(04-20-2016 03:04 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 07:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 01:55 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  Here is the list by Lowest Subsidy:

Sun Belt Numbers (National Rank in parentheses)

1. 33.15% UL-Monroe (179) - $12,953,419
2. 35.24% UL-Lafayette (119) - $23,460,508
3. 48.06% Arkansas State (91) - $29,211,785
4. 53.05% Idaho (131) - $19,950,964
5. 65.28% Georgia Southern (127) - $21,144,354
6. 65.50% Appalachian State (90) - $29,695,016
7. 67.09% UA-Little Rock (213) - $9,553,101
8. 68.59% New Mexico State (103) - $26,986,841
9. 69.73% Texas State (74) - $34,508,786
10. 70.73% South Alabama (97) - $28,101,936
11. 75.45% Troy (102) - $27,056,669
12. 76.85% Georgia State (93) - $28,982,441
13. 77.89% UT-Arlington (184) - $12,513,885
14. 83.14% Coastal Carolina (112) - $25,872,141

Christ

Say what you will, but I like where we are because of where we came from. In 2012, our budget was in the 9 mil range with an 87% subsidy. We've grown 1/3 while lowering the subsidy 10%. I'm proud of that.

USA's subsidies are largely from student fees - fees the students themselves were more than anxious to approve in order for South to field an FBS and band program. The term implies something negative but at home games, the PA announcer always asks for a round of applause for the students "who have personally paid for your South Alabama football program". It's always a standing ovation and the student section is right at mid-field and cheering during this process.

So yeah, I too am proud of that number...kudos to the students!

Our athletic program is largely financed through student fees as well. In 2004, students approved 2-1 to add to it for football, but we went in a different direction.

Question, what is USA's student fees per credit hour?

ANd classy for the announcer recognizing that.

(04-20-2016 03:04 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 07:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 01:55 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  Here is the list by Lowest Subsidy:

Sun Belt Numbers (National Rank in parentheses)

1. 33.15% UL-Monroe (179) - $12,953,419
2. 35.24% UL-Lafayette (119) - $23,460,508
3. 48.06% Arkansas State (91) - $29,211,785
4. 53.05% Idaho (131) - $19,950,964
5. 65.28% Georgia Southern (127) - $21,144,354
6. 65.50% Appalachian State (90) - $29,695,016
7. 67.09% UA-Little Rock (213) - $9,553,101
8. 68.59% New Mexico State (103) - $26,986,841
9. 69.73% Texas State (74) - $34,508,786
10. 70.73% South Alabama (97) - $28,101,936
11. 75.45% Troy (102) - $27,056,669
12. 76.85% Georgia State (93) - $28,982,441
13. 77.89% UT-Arlington (184) - $12,513,885
14. 83.14% Coastal Carolina (112) - $25,872,141

Christ

Say what you will, but I like where we are because of where we came from. In 2012, our budget was in the 9 mil range with an 87% subsidy. We've grown 1/3 while lowering the subsidy 10%. I'm proud of that.

USA's subsidies are largely from student fees - fees the students themselves were more than anxious to approve in order for South to field an FBS and band program. The term implies something negative but at home games, the PA announcer always asks for a round of applause for the students "who have personally paid for your South Alabama football program". It's always a standing ovation and the student section is right at mid-field and cheering during this process.

So yeah, I too am proud of that number...kudos to the students!

Having 70% of your budget funded by student fees is nothing to be proud of no matter how you look at it.

(04-21-2016 06:58 AM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 03:04 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 07:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 01:55 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  Here is the list by Lowest Subsidy:

Sun Belt Numbers (National Rank in parentheses)

1. 33.15% UL-Monroe (179) - $12,953,419
2. 35.24% UL-Lafayette (119) - $23,460,508
3. 48.06% Arkansas State (91) - $29,211,785
4. 53.05% Idaho (131) - $19,950,964
5. 65.28% Georgia Southern (127) - $21,144,354
6. 65.50% Appalachian State (90) - $29,695,016
7. 67.09% UA-Little Rock (213) - $9,553,101
8. 68.59% New Mexico State (103) - $26,986,841
9. 69.73% Texas State (74) - $34,508,786
10. 70.73% South Alabama (97) - $28,101,936
11. 75.45% Troy (102) - $27,056,669
12. 76.85% Georgia State (93) - $28,982,441
13. 77.89% UT-Arlington (184) - $12,513,885
14. 83.14% Coastal Carolina (112) - $25,872,141

Christ

Say what you will, but I like where we are because of where we came from. In 2012, our budget was in the 9 mil range with an 87% subsidy. We've grown 1/3 while lowering the subsidy 10%. I'm proud of that.

