http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/ncaa/...t-any-cost

This was an interesting read.

I've always feared a college bubble and what it may look like. Anything outside P5 athletics will get eaten alive if we experience a bubble.

$90 million over five years? Yikes.

Quote:Many colleges that heavily subsidize their athletic departments also serve poorer populations than colleges that can depend more on outside revenue for sports. The 50 institutions with the highest athletic subsidies averaged 44 percent more Pell Grant recipients than the 50 institutions with the lowest subsidies during 2012-13, the most recent year available.

Quote:The HuffPost/Chronicle analysis found that subsidization rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue is the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Which is why I've long said that fan interest (in the form of actual attendance) is a good measure of the true health of a program.

That was tough to read, but looking at that 25 schools with the most subsidies....what is KSU thinking.


Hooty Hoot

Quote:Hank Huckaby, chancellor of the University System of Georgia, was seated near the president in his suite. He said he remains skeptical about the viability of the football program.

He has two degrees from Georgia State and was not a proponent of adding football. His biggest concern is the financial burden on students. He says he fields as many complaints about overall student fees as any issue.

There are several interesting statements in the article, but I thought that was a pretty significant one.

There are more than a few schools whose football supporters should thank UAB. Because UATs failure to kill football really protects schools for 5 years. But this will come back and you better have BIS (but ts in seats), athletic club donations, and some local support when this movement comes back.

Now is not a good time to start losing either.

(11-16-2015 11:20 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

Quote:The HuffPost/Chronicle analysis found that subsidization rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue is the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Which is why I've long said that fan interest (in the form of actual attendance) is a good measure of the true health of a program.

I completely agree...but don't tell that to Panther fans. MEDIA MARKETZZZZ. DA DOOOOOMMEE. DA TTTTEEEDDDD.

(11-16-2015 11:20 AM)soar#417 Wrote:  That was tough to read, but looking at that 25 schools with the most subsidies....what is KSU thinking.


Hooty Hoot

That list was a proverbial who's who of FloridaJag's top SBC Expansion targets...

All publicity is good publicity.

So let me get this straight.... when you aren't winning... you are not selling tickets... you are not fund raising... then student fees then become a bigger percentage of what costs are being covered. I don't get the gotcha here. That is common sense. We have 0 wins against FBS teams at home, and 2 home wins in the past 4 years.

Also they gloss over the work PMB is doing to get the number lower, when it has dropped 12% since '09. It is down another 8% from the number they used(2010 - 2014 avg) to 76% which it is currently, and we ven't been setting any attendance records this year either. You can go back and look at the financials Doug published for that. So we are almost to that 51% - 75% range that stAte, App, Southern, Texas State, etc are in. We need to start winning. Plain and simple.

And then wait.... an academic then says money would be spent better elsewhere than athletics. Half the GT professors would tell you that, and that subsidy is less than 25%.

(11-16-2015 11:44 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:20 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

Quote:The HuffPost/Chronicle analysis found that subsidization rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue is the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Which is why I've long said that fan interest (in the form of actual attendance) is a good measure of the true health of a program.

I completely agree...but don't tell that to Panther fans. MEDIA MARKETZZZZ. DA DOOOOOMMEE. DA TTTTEEEDDDD.

I know you'd like to think that we're all clueless so you can keep getting mileage out of typing the word "MARKETZ," but we're probably paying attention to this stuff as much as any of you. (Well, probably not as much as some GS fans.) What I'd really like to see is an actual synthesis of data regarding our football program instead of a lot of "Wow, that's a lot of money, no way it's worth it." We could argue that for a ton of G5 programs, just not to the scale you see it at GSU and some others. We all know there is value in a football program beyond the ticket sales. It's about time someone took a serious look at that, beyond headlines and shock numbers.

I think folks are missing the point of this article...

This isn't a piece that slams Georgia State... it is merely using them as an example of something that each of us have to face one day(to a varying degree). You've got to read this in the MACRO.

When your primary source of revenue (students) is massively funded by subsidies (usage of Grants/Private Loans/Government Loans), you are setting yourself up for the carpet to be pulled from under you. As much as everyone here wants to point and laugh at State... realize you are likely on the same shaky ground. Which is why I'm not laughing.

