Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rank Division I programs in your state in terms of resources
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,213
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 161
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #131
RE: Rank Division I programs in your state in terms of resources
(04-23-2017 05:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  dem coogs doh with $44.82 million in total revenue and $25.99 from the academic side

...

while of course one is spending at a massively unsustainable level from the academic side to have that "the same" budget

I know better than to get caught in this dung slinging contest ... but one point must be made clear:

it's not money "from" the "academic side". That is either a horrible misunderstanding on your part, or misinformation.


No school "takes money away" from the core mission of the school.

If you want to call it a subsidy from the school, fine. But the money is either generated, from student fees, or it's money from the general fund that was already budgeted for the athletics dept. No school says "sorry chemistry dept, I know you were supposed to get new beakers this year ... but the basketball team needed new uniforms, so that will have to wait!" 07-coffee3

If the U of Houston generates $20M in student fees for athletics, or it budgets $20M from its general fund for athletics ... then that is what it is, and nothing more can be said of that. It is sustainable. Otherwise, the CFO of the university would never have approved that.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 09:48 AM by MplsBison.)
04-23-2017 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,828
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #132
RE: Rank Division I programs in your state in terms of resources
(04-23-2017 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(04-23-2017 05:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  dem coogs doh with $44.82 million in total revenue and $25.99 from the academic side

...

while of course one is spending at a massively unsustainable level from the academic side to have that "the same" budget

I know better than to get caught in this dung slinging contest ... but one point must be made clear:

it's not money "from" the "academic side". That is either a horrible misunderstanding on your part, or misinformation.


No school "takes money away" from the core mission of the school.

If you want to call it a subsidy from the school, fine. But the money is either generated, from student fees, or it's money from the general fund that was already budgeted for the athletics dept. No school says "sorry chemistry dept, I know you were supposed to get new beakers this year ... but the basketball team needed new uniforms, so that will have to wait!" 07-coffee3

If the U of Houston generates $20M in student fees for athletics, or it budgets $20M from its general fund for athletics ... then that is what it is, and nothing more can be said of that. It is sustainable. Otherwise, the CFO of the university would never have approved that.

leave it to you of all people to get involved and of course to be totally and completely wrong

dem coogs doh generated $7.26 million in student fees for the last year in question from the USA Today link

they spent an additional $18.73 million in school funds over and above that student fee

in Texas ZERO state funding can be used for athletics so the $18.73 did not come from any state funding for "athletics support" that otherwise could not have been spent on but athletics

they have a $660 million dollar endowment so they generate $33 million or so in endowment dollars and much of those would be spoken for by the various things that were endowed with that money when it was donated.....and even if it was all just "slush money" your argument that "because they budgeted it for athletics that does not mean it came at the expense of academics" it totally ridiculous just like many of the points you fail at on this forum

so the money is not coming from endowed funds ir even if some of it is then it is VERY LITTLE of that and still if the money was not spent on athletics then it would absolutely be available to academics

that is like saying "my kid has no shoes and pants with holes in them, but I budgeted this money for eating out and cable TV so you can't blame me for wasting money on cable TV and eating out instead of sending my kid to school clothed properly.....I BUDGETED THAT MONEY FOR CABLE TV AND EATING OUT NOT KIDS CLOTHS!!!!"


and lastly to show how completely wrong you are

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...125669.php

It's also a costly gamble. UH has spent more than $21 million in each of the past three years supporting an athletics program that doesn't make enough money to sustain itself. Last year, UH gave $26 million to its athletics program - the seventh-highest subsidy in the nation, according to an annual analysis of NCAA finances by USA Today. Athletics spending has frustrated some UH faculty and has driven up the cost of attendance. Rising student fees accounted for nearly 20 percent of athletic revenue at UH in 2014.

It's a practice that UH apparently realizes it cannot keep up. Chancellor Renu Khator wrote as much in an email obtained by the Houston Chronicle. If UH does not get into a major conference soon, "it will be difficult for us to sustain it," she wrote in 2014 to a UH professor who sent her an article about college athletics spending.