USA's subsidies are largely from student fees - fees the students themselves were more than anxious to approve in order for South to field an FBS and band program. The term implies something negative but at home games, the PA announcer always asks for a round of applause for the students "who have personally paid for your South Alabama football program". It's always a standing ovation and the student section is right at mid-field and cheering during this process.

So yeah, I too am proud of that number...kudos to the students!

Having 70% of your budget funded by student fees is nothing to be proud of no matter how you look at it.

Oh, okay, so the students wanted football so badly they voted by a huge margin to pay for it out of their own pockets...and they should be ashamed of what they've done? O-tay din...

(04-21-2016 01:06 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 03:04 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 07:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 01:55 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  Here is the list by Lowest Subsidy:

Sun Belt Numbers (National Rank in parentheses)

1. 33.15% UL-Monroe (179) - $12,953,419
2. 35.24% UL-Lafayette (119) - $23,460,508
3. 48.06% Arkansas State (91) - $29,211,785
4. 53.05% Idaho (131) - $19,950,964
5. 65.28% Georgia Southern (127) - $21,144,354
6. 65.50% Appalachian State (90) - $29,695,016
7. 67.09% UA-Little Rock (213) - $9,553,101
8. 68.59% New Mexico State (103) - $26,986,841
9. 69.73% Texas State (74) - $34,508,786
10. 70.73% South Alabama (97) - $28,101,936
11. 75.45% Troy (102) - $27,056,669
12. 76.85% Georgia State (93) - $28,982,441
13. 77.89% UT-Arlington (184) - $12,513,885
14. 83.14% Coastal Carolina (112) - $25,872,141

Christ

Say what you will, but I like where we are because of where we came from. In 2012, our budget was in the 9 mil range with an 87% subsidy. We've grown 1/3 while lowering the subsidy 10%. I'm proud of that.

USA's subsidies are largely from student fees - fees the students themselves were more than anxious to approve in order for South to field an FBS and band program. The term implies something negative but at home games, the PA announcer always asks for a round of applause for the students "who have personally paid for your South Alabama football program". It's always a standing ovation and the student section is right at mid-field and cheering during this process.

So yeah, I too am proud of that number...kudos to the students!

Our athletic program is largely financed through student fees as well. In 2004, students approved 2-1 to add to it for football, but we went in a different direction.

Question, what is USA's student fees per credit hour?

ANd classy for the announcer recognizing that.

Man, I'm sorry but I don't know what it is right now. Someone else can probably answer that for you.

(04-21-2016 06:58 AM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 03:04 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 07:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 01:55 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  Here is the list by Lowest Subsidy:

Sun Belt Numbers (National Rank in parentheses)

1. 33.15% UL-Monroe (179) - $12,953,419
2. 35.24% UL-Lafayette (119) - $23,460,508
3. 48.06% Arkansas State (91) - $29,211,785
4. 53.05% Idaho (131) - $19,950,964
5. 65.28% Georgia Southern (127) - $21,144,354
6. 65.50% Appalachian State (90) - $29,695,016
7. 67.09% UA-Little Rock (213) - $9,553,101
8. 68.59% New Mexico State (103) - $26,986,841
9. 69.73% Texas State (74) - $34,508,786
10. 70.73% South Alabama (97) - $28,101,936
11. 75.45% Troy (102) - $27,056,669
12. 76.85% Georgia State (93) - $28,982,441
13. 77.89% UT-Arlington (184) - $12,513,885
14. 83.14% Coastal Carolina (112) - $25,872,141

Christ

Say what you will, but I like where we are because of where we came from. In 2012, our budget was in the 9 mil range with an 87% subsidy. We've grown 1/3 while lowering the subsidy 10%. I'm proud of that.

