it shows where everyone stands....relative to one another.

Here are 2012-2013 self-generated revenue and subsidy figures for 2013-2014 C-USA members (excluding the private and transition FBS schools):

East Carolina--$23,069,399 self-generated revenue, $12,735,833 (35.57% of total revenue) subsidy
UTEP--$17,242,370 self-generated, $11,775,478 (40.58%) subsidy
Marshall--$15,737,409 self-generated, $11,849,865 (42.95%) subsidy
USM--$13,423,642 self-generated, $9,352,774 (41.06%) subsidy
Middle Tennessee--$11,494,806 self-generated, $16,172,746 (58.45%) subsidy
Louisiana Tech--$11,339,786 self-generated, $7,230,707 (38.94%) subsidy
North Texas--$11,207,301 self-generated, $17,593,135 (61.09%) subsidy
UAB--$10,546,697 self-generated, $17,612,552 (62.55%) subsidy
Florida Atlantic--$9,329,822 self-generated, $15,208,589 (61.98%) subsidy
Florida International--$6,462,605 self-generated, $21,869,656 (77.19%) subsidy

These figures do not agree with the information reported BY the Louisiana Tech Athletic Dept TO the Louisiana Legislative Auditor. They disclosed the state supplement to their athletic budget for the year mentioned as $9,214,682 or 49.6% which was CONFIRMED by the auditor. Self generated was only $9,355,811. Tech guys, don't point finger at me. If you think it is incorrect then contact your athletic dept to see why they reported that.[/quote]
Better check again, EE. These figures MATCH EXACTLY the Tech 2012-2013 AUP report posted by the LLA.

Total Tech revenues--$18,570,493 (note that equals 11,339,786 plus 7,230,707 broken down as posted above).

And if you have a problem with the university subsidy figures reported in the ESPN database, you had better go check with them. They don't include indirect facilities and administrative expenses that EVERY university is supposed to report. Since those figures are not found in the ESPN database, they are not valid for the comparison I posted. Until we have EVERY school's figure (and EVERY school must report some amount or it is violating the NCAA reporting guidelines if its athletic department is not run 100% apart from the rest of the university), this is an apples to apples comparison.

Of course, EE, we know what your agenda is regarding Louisiana Tech.

The figures posted by Noodles are from some other source and do not match the NCAA 2012-2013 AUP report figures used for the ESPN database. Those figures don't belong in this thread.
[/quote]----------------------------------------------------------------------

Frisco, what you obviously overlook or dont understand or fail to see is that the $11,339,786 generated revenue figure you mention INCLUDES $1,983,975 in indirect state suppliments which added to the direct suppliments would equal the total subsidy of $9,214,682.
Remove that and you will clearly see that Tech, on its own, generated just $9,355,811. This is what was reported and published by THE LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC DEPT and confirmed by state auditors. I don't have any problem with what the USA, etc figures are because schools shovel all kind of you know what into the pot when compiling those, don't rely on any of it.

(05-04-2014 01:08 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  Frisco, what you obviously overlook or dont understand or fail to see is that the $11,339,786 generated revenue figure you mention INCLUDES $1,983,975 in indirect state suppliments which added to the direct suppliments would equal the total subsidy of $9,214,682.
Remove that and you will clearly see that Tech, on its own, generated just $9,355,811. This is what was reported and published by THE LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC DEPT and confirmed by state auditors. I don't have any problem with what the USA, etc figures are because schools shovel all kind of you know what into the pot when compiling those, don't rely on any of it.

We are not talking about two sets of figures here. The ESPN and USA Today databases take figures straight from the annual NCAA AUP reports. The NCAA reports for some states (Louisiana included) are posted on their state auditor websites.

The amount in the university subsidy column in the databases for all schools is for direct transfer and student fees only. Since we do not have indirect university transfer figures from ALL schools, no fair comparison can be made for ANY school. Since it is public knowledge what the indirect transfers are for Louisiana schools, you are unfairly comparing Louisiana Tech to other schools.

The last time I saw indirect transfer amounts reported in an AUP report database for all schools was for 2009-2010. At that time the average indirect transfer figure for schools reporting an amount was over $2.2 million. Tennessee reported over $12.5 million of indirect transfer, and closer to home UTEP reported almost $3.2 million and Marshall reported over $2.7 million. Every current C-USA school listed in the 2009-2010 database had some amount of indirect transfer.

If we get those 2012-2013 indirect transfer figures from all schools, we can recalculate the figures then but not before. The fact that you are harping on Louisiana Tech's self-generated revenue percentage which is signicantly better even using your figures than those of current C-USA members FIU, UAB, FAU, North Texas, Middle Tennessee (58.45% subsidy reported), ODU (73.35% subsidy reported in its 2012-2013 AUP report) and likely also Charlotte points to your long-standing anti-Tech agenda.

