(07-15-2015 12:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-14-2015 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 05:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 04:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Whoa some of these recent posts are getting way off topic relative to the OP.
The story was about Universities (State) self funding their athletic departments, to cover the
difference between income and expenses. Specifically the article was about student fees that are
earmarked for the athletic departments from $99 to $709.

If you're going after self-funding -- eliminating that would impact non-P5 athletic departments greatly, and P5 programs not so much.

Look at USA Today's database (limited to public schools) of Division I athletics' finances. Click on the top of the very last column to sort the list by percentage of athletic budget that is subsidized, i.e., paid for by university funds and/or student fees.

150 of the 230 schools listed subsidize at least 50% of their athletic budget.

Another 29 subsidize between 25 and 50 percent.

All of the P5 schools listed subsidize less than 25 percent, and all of the non-P5 schools on the list subsidize more than 25 percent.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

P5 get TV money regardless if they deserve it or not. A train wreck of a state like California has much more issues than what g5 state schools spend.

Are you for heavy subsidization, or against it?

TV money is discussed on this message board waaaaay too much relative to its importance. The 50-plus P5 programs that have revenue over $70 million/year have budgets that high because of booster donations and ticket sales. The few that don't are just terrible at fundraising or at least were until recently (e.g., Colorado).

Individual state universities can spend money however they see fit. Where state universities have really been shafted over the years is
new construction capital projects, where they have to follow draconian laws such as paying prevailing wage, all of the steel has to be american made, they can't do CM design build etc. Thankfully many states have
passed construction reform.

Most state u's lose money on most if not all oly sports. Should they shut those down?

Bigger issue than Fresno AD needing to be subsidized?

Unsustainable California: The Top 10 Issues Facing the Golden State – Wall of Debt
http://cacs.org/research/unsustainable-c...l-of-debt/

(07-10-2015 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Regular students being dunned fees to pay for athletic scholarships for other students and for facilities for those athletes is just ridiculous. Always has been.

Nonsense.

If the students want to have nice things, ie Division I college athletics, then that's what it costs.


As long as the students themselves get to vote for fee increases, I see no problem with it at all.

Since Division I athletics has nothing to do with education, it should be more stringent than what you say: One group of students shouldn't be able to impose their preference on others. Those who want to pay for D1 athletics should be able to do so, but those students who don't want to shouldn't be compelled to. There should be a user-fee concept in place.

And even then ... one can argue that students shouldn't necessarily get what they want. There should be a tie-in to the educational mission, and D1 athletics totally lacks that.

I always enjoy a good subsidization debate.

What I have found is that the anti group has two strong members of its coalition. 1) Those who are just anti-athletics 2) Those who support a program that suckled on the teat of subsidy for decades, if not a century and finally can avoid subsidy even though their facilities remain on land bought by the taxpayer who hasn't received fair market for the use.

The great bulk of subsidy dollars go in two directions:
1. The P5 (and actually quite few G5) that COULD operate in the black but they want to pay $3 million to a coach to be competitive, they pay all or many assistants more than some FBS head coaches.
2. The schools who lack the ticket and donation base to fund even 30% or 40% of their program.

I tend to think that eventually the P5 are going to quietly come to a wink/nod agreement to cap spending so that over time few if any take any subsidy and the excess revenue flows over to be used as the president sees fit.

(07-15-2015 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I tend to think that eventually the P5 are going to quietly come to a wink/nod agreement to cap spending so that over time few if any take any subsidy and the excess revenue flows over to be used as the president sees fit.

I doubt it. Texas' athletic department spends almost $100 million/year more than Kansas State and Iowa State. The biggest spenders either won't agree to a cap, or the cap will be $200 million/year and it will be meaningless.

Also, no one would be even close to a balanced budget at their current level of spending if the only revenue was ticket sales, sponsorships, and TV money. Every school near the top of that USA Today list is there because of donations. If budgets were capped and the excess diverted to the university's general fund, then athletic donors would just give less to athletics.

The biggest donors are already giving to both athletics and academics, anyway, and don't need their athletic donations sent to the school's general fund. Phil Knight has reportedly donated $300 million over the years to Oregon athletics and more than twice that much to "the academic side" of the university. No doubt there are similar boosters at most other schools with generous athletic donors.

I agree. We should eliminate all subsidies in college athletics.

No more student fees. And no more Title IX. And all colleges become private.

(07-15-2015 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-15-2015 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I tend to think that eventually the P5 are going to quietly come to a wink/nod agreement to cap spending so that over time few if any take any subsidy and the excess revenue flows over to be used as the president sees fit.

I doubt it. Texas' athletic department spends almost $100 million/year more than Kansas State and Iowa State. The biggest spenders either won't agree to a cap, or the cap will be $200 million/year and it will be meaningless.

Also, no one would be even close to a balanced budget at their current level of spending if the only revenue was ticket sales, sponsorships, and TV money. Every school near the top of that USA Today list is there because of donations. If budgets were capped and the excess diverted to the university's general fund, then athletic donors would just give less to athletics.

The biggest donors are already giving to both athletics and academics, anyway, and don't need their athletic donations sent to the school's general fund. Phil Knight has reportedly donated $300 million over the years to Oregon athletics and more than twice that much to "the academic side" of the university. No doubt there are similar boosters at most other schools with generous athletic donors.

There are roughly 10 schools that have revenue that is $10 million or more than their current spending.

I don't see the potential for a capital expenditure cap but operating is possible. Donors want their name on something or they want perks. If they are getting the desired result the money pouring over to academics isn't a big problem.