USA's subsidies are largely from student fees - fees the students themselves were more than anxious to approve in order for South to field an FBS and band program. The term implies something negative but at home games, the PA announcer always asks for a round of applause for the students "who have personally paid for your South Alabama football program". It's always a standing ovation and the student section is right at mid-field and cheering during this process.

So yeah, I too am proud of that number...kudos to the students!

Having 70% of your budget funded by student fees is nothing to be proud of no matter how you look at it.

The alternative for South Alabama is they never start football.

If students want something, and go so far as to voting to pay for part of the programs themselves, than why is it bad that they get what they want?

We're at 48 percent, but a large portion of ours are fees that students agreed to pay to build new campus athletic facilities. In exchange, students were given equal rights as athletes to use those facilities. I don't see the big deal there...

(04-21-2016 02:54 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:58 AM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 03:04 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 07:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Christ

Say what you will, but I like where we are because of where we came from. In 2012, our budget was in the 9 mil range with an 87% subsidy. We've grown 1/3 while lowering the subsidy 10%. I'm proud of that.

USA's subsidies are largely from student fees - fees the students themselves were more than anxious to approve in order for South to field an FBS and band program. The term implies something negative but at home games, the PA announcer always asks for a round of applause for the students "who have personally paid for your South Alabama football program". It's always a standing ovation and the student section is right at mid-field and cheering during this process.

So yeah, I too am proud of that number...kudos to the students!

Having 70% of your budget funded by student fees is nothing to be proud of no matter how you look at it.

The alternative for South Alabama is they never start football.

If students want something, and go so far as to voting to pay for part of the programs themselves, than why is it bad that they get what they want?

We're at 48 percent, but a large portion of ours are fees that students agreed to pay to build new campus athletic facilities. In exchange, students were given equal rights as athletes to use those facilities. I don't see the big deal there...

Yep, and the part I forgot to add to the USA situation is the fact that it was the thousands of students themselves who signed petitions and FORCED the administration to consider their wishes for football and band in order to boost the market values of their degrees. AFAIK, the administration wasn't even seriously considering it until they learned of the petitions getting some SERIOUS support amongst the student body.

Yeah, those darned students should be ASHAMED of themselves!

Without student fees we wouldn't be FBS and without that push we wouldn't have the new baseball/softball facilities nor the stadium upgrades. Going FBS was the impetus for donations for much of that construction and, as you know, Larry hates spending money unless he's forced into it.

I couldn't find the numbers from other specific years, but I think USA's subsidy was around 77% last year and the year before slightly higher.

2006-11 was even higher, averaging over 80% with a much smaller budget.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...54955804/1

Revenue in that time period grew around 10 million, while subsidy grew 6.

So, at least we're headed in the right direction.

(04-21-2016 02:54 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:58 AM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 03:04 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 07:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:17 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Christ

Say what you will, but I like where we are because of where we came from. In 2012, our budget was in the 9 mil range with an 87% subsidy. We've grown 1/3 while lowering the subsidy 10%. I'm proud of that.

USA's subsidies are largely from student fees - fees the students themselves were more than anxious to approve in order for South to field an FBS and band program. The term implies something negative but at home games, the PA announcer always asks for a round of applause for the students "who have personally paid for your South Alabama football program". It's always a standing ovation and the student section is right at mid-field and cheering during this process.

So yeah, I too am proud of that number...kudos to the students!

Having 70% of your budget funded by student fees is nothing to be proud of no matter how you look at it.

The alternative for South Alabama is they never start football.

If students want something, and go so far as to voting to pay for part of the programs themselves, than why is it bad that they get what they want?

We're at 48 percent, but a large portion of ours are fees that students agreed to pay to build new campus athletic facilities. In exchange, students were given equal rights as athletes to use those facilities. I don't see the big deal there...

Definitely agree. i like the idea of letting the students use the facilities as well. In fact our subsidy numbers were higher as well and have dropped. So it seems we are moving in the right direction.

(04-18-2016 01:52 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 01:35 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 12:51 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 12:39 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  That's not bad for CCU considering they haven't been playing money games as of late.

$21,510,120 in total subsidy which is 83.14%

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

Can someone explain exactly what the Subsidy money consist of?

Is it state funding?
Is it Student fees?
Combination?
Something else included?