(05-04-2014 02:51 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 01:08 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  Frisco, what you obviously overlook or dont understand or fail to see is that the $11,339,786 generated revenue figure you mention INCLUDES $1,983,975 in indirect state suppliments which added to the direct suppliments would equal the total subsidy of $9,214,682.
Remove that and you will clearly see that Tech, on its own, generated just $9,355,811. This is what was reported and published by THE LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC DEPT and confirmed by state auditors. I don't have any problem with what the USA, etc figures are because schools shovel all kind of you know what into the pot when compiling those, don't rely on any of it.

We are not talking about two sets of figures here. The ESPN and USA Today databases take figures straight from the annual NCAA AUP reports. The NCAA reports for some states (Louisiana included) are posted on their state auditor websites.

The point you fail to grasp is that since we don't have indirect university transfer figures from ALL schools, no comparison can be made for ANY school. Since it is public knowledge what the indirect transfers are for Louisiana schools, you are unfairly comparing Louisiana Tech to other schools. If we get those indirect figures from all schools, then we can revisit the figures and not before.

The last time I saw indirect transfer amounts reported in an AUP report database for all schools was for 2009-2010. At that time the average indirect transfer figure for schools reporting an amount was over $2.2 million. Tennessee reported over $12.5 million of indirect transfer, and closer to home UTEP reported almost $3.2 million.

Tech reported revenue for the year as $18,734,197. The direct state subsidy was $7,230,707 lowering the revenue figure down to $11,503,490 which INCLUDES an indirect supplement total of $1,983,682 thus removing that discloses self generated revenue as $9,355,811.

Now, check the ncaa guidelines and note this "indirect" subsidy is being phased out thus some schools still include it and some don't, I believe it will be eliminated completely by 2015. What it has done is let the schools inflate the SIZE of their budgets thus is actually meaningless since whatever expense is recorded in that category is then balanced by the offsetting fund transfer. When the category is eliminated a school like Tech, a school that still includes it, would have had a budget in the $16mil rather than $18mil range for the year being discussed.

(05-04-2014 03:35 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  Tech reported revenue for the year as $18,734,197. The direct state subsidy was $7,230,707 lowering the revenue figure down to $11,503,490 which INCLUDES an indirect supplement total of $1,983,682 thus removing that discloses self generated revenue as $9,355,811.

As I stated until we can do this same analysis for EVERY school, it isn't a valid comparsion for ANY school since no one (and that includes you) knows which schools have an indirect transfer amount included and which ones don't.

Future NCAA reporting requirements are irrelevant for the 2012-2013 reports. And I dispute that indirect transfers are going away. Indirect transfers are for items such as services performed by university staff not on the athletic department payroll. That work isn't going away, so even if the reporting methodology changes budgets won't magically shrink as you imply.

Your agenda shines through as always.

(05-04-2014 10:01 AM)Noodles Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 08:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  Conference USA – Revised to include ODU
(I could not find Charlotte’s data.)

01.) Old Dominion University - $35,217,421
02.) Rice University - $32,294,612
03.) Florida International University - $28,332,259
04.) University of Alabama at Birmingham - $27,430,624
05.) Western Kentucky University - $26,109,720
06.) University of North Texas - $25,910,370
07.) Marshall University - $25,724,120
08.) The University of Texas at El Paso - $25,723,452
09.) Middle Tennessee State University - $24,845,231
10.) The University of Texas at San Antonio - $24,828,401
11.) Florida Atlantic University - $22,854,201
12.) University of Southern Mississippi - $19,667,859
13.) Louisiana Tech University - $16,876,487

You've got Southern Miss wrong. Should be about 22.7M according to figures above. Looks like you are using old data.

All I did was pull the data from the opeining post and add ODU to the list. The $19.667M for USM in my post is identical to what is in the first post for USM.

(05-04-2014 04:12 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 10:01 AM)Noodles Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 08:43 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  Conference USA – Revised to include ODU
(I could not find Charlotte’s data.)

01.) Old Dominion University - $35,217,421
02.) Rice University - $32,294,612
03.) Florida International University - $28,332,259
04.) University of Alabama at Birmingham - $27,430,624
05.) Western Kentucky University - $26,109,720
06.) University of North Texas - $25,910,370
07.) Marshall University - $25,724,120
08.) The University of Texas at El Paso - $25,723,452
09.) Middle Tennessee State University - $24,845,231
10.) The University of Texas at San Antonio - $24,828,401
11.) Florida Atlantic University - $22,854,201
12.) University of Southern Mississippi - $19,667,859
13.) Louisiana Tech University - $16,876,487

You've got Southern Miss wrong. Should be about 22.7M according to figures above. Looks like you are using old data.

All I did was pull the data from the opeining post and add ODU to the list. The $19.667M for USM in my post is identical to what is in the first post for USM.

That is not 2012-2013 data for all schools. The referenced data was not what it was represented to be. Even the ODU figure added is not what its 2012-2013 NCAA AUP report shows.