The end result is the cost of education continues to rise. Along with that cost are the fees that are charged. Eventually there will be a boycott from students, especially the students that are actually working their way through school and are watching their costs. "Commuter" schools will also be hit hard. Students that don't attend, or care, about athletics will at their schools will want that fee to end.

There have been some major schools that have entertained the idea of shutting down their football program over the last 15 years. UAb was not the first, and will not be the last. If you care about your programs, you better donate, attend games and do everything you can to promote you institution.

"At Georgia State, athletic fees totaled $17.6 million in 2014, from a student population in which nearly 60 percent qualify for Pell Grants, the federal aid program for low-income students"

"Its student body, though, is especially sensitive to any extra costs. Pell-eligible students have nearly doubled since 2007, from 32 percent to 59 percent. And in 2012, more than 14,000 Georgia State students had unmet financial need, in some cases more than $15,000 a year. Despite efforts to create a more traditional college atmosphere, about three-fourths of Georgia State students still commute to campus, including many who attend part-time at night. (All fees, including those for athletics, are prorated for students who take fewer than six credit hours.)"

Sounds to me like the federal government is subsidizing a football program.

(11-16-2015 12:36 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:44 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:20 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

Quote:The HuffPost/Chronicle analysis found that subsidization rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue is the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Which is why I've long said that fan interest (in the form of actual attendance) is a good measure of the true health of a program.

I completely agree...but don't tell that to Panther fans. MEDIA MARKETZZZZ. DA DOOOOOMMEE. DA TTTTEEEDDDD.

I know you'd like to think that we're all clueless so you can keep getting mileage out of typing the word "MARKETZ," but we're probably paying attention to this stuff as much as any of you. (Well, probably not as much as some GS fans.) What I'd really like to see is an actual synthesis of data regarding our football program instead of a lot of "Wow, that's a lot of money, no way it's worth it." We could argue that for a ton of G5 programs, just not to the scale you see it at GSU and some others. We all know there is value in a football program beyond the ticket sales. It's about time someone took a serious look at that, beyond headlines and shock numbers.

I agree, the number one hindrance to productivity is cost accounting, productivity in this case being non direct revenue generated by athletics, such as increased enrollment, diversification of class offerings and diversification of the student population in general. Without a football program, I can't imagine what GS would be right now, and I'm pretty sure it was not a money maker back in '82.

(11-16-2015 11:35 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

Quote:Hank Huckaby, chancellor of the University System of Georgia, was seated near the president in his suite. He said he remains skeptical about the viability of the football program.

He has two degrees from Georgia State and was not a proponent of adding football. His biggest concern is the financial burden on students. He says he fields as many complaints about overall student fees as any issue.

There are several interesting statements in the article, but I thought that was a pretty significant one.

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article, but if there's a more significant comment than that one for GaState football fans, I'd like to see it.

(11-16-2015 11:14 AM)ButlerGSU Wrote:  $90 million over five years? Yikes.

...and the University operating budget was $3B in the same time period. This is a poorly written hit piece against G5 athletics by folks that hate college athletics. Funny that we never see articles advocating ending school newspapers, radio stations or health services. I have seen better message forum posts in this subject.

(11-16-2015 12:53 PM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  "At Georgia State, athletic fees totaled $17.6 million in 2014, from a student population in which nearly 60 percent qualify for Pell Grants, the federal aid program for low-income students"

"Its student body, though, is especially sensitive to any extra costs. Pell-eligible students have nearly doubled since 2007, from 32 percent to 59 percent. And in 2012, more than 14,000 Georgia State students had unmet financial need, in some cases more than $15,000 a year. Despite efforts to create a more traditional college atmosphere, about three-fourths of Georgia State students still commute to campus, including many who attend part-time at night. (All fees, including those for athletics, are prorated for students who take fewer than six credit hours.)"

Sounds to me like the federal government is subsidizing a football program.

Maybe Becker figures the Federal Govt is going to waive student debt so he is not too concerned with loading students from low income families with even more debt.