Does the state of GA allow state funding for Athletics?

This bill that they are trying to get passed in GA tells us how much of our budget is allowed to be from student fees or what they give us?

If it is student fees, and the students voted for it... why should they, the BOR, get a voice in it? Especially when they approved the fees and knew what they were for? I'd think that if they are going to change the rules mid stream, then they should at least have to abide by what they approved for the length of the note that was taking out based on our student's vote and their approval. We fear that they will not give us long to get this number in order. Something really smells here.

I'd assume it's a combination of the student fees and university directed funds.

This was something I didn't notice before.

There is a link listed as Methodology just below the original on line article.

Methodology

I was curious to see what UGA's subsidy was several years ago and even 2 years ago before their SEC Network influx of cash. But that data isn't readily available. In the link, I believe it says that they had to request this data through a FOIA from each school as the NCAA doesn't release this publicly. I guess UGA could now wait three months to tell us that they are even thinking about it should we ask for the old numbers to compare where they were and how long they have been at such a low subsidy... you know, long after a BOR might have had time to put new rules in place that threaten to kill other's FBS athletic programs.

That information would be skewed any way as they have changed the rules of how this can be reported now anyway as the link says.

Interesting stuff.

(04-18-2016 09:29 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  So according to this chart, UGA COULD conceivably subsidize 68 Million dollars and still be under a 50% rule. Yet we would need to cut our 13 million down 2/3 million to get in under the limit?

Seems like it shouldn't be a %, but rather a total limit to me. If we hit sixty eight million, yea, something needs to be done.

So to get to 0%, we need to raise revenues about 13 million... GOT it solved.
We can just play 6 more "money games" per year. That's it guys, guess we are going to just join the SEC. Why didn't we think of this sooner?

Further issue with placing an emphasis on the % Subsidy calculation.

GA Tech is at 9.42% Subsidy. But their total subsidy exceeds 7 Million! More than Half of our Total Subsidy which would have them at over 34% subsidized if they operated on our total Revenues. Yes, below the 50% potential threshold but it just shows how the % numbers aren't nearly the same and why total subsidy might be the better thing to look at.
By the same allowances, GT could easily subsidize the same total $ as us, yet be at less than 18% & UGA would be under 12%. How would that be fair? Their students would still bare the same financial responsibility of paying nearly the same total in student fees, yet it would be allowed? If this was about not putting financial burden on the State or Students - this is NOT the number that we would be seeing such weight put on.

I don't see the issue with student fees....as long as they vote and approve them.

(04-18-2016 02:14 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  Attached are a few University of Louisiana System budgetary figures in more detail for those who want the info.

ULM:
ULM 2014-2015 Calendar Year Revenues and Expenses

Southeastern Louisiana:
Southeastern 2014-2015 Calendar Year Revenues and Expenses

LaTech:
LaTech 2014-2015 Calendar Year Revenues and Expenses

UL:
UL 2014-2015 Calendar Year Revenues and Expenses

Some interesting things from these links. A decent apples-to-apples comparison since they are all from the same academic year, in the same state and presented the same way.

-ULM reported NCAA distribution of $897,088 and conference revenues of $1,372,981. Total payout equals $2,270,069.

-The Cajuns reported NCAA $1,295,517 and SBC $1,050,000. Total is $2,345,517.

-La Tech reported NCAA payout as $1,155,812 and the C-USA distribution as $1,422,273, for a total of $2,578,085.

-Southeastern La received $612,351 from the NCAA and $78,975 from the Southland Conference. Their total is $691,326.

So, the Louisiana C-USA school received $232,568 and $308,016 more than their SBC counterparts.

Now La Tech reported $1,010,717 in media rights, while the Cajuns said they received $43,070 and ULM reported nothing. Even SELa had something ($2,329). So I don't know if that's the conference's media payout, or the one the schools negotiate for radio and TV broadcast. I would have thought that any conference media deal would have been included in the conference payout, but I also have a hard time believing La Tech could get so much more than Louisiana-Lafayette. So I believe that is probably the conference's media deal.

That to me is proof that the only handicap facing the SBC is theTV deal. We know C-USA is coming down, but if the SBC can find any value in the next round, the financial situation is going to be even.

Good research, you are right