(09-30-2015 03:12 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

Right. Where and why is what I'd like to examine. Some schools were built for non-traditional sorts. Temple, I would imagine, doesn't see people walk in and out in four as much as, say, Elizabethtown or Messiah, but E-Town and MC don't rely on community college feeders and transfers like TU does.

I'm glad people just complete. Community colleges would love to graduate folks, period.

Cincinnati is a Co-Op university. Graduating in 5 years is the plan for many majors.

(09-30-2015 05:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 03:12 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

Right. Where and why is what I'd like to examine. Some schools were built for non-traditional sorts. Temple, I would imagine, doesn't see people walk in and out in four as much as, say, Elizabethtown or Messiah, but E-Town and MC don't rely on community college feeders and transfers like TU does.

I'm glad people just complete. Community colleges would love to graduate folks, period.

Cincinnati is a Co-Op university. Graduating in 5 years is the plan for many majors.

That some majors have an option for graduating in 5 years, to allow for a year of non-class activity, only serves to further prove the point that 4 years of class time is the standard.

(09-30-2015 05:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 03:12 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

Right. Where and why is what I'd like to examine. Some schools were built for non-traditional sorts. Temple, I would imagine, doesn't see people walk in and out in four as much as, say, Elizabethtown or Messiah, but E-Town and MC don't rely on community college feeders and transfers like TU does.

I'm glad people just complete. Community colleges would love to graduate folks, period.

Cincinnati is a Co-Op university. Graduating in 5 years is the plan for many majors.

That some majors have an option for graduating in 5 years, to allow for a year of non-class activity, only serves to further prove the point that 4 years of class time is the standard.

Sure, class time.

(09-30-2015 05:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

This makes no sense. More and more people take 5 years to get a bachelor's degree.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

There are some colleges and universities allow slow learning students with disabilities to take their time to graduate. Took me longer than others to graduate. Some of my high school friends that had straight As wind up quitting college, and they were surprised that I stuck with it to get a degree.

(09-30-2015 05:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 03:12 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

Right. Where and why is what I'd like to examine. Some schools were built for non-traditional sorts. Temple, I would imagine, doesn't see people walk in and out in four as much as, say, Elizabethtown or Messiah, but E-Town and MC don't rely on community college feeders and transfers like TU does.

I'm glad people just complete. Community colleges would love to graduate folks, period.

Cincinnati is a Co-Op university. Graduating in 5 years is the plan for many majors.

That some majors have an option for graduating in 5 years, to allow for a year of non-class activity, only serves to further prove the point that 4 years of class time is the standard.

Sure, class time.

I'm guessing you have some point. But the discussion here revolves around completing undergraduate coursework requirements in eight semesters being standard.

(09-30-2015 05:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 03:12 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

Right. Where and why is what I'd like to examine. Some schools were built for non-traditional sorts. Temple, I would imagine, doesn't see people walk in and out in four as much as, say, Elizabethtown or Messiah, but E-Town and MC don't rely on community college feeders and transfers like TU does.

I'm glad people just complete. Community colleges would love to graduate folks, period.

Cincinnati is a Co-Op university. Graduating in 5 years is the plan for many majors.

Yeah, around here, Drexel runs on co-op's and quarter schedules. I'm not a fan of their work for a lot of reasons, but it, too, is a gimmick. Co-ops are a way to formalize what students were expected to do (or straight up used to do) during their summers or final semesters: taking internships, work-study/shadowing, study-abroad, and capstone courses. The ones dead-set on four-year completion will open up shorter intensive terms in January and right after graduation to alleviate the fluff to make sure students can get all the work done and get out in four.

Schools are simply trying to jam everything into an undergraduate degree. You go to get a business degree, and now you're getting stuck on the liberal arts fluff, while the business program wants to stick more substance to make you well-rounded, despite a pointed direction with your degree. It's a philosophical contradiction.

Where that comes back to sports, and redshirting...cutting down the size of a roster now imposes a challenge upon the practice. It doesn't endanger it, but discourages its common practice. And if schools would legitimately police practice schedules and this other nonsense, show that they care about the students and that they want to make sure their athletes are students first, I honestly think you wouldn't need the NCAA to be as big as it is where it concerns investigations and enforcement.

Let the schools figure it out for themselves, though. Like, I don't care what the NCAA does or doesn't do to North Carolina over its sham programs. What it did, to protect sports and money, was essentially jeopardize its entire education operation, academic reputation, and its accreditation. And regardless if that isn't punished as thoroughly as it may warrant, they will see a drop in the kind of applicants that help make the school look so prestigious. There are plenty of good schools out there...why would anyone want to tarnish their name for the sake of football and basketball? Heck, Chicago played a football game before ever holding a class, and even they saw the venture wasn't worth it. They aren't hurting.

(09-30-2015 09:59 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Nobody's really bringing in big money with football. They basically come back marginally above budget, if at all, and those that do are so heavily subsidized or funded by other means that, if it came down to monies spent, earned, given, and donated, what's "earned" doesn't even come close to what's "spent."

This isn't really true. What happens is at most (read not all) big schools, they spend the "profits" before the year is out, so that the balance sheet is even or in the red. Why, because if they keep showing profits, the profit goes back to the general fund, or the subsidizing is reduced or eliminated. But rest assured, they are making money. It is all a matter of dates.

