(02-25-2017 12:45 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:37 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:34 PM)panama Wrote:  Your postings are though.

Everything in my post is a fact. If ou dispute any numbers I will give you a link.

The joke here is you trolling. Keep up the fine work.

Their annual operation budget is $3.2B. They can subsiduze $32M and it would be 1% of their budget. Why are so concerned with UMass anyway?

Actually you are incorrect on this if you think this is the way it's done at other colleges. I read you and the other guys argument, and Im sorry to say, I agree with him. Doesn't matter if a school has an annual operation budget of 100 Billion. They'll never use 1% of that budget on athletics. Doesn't mattter how large their endowment is, not a dime will go towards athletics.
Did YOUR school take money out of its annual operation budget or endowment and use it on athletics? I've never heard of it happening anywhere else.
Cheers!

Understand you guys worrying about us, very sweet.

The goal has never been to make money as a FBS program. A large percentage of FBS programs lose money, even in the P5 with all that money. Most business lose money in the first 5 years.

We need to schedule right and start winning.

Believe the student athletic fee is around $240.

We play our first game in 6 months and a day.

This is the first time the season starts with winnable games and we do not play our first P5 game until week 5.

We had an awful year or two with all three revenue sports, men's basketball, hockey and football. The subsidy percentage will go down as we start improving in those 3 sports. Until then it will remain high. Have hope for the football and hockey programs to start improving. IDK about basketball, we had a great recruiting class and think we'll be looking for a new coach soon.

We've made many mistakes in the past as going 1AA in the 70's and not jumping sooner as in 1998, when we had interest from FBS conferences and football was clicking.

Catch-up is a tough and all the mis-steps just before and after going FBS has hurt. Given that we lost badly in the first 5 years of FBS, understand you guys thinking that is how it will always be. However knowing what is going on with the program, the new AD and scheduling, support from the president, trustees, new defensive coordinator, and recruiting, feel very good.

We have a ton of bad press and it will continue to after we start winning.

Feel we are right there with last years recruiting class. We played many good teams close till the fourth quarter. Prior years it was the first quarter or first half. This year our second string should be much improved. It may take time with the new DC, Ed Pinkham, but defense should start turning around. Probably not over night but with this years schedule hoping for 4 or more wins. Something we have not done since going FBS. Most of those wins should come at home and Fenway Park.

Scheduling right and winning is the key.

It's unfortunate that the state of Massachusetts doesn't support their flagship the way Connecticut does. With that said, I support their effort. The football deal between UMass, UCONN, and BC was a huge deal and a win-win for everyone involved. UMass is headed in the right direction. As a UCONN fan, I can appreciate their "late" journey to the game. Best of luck Minutemen.

(02-25-2017 05:00 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  It's unfortunate that the state of Massachusetts doesn't support their flagship the way Connecticut does. With that said, I support their effort. The football deal between UMass, UCONN, and BC was a huge deal and a win-win for everyone involved. UMass is headed in the right direction. As a UCONN fan, I can appreciate their "late" journey to the game. Best of luck Minutemen.

Judging by the attendance at last years UConn at BC game which was only behind Clemson and Ahead of Cuse and Louisville it's safe to say UConn has some fans in that area.

BC and UMAss should play UConn regularly. Hard to imagine that even with little TV income UConn has double that AD budget of UMass and much less subsidy.

(02-25-2017 08:24 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 05:00 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  It's unfortunate that the state of Massachusetts doesn't support their flagship the way Connecticut does. With that said, I support their effort. The football deal between UMass, UCONN, and BC was a huge deal and a win-win for everyone involved. UMass is headed in the right direction. As a UCONN fan, I can appreciate their "late" journey to the game. Best of luck Minutemen.

Judging by the attendance at last years UConn at BC game which was only behind Clemson and Ahead of Cuse and Louisville it's safe to say UConn has some fans in that area.

BC and UMAss should play UConn regularly. Hard to imagine that even with little TV income UConn has double that AD budget of UMass and much less subsidy.

We do have fans/alumni there. Outside of the Hartford/New Haven market, Boston is #2 in living alumni. NYC is #3.

(02-25-2017 08:24 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 05:00 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  It's unfortunate that the state of Massachusetts doesn't support their flagship the way Connecticut does. With that said, I support their effort. The football deal between UMass, UCONN, and BC was a huge deal and a win-win for everyone involved. UMass is headed in the right direction. As a UCONN fan, I can appreciate their "late" journey to the game. Best of luck Minutemen.

Judging by the attendance at last years UConn at BC game which was only behind Clemson and Ahead of Cuse and Louisville it's safe to say UConn has some fans in that area.

