The article from yesterday:

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/page...bsidi.html

(08-25-2016 01:50 AM)emu79 Wrote:  The article from yesterday:

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/page...bsidi.html

Hmmmm......so Lake Superior State spends more per student than EMU, Western is right on our tails, and Michigan Tech and Northern are within 20%.

The subsidy, as a percentage of budget puts EMU right in the middle. Better than Wayne, Northern, Saginaw Valley, Ferris, & Oakland.... a little worse than MI Tech, GVSU, Lake Superior State, WMU & CMU.

Guess dropping down a division, or two, isn't the answer.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, shut em' all down! (Except for UM & MSU)

I can't speak for U of M, but MSU has consistently raised ticket prices, required season ticket holders to make contributions and last year raised the ugly fact that students weren't attending games like they used to. I expect the student trend to continue which means long term after they become alums they probably aren't going to be interested in attending games. Hopefully TV revenue makes up the difference. Fortunately MSU also has a great men's hoops team to generate positive revenues. Yep MSU is on the top right now but if they ever slip (think Muddy Waters, John Smith)their gate revenue will drop. By the way if I recall right there were one or two B10 schools that weren't self sufficient I believe Rutgers was one. And according to this report MSU is barely above break even which in today's word is moving a few zeros in the budget report around. We all know the P5 would like the other FBS schools to go away so they can have the world all to themselves. Revenue sharing works in professional sports but not in the collegiate world. And its the ethical smaller conferences that financially struggle while their well financed brethren pay under the table like Ole Miss. Cheaters never prosper ... unless they're in the SEC I guess.

Dear EagleTough,
Another factor why Central and Western are a bit better then Eastern, is they do not sponsor as many sports as Eastern. I think Eastern has twenty-one men's and women's teams. Most schools in The MAC average about sixteen. Big difference. Which also hurts Eastern when it comes to calculating the Reese and Jacoby Trophies.

(08-25-2016 02:14 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear EagleTough,
Another factor why Central and Western are a bit better then Eastern, is they do not sponsor as many sports as Eastern. I think Eastern has twenty-one men's and women's teams. Most schools in The MAC average about sixteen. Big difference. Which also hurts Eastern when it comes to calculating the Reese and Jacoby Trophies.

Based on this article, according to the bogus Bunsis/academia arguments, all sports at all of these schools (except MSU & EMU) should just be shut down, in order to reduce the cost of college for students.

Only problem with that argument, just like the Federal Gov't, every penny of that 'savings' would immediately be spent to pay for something/anything that would only benefit the establishment itself (higher salaries, bigger pensions, and more bureaucracy and admin), with zero corresponding benefit to the actual students, or reduced tuition.

I like Ridpath's suggestion at the end of the article. "let's see what the market will bear, show kids what they're paying, and let's let people vote with their pocketbook."

Based on EMU's ever increasing applications and enrollment, it seems to be doing just fine. https://www.emich.edu/univcomm/releases/...1443019459
If the school did away with the entire athletic program right now, it would likely be a net loss for the school.

The conspiracy theory that this information is being hidden from students, and if they only knew, everything would suddenly change, and students would leave EMU and WMU en masse, is quite the stretch. It is readily available information. As students research their school choices it's up to them and their parents to take everything into consideration, and make a decision.

If they want a school with no athletics, because the $1,200 at EMU, or $557 at Oakland is a problem, they can 'vote with their pocketbook' and go somewhere with zero athletics. Try a trade school. Go to a community college. Lot's of choices out there.

The whole system (academic & athletic) is overpriced, bloated, and ripe for reform. This is a country divided right down the middle, so I wouldn't expect a thing to change for at least 10 years or more.

Don't sweat it. Get out to the game next Friday and enjoy!

"Just more money! You know! Canada doesn't get enough money! Other countries have lots of money; we want, we want some of that money! Hu- how about- the Internet? The Internet makes lots of money! So give us some of that money!"

(08-25-2016 06:27 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  Based on this article, according to the bogus Bunsis/academia arguments, all sports at all of these schools (except MSU & EMU) should just be shut down, in order to reduce the cost of college for students.

Only problem with that argument, just like the Federal Gov't, every penny of that 'savings' would immediately be spent to pay for something/anything that would only benefit the establishment itself (higher salaries, bigger pensions, and more bureaucracy and admin), with zero corresponding benefit to the actual students, or reduced tuition.