(09-30-2015 09:59 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It isn't glamorous, but basketball really is where genuine money can be made by most involved. I'd love to see football schools renounce that group...because they'll be treading water without them.

basketball definitely makes money, and is often devalued in conference realignment. But that is for two reasons. One, by and large, basketball can make money regardless of conference (there are limits though). Two, a lot of the money made by basketball, skips the athletic department, and goes directly to scholarship funds. Thus those in charge of the athletics department, focus more on football, where the money comes directly to them. Plus, and this is sad but I think true, they think being a football school is more "manly" or "macho." Go to an ACC board or an SEC board, and see how people talk about a "basketball school," even if said school is making a shitton more money for itself and the conference than certain football schools.

(09-30-2015 05:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  This makes no sense. More and more people take 5 years to get a bachelor's degree.

I think part of that is due to the rising cost. More and more students have to work while in school either to just support themselves, or actually pay for tuition, as compared to yesteryear, which makes them take longer. That and there are a lot more non-traditional students today, many who either don't finish or take much longer to finish and finish outside of the six year window, than before.

To give you an example I would not count as a graduate for my school, because I finished past the six year mark. So since I entered school in fall of 1997 and finished in spring of 2004, for Western Kentucky, where I spent my first three semesters before transferring, I am not counted as a graduate (just a transfer). And for the University of Maryland and Towson University, the two schools I finished at, while I was only there from 2000-2004, I believe my original time counts as I was technically a junior when arrived, and I would not count as a graduate there either.

(10-01-2015 09:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:59 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Nobody's really bringing in big money with football. They basically come back marginally above budget, if at all, and those that do are so heavily subsidized or funded by other means that, if it came down to monies spent, earned, given, and donated, what's "earned" doesn't even come close to what's "spent."

This isn't really true. What happens is at most (read not all) big schools, they spend the "profits" before the year is out, so that the balance sheet is even or in the red. Why, because if they keep showing profits, the profit goes back to the general fund, or the subsidizing is reduced or eliminated. But rest assured, they are making money. It is all a matter of dates.

The budgets are always under review. And sporadically throughout the fiscal year, audits will occur to make sure things are on-track. Where the surpluses sit, those will get sucked back into the overall institutional budget, so if schools are honestly pulling this, they either sit on their deposits/not input them into their ledgers, or the institution doesn't look in as they should. Neither are good practices. It's no secret how it works, you're right that it's a matter of dates, but better discipline would keep this accountable were it so.

This isn't about taking profits and spending it on massive pizza parties and whatnot. Because athletics are so comprehensive, and spread across multiple departments (facilities, marketing, faculty/staff, etc.), the money moves around the ledgers and transfers in and out as needed. Football operations, or the general athletic department might get the checks for season tickets and media cuts, but that has to get to the operational lines that sit outside of that one program or sphere. Really, football is just paying back the loans the school lends it toward these other areas. If football was as profitable as people made it to be, schools wouldn't need to look to their boosters, student activity fees, state governments for subsidization, loans, or even their own ledgers for additional or new funds to undertake venue projects and the like, or just annual upkeep.

The idea was always to be at least be self-sufficient. Most schools can't even do that. So, even if some claim football to make money, but defer the operational costs up the line, it's not technically profit. It's more like a trust fund brat.

(10-01-2015 11:13 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This isn't about taking profits and spending it on massive pizza parties and whatnot. Because athletics are so comprehensive, and spread across multiple departments (facilities, marketing, faculty/staff, etc.), the money moves around the ledgers and transfers in and out as needed. Football operations, or the general athletic department might get the checks for season tickets and media cuts, but that has to get to the operational lines that sit outside of that one program or sphere.

This isn't what I am referring to. What I mean is instead of reporting the profits, and then later taking profits to reinvest in projects, new initiatives, new salaries, etc. Instead they do this before the end of the year, before the accounting is complete. Often that results in the depts. "showing" in the red, but only because they spent their profits.

(10-01-2015 09:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  What happens is at most (read not all) big schools, they spend the "profits" before the year is out, so that the balance sheet is even or in the red. Why, because if they keep showing profits, the profit goes back to the general fund, or the subsidizing is reduced or eliminated. But rest assured, they are making money.

If a program ended its accounting year with a huge surplus on the books, then any subsidy they were getting from the university might be taken away for the next year, and/or donors would give less money if they saw that their six-figure donation was sitting in a bank account instead of spent on recruiting expenses or new training facilities.

It would be incompetent for an athletic director to allow records showing a huge surplus to be released to anyone outside the department. So, yes, it makes sense that an athletic department would ensure that the records released to the public show that they always spend just as much as they take in.

(10-01-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  What happens is at most (read not all) big schools, they spend the "profits" before the year is out, so that the balance sheet is even or in the red. Why, because if they keep showing profits, the profit goes back to the general fund, or the subsidizing is reduced or eliminated. But rest assured, they are making money.

If a program ended its accounting year with a huge surplus on the books, then any subsidy they were getting from the university might be taken away for the next year, and/or donors would give less money if they saw that their six-figure donation was sitting in a bank account instead of spent on recruiting expenses or new training facilities.

It would be incompetent for an athletic director to allow records showing a huge surplus to be released to anyone outside the department. So, yes, it makes sense that an athletic department would ensure that the records released to the public show that they always spend just as much as they take in.

That is what I am saying. But many people don't realize that, and they think they are truly breaking even or taking a loss. You see at depts. in many corporations as well. If you show a surplus every year, you will have your budget cut. Just ask ESPN.

Let's just do an example case. Take Minnesota: (all data per the US Dept of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/)

2013-14 season:

Football:

Total expenses: $27.8 million
Total revenues: $39.8 million

Men's Basketball:

Total expenses: $11 million
Total revenues: $13.1 million

All other sports:

Total expenses: $30.5 million
Total revenues: $15.9 million



The fact of the matter is simply that the other sports eat up the money.