BC and UMAss should play UConn regularly. Hard to imagine that even with little TV income UConn has double that AD budget of UMass and much less subsidy.

Wonder if having the best basketball program of all-time helps?

UConn's Subsidy is $17m per year, UMass is $20m, in the last reported. UConn is spending heavily because they are desperately trying to bridge to P5.

UConn is coming from transfer, UMass is also, but hidden in tuition (the Bursar's web page says Intercollegiate Athletics are part of what is paid for by tuition, an average of over $800 per year per student; there is no athletic fee at UMass).

G5 is expensive and nobody makes money. (P5 nobody should lose money, but different story)

(02-25-2017 03:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:45 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:37 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:34 PM)panama Wrote:  Your postings are though.

Everything in my post is a fact. If ou dispute any numbers I will give you a link.

The joke here is you trolling. Keep up the fine work.

Their annual operation budget is $3.2B. They can subsiduze $32M and it would be 1% of their budget. Why are so concerned with UMass anyway?

Actually you are incorrect on this if you think this is the way it's done at other colleges. I read you and the other guys argument, and Im sorry to say, I agree with him. Doesn't matter if a school has an annual operation budget of 100 Billion. They'll never use 1% of that budget on athletics. Doesn't mattter how large their endowment is, not a dime will go towards athletics.
Did YOUR school take money out of its annual operation budget or endowment and use it on athletics? I've never heard of it happening anywhere else.
Cheers!

So do you think that scholarship money is actually taken from the athletic budget side and transferred to the academic side? Like you give to the Pirate Club or whatever it's called and that money is used for scholarships and paid to the registrars office? According to USA Today ECU contributed 4.5 million of school funds to athletics.

(02-26-2017 10:34 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:45 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:37 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:34 PM)panama Wrote:  Your postings are though.

Everything in my post is a fact. If ou dispute any numbers I will give you a link.

The joke here is you trolling. Keep up the fine work.

Their annual operation budget is $3.2B. They can subsiduze $32M and it would be 1% of their budget. Why are so concerned with UMass anyway?

Actually you are incorrect on this if you think this is the way it's done at other colleges. I read you and the other guys argument, and Im sorry to say, I agree with him. Doesn't matter if a school has an annual operation budget of 100 Billion. They'll never use 1% of that budget on athletics. Doesn't mattter how large their endowment is, not a dime will go towards athletics.
Did YOUR school take money out of its annual operation budget or endowment and use it on athletics? I've never heard of it happening anywhere else.
Cheers!

So do you think that scholarship money is actually taken from the athletic budget side and transferred to the academic side? Like you give to the Pirate Club or whatever it's called and that money is used for scholarships and paid to the registrars office? According to USA Today ECU contributed 4.5 million of school funds to athletics.

Student Fees were 13.5 million.

58 East Carolina AAC $48,918,305 $49,352,531 $18,053,311 36.91


East Carolina
CONFERENCE: AAC

YEAR TICKET SALES CONTRIBUTIONS RIGHTS / LICENSING STUDENT FEES SCHOOL FUNDS OTHER TOTAL REVENUES
2015 $7,293,727 $14,409,954 $7,256,520 $13,517,117 $4,536,194 $1,904,793 $48,918,305

To compare


Massachusetts
CONFERENCE: A-10

YEAR TICKET SALES CONTRIBUTIONS RIGHTS / LICENSING STUDENT FEES SCHOOL FUNDS OTHER TOTAL REVENUES
2015 $1,643,397 $1,371,144 $2,566,830 $8,151,071 $20,530,698 $2,249,297 $36,512,437



UMAss has 28.5 million between student fees and school funds for a 36 million $ AD. Essentially each student pays almost 1,000 per year to operate the AD or about 80% of the costs. LOL.

If you compare things like ticket sales and contributions you see the issue. UMAss sells 1.6 million in tickets and gets 1.3 million in donations where ECU has 7.2 Million in ticket sales and 14 Million in donations. ECU has great fans show support the school, UMass has no fans.

That did not answer mturn's question...

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

LOL. For a guy who first looked at the UMAss AD budget yesterday and completely made a fool of himself here talking budgets you are sure cocky.

It doesn't really matter if it comes from taxpayers or students, the point is the AD isn't generating income. So we are talking about an AD that gets 80% of its' funding from outside the AD. The complete lack of tickets sales and donations are yet another sign that UMAss really doesn't' belong in FBS.

Keep up the fine work.

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

Not at all. You guys are delusional if you look at those finances and think the school needs to keep going for the FBX dream.

Panama seems to think that it really makes a difference if the subsidy comes from students, taxpayers, etc. The bottom line is it doesn't come from the AD in the form of ticket sales, donations, licensing, etc...