I like Ridpath's suggestion at the end of the article. "let's see what the market will bear, show kids what they're paying, and let's let people vote with their pocketbook."

Based on EMU's ever increasing applications and enrollment, it seems to be doing just fine. https://www.emich.edu/univcomm/releases/...1443019459
If the school did away with the entire athletic program right now, it would likely be a net loss for the school.

The conspiracy theory that this information is being hidden from students, and if they only knew, everything would suddenly change, and students would leave EMU and WMU en masse, is quite the stretch. It is readily available information. As students research their school choices it's up to them and their parents to take everything into consideration, and make a decision.

If they want a school with no athletics, because the $1,200 at EMU, or $557 at Oakland is a problem, they can 'vote with their pocketbook' and go somewhere with zero athletics. Try a trade school. Go to a community college. Lot's of choices out there.

The whole system (academic & athletic) is overpriced, bloated, and ripe for reform. This is a country divided right down the middle, so I wouldn't expect a thing to change for at least 10 years or more.

Don't sweat it. Get out to the game next Friday and enjoy!

Wise words! Thank you!

(08-25-2016 06:27 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  Only problem with that argument, just like the Federal Gov't, every penny of that 'savings' would immediately be spent to pay for something/anything that would only benefit the establishment itself (higher salaries, bigger pensions, and more bureaucracy and admin), with zero corresponding benefit to the actual students, or reduced tuition.

Well of course you reward someone who cuts millions of dollars from the budget with a nice hefty pay raise or bonus. Or reward them when enrollment increases.

Back in the 1990's when the SAT was "re-centered", the Board of Trustees at North Carolina Central University gave the Chancellor a very nice pay raise because of the tremendous increase in SAT scores of their incoming freshman class (like he went out recruited the students personally). Trustees/Regents have no idea about what common sense is. Take the savings, put it back into your remaining athletic programs, find a way to use some of the savings for scholarships, and put some back into academic programs.

An update on football costs, EMU is number 5:

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016...st.html#24

(08-28-2016 11:52 AM)emu79 Wrote:  An update on football costs, EMU is number 5:

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016...st.html#24

8M isn't much for a football program which is the leading revenue producing sport.

As I have been want to do, I have suggested many times that most of the athletic revenues that EMU gets comes from FB, such as road game guarantees, payout from the NCAA for the college playoffs, ESPN monies, etc.

As others have suggested, EMU supports a LOT of sports, almost all non-revenue sports.

Quite frankly if EMU needs to save a few million it might come from non-revenue sports.

BUT, we'd have to look at MARGINAL costs, namely, how much would be saved by cutting a couple sports. Maybe not as much as we'd think.

AND... if we cut a sport which offers partial scholarships, would EMU be hurt by losing those athletes who pay most of their tuition themselves (not EMU)?

and if folks think D-II football is a panacea look at Ferris State (believe they are now very successful in the GLIAC).

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016...st.html#19

If I'm reading the slide correctly, Ferris' FB revenues were 200K!! Which is about what one would expect in D-II.

Sounds like tickets and concessions, etc. Not much else.

Probably in some D-II schools, FB is virtually a non-revenue sport.

The real question is the fixed costs, like maintaining the stadium and Convo and perhaps debt service on items like the Bubble (which by the way did it ever reopen and get fixed???). Then there's the question about how the AD salaries etc get allocated by sport. The cost of the infrastructure and the debt service costs don't go down just by eliminating sports or dropping down a division. There needs to be more details on the subsidy and what it covers. Apparently everyone likes to blame football as the problem but is it really?

(08-29-2016 04:05 AM)emu79 Wrote:  The real question is the fixed costs, like maintaining the stadium and Convo and perhaps debt service on items like the Bubble (which by the way did it ever reopen and get fixed???). Then there's the question about how the AD salaries etc get allocated by sport. The cost of the infrastructure and the debt service costs don't go down just by eliminating sports or dropping down a division. There needs to be more details on the subsidy and what it covers. Apparently everyone likes to blame football as the problem but is it really?

I think we'll see more of the costs of things like the stadium, facilities, etc. coming from donor money.

I agree on infrastructure. No one is going to shut down The Factory, Convo, baseball stadium (which is getting improved), etc.

I think the big picture is that the 27M dollar number has to go down. How far? Don't know.