Every school who can't raise money with an AD requires some form of subsidy whether its' student fees or somethign different. Trying to act as if the overall school budget can be used at will to finance an AD it just plain stupid, only panma will tell you that is the case.

The real question is what if UMass gaining by playing FBS football? After looking at the finances the answer is nothing. It's not bringing in more ticket sales or donations. Just a burden that ends up being paid for by people who do not attend games.

So far those who are arguing for UMAss to keep trying for FBS have not shown even one piece of evidence which suggests there is a benefit to the school.

1) who gets to make that decIsion for UMass? You?

2) it's on the phrasing isn't it? Your argument is that universities should not be subsidizing athletic departmemts right? Well if they are subsidizing where is the money coming from? Whether it's student fees or tuition or check from the general fund or even not charging the AD for scholarships it's a hit on the annual revenue. The only way it is not is if the university has a foundation that is fundraising for the university and athletics and the money is coming from there. The $20M that you keep pointing to for UMass is coming from somewhere. And that somewhere is from the university budget somewhere. The problem is that you're talking in absolutes and have arrived at a decision prior to investigating. Alll ADs should be self supporting. With that edict there would be maybe 50 schools in Division I. The other thing is that generally it's Olympic Sports that provide a drag on your AD budget. Football generally pays for everything else. So UMass could drop football and would still have to subsidize their athletic department.

(02-26-2017 06:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  The real question is what if UMass gaining by playing FBS football? After looking at the finances the answer is nothing. It's not bringing in more ticket sales or donations. Just a burden that ends up being paid for by people who do not attend games.

So far those who are arguing for UMAss to keep trying for FBS have not shown even one piece of evidence which suggests there is a benefit to the school.

That first sentence is ridiculous. How could you know what they are gaining?

(02-26-2017 06:58 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 06:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  The real question is what if UMass gaining by playing FBS football? After looking at the finances the answer is nothing. It's not bringing in more ticket sales or donations. Just a burden that ends up being paid for by people who do not attend games.

So far those who are arguing for UMAss to keep trying for FBS have not shown even one piece of evidence which suggests there is a benefit to the school.

That first sentence is ridiculous. How could you know what they are gaining?

By looking at ticket sales to see if the FBS schedule made a noticeable difference in the numbers.
Donations would be another thing I would look to see if the FBS football was increasing.
Look at the overall AD budget to see if the FBS bowl $ was enough to offset the costs.

If none of those things are noticeable then I guess I would look at applications to see if playing FBS football has helped increase overall applications to the school.


If there is not a noticeable benefit to the school for playing FBS football then it should be dropped until there is the necessary support to make the move to FBS.

All you are doing is moving the target as you get proven wrong. First you didn't realize how bad the budget was. Then you pretended that it was not bid deal to keep taking more $ from the school because it has a large budget, which anyone with a brain can see is flawed or every school in the country would do this and have a 100m AD budget. But they don't for some reason, hmm, wonder why, LOL Now you realize the budget and fan support are not good so you are pretending there is no way to measure the benefit of FBS football at the school so they might as well keep playing as an indy FBS.

LOL. That's quite the line you have going there. Do you have any legitimate reasons for UMAss to continue as an FBS indy?

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

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

Cheers!

(02-26-2017 06:50 PM)panama Wrote:  1) who gets to make that decIsion for UMass? You?

2) it's on the phrasing isn't it? Your argument is that universities should not be subsidizing athletic departmemts right? Well if they are subsidizing where is the money coming from? Whether it's student fees or tuition or check from the general fund or even not charging the AD for scholarships it's a hit on the annual revenue. The only way it is not is if the university has a foundation that is fundraising for the university and athletics and the money is coming from there. The $20M that you keep pointing to for UMass is coming from somewhere. And that somewhere is from the university budget somewhere. The problem is that you're talking in absolutes and have arrived at a decision prior to investigating. Alll ADs should be self supporting. With that edict there would be maybe 50 schools in Division I. The other thing is that generally it's Olympic Sports that provide a drag on your AD budget. Football generally pays for everything else. So UMass could drop football and would still have to subsidize their athletic department.

This isn't about me so stop with the predictable response.

My argument is that schools like UMAss with limited fan support and finances really don't see much if any benefit to playing up in FBS so unless there is some benefit it really makes no sense to put that burden on a school and alumni base who doesn't support the sport.

I don't think all AD's need to be self supporting but 80% subsidy is probably not a great spot for a stage flagship playing FBS football as an INDY. Where do you draw the line 90%, 95%?

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

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

Cheers!

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