"It's a big bet and we're not a cash-rich school," Jonathan Snow, the president of UH's faculty senate, said in a recent interview.

so over the last 3 years from the date of that report they spent $68+ million on athletics with only about $21 million of that coming from the dedicated student fee for athletics

who in their right mind would try and argue that a university could not have done something MAJOR for the academic side with $47 million additional dollars sent on ACADEMICS over a three year period....and that would still be with a very large $7+ million dollars a year in dedicated student fees going to athletics which is higher than a very large portion of the P5

that represents a massive number of new faculty, that represents a large portion of a major research building or that represents a massive amount of dollars available to match grants or pay graduate student stipends

but we are all suppose to believe that because "it was budgeted for athletics" buy the administration (that has admitted the amount spent was not sustainable) that academics somehow does not miss that money

that is the most brain dead argument in history

and again you can't use the "well if they got in the Big 12 and got $30 million they could cut that subsidy".......because as I have already showed the results of cutting that subsidy down to even something VERY HIGH relative to other P5 schools cuts the dem coogs doh athletics budget down to something EXTREMELY LOW relative to other P5 schools especially those in the Big 12......it would cut it down to something like $58 million with a subsidy still in the $7 million dollar range which as I showed is nowhere close to $80 million dollars with a subsidy in the $4 million dollar range......not to mention the multi-year buy in that would have happened to gain membership and the fact that Big 12 revenues per team would have ALL taken a hit
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 10:34 AM by TodgeRodge.)
04-23-2017 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ArQ Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 560
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Pitt/Louisville
Location: Most beautiful place
Post: #133
RE: Rank Division I programs in your state in terms of resources
(04-21-2017 04:41 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  
(04-21-2017 10:36 AM)sctvman Wrote:  Texas spent over $850K on new LOCKERS for the football players, maybe more (that's if there are only 85 lockers). Each locker cost $10,500. They certainly aren't hurting for money at all.
I don't know how many lockers they're getting but it's going to be a $10 million full locker room renovation.

Does Texas fill the lockers with cash (in hidden compartment)? Locker is locker. What does $10,500 locker do?
04-23-2017 06:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,828
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #134
RE: Rank Division I programs in your state in terms of resources
(04-23-2017 06:55 PM)ArQ Wrote:  
(04-21-2017 04:41 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  
(04-21-2017 10:36 AM)sctvman Wrote:  Texas spent over $850K on new LOCKERS for the football players, maybe more (that's if there are only 85 lockers). Each locker cost $10,500. They certainly aren't hurting for money at all.
I don't know how many lockers they're getting but it's going to be a $10 million full locker room renovation.

Does Texas fill the lockers with cash (in hidden compartment)? Locker is locker. What does $10,500 locker do?

unfortunately right now for Texas it attracts players that are soft, entitled, believe that their locker and the helmet sticker win games for them and it attracts the morons and fools
04-23-2017 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IAH Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 482
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #135
RE: Rank Division I programs in your state in terms of resources
(04-23-2017 10:30 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(04-23-2017 09:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(04-23-2017 05:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  dem coogs doh with $44.82 million in total revenue and $25.99 from the academic side

...

while of course one is spending at a massively unsustainable level from the academic side to have that "the same" budget

I know better than to get caught in this dung slinging contest ... but one point must be made clear:

it's not money "from" the "academic side". That is either a horrible misunderstanding on your part, or misinformation.


No school "takes money away" from the core mission of the school.

If you want to call it a subsidy from the school, fine. But the money is either generated, from student fees, or it's money from the general fund that was already budgeted for the athletics dept. No school says "sorry chemistry dept, I know you were supposed to get new beakers this year ... but the basketball team needed new uniforms, so that will have to wait!" 07-coffee3

If the U of Houston generates $20M in student fees for athletics, or it budgets $20M from its general fund for athletics ... then that is what it is, and nothing more can be said of that. It is sustainable. Otherwise, the CFO of the university would never have approved that.

leave it to you of all people to get involved and of course to be totally and completely wrong

dem coogs doh generated $7.26 million in student fees for the last year in question from the USA Today link

they spent an additional $18.73 million in school funds over and above that student fee

in Texas ZERO state funding can be used for athletics so the $18.73 did not come from any state funding for "athletics support" that otherwise could not have been spent on but athletics

they have a $660 million dollar endowment so they generate $33 million or so in endowment dollars and much of those would be spoken for by the various things that were endowed with that money when it was donated.....and even if it was all just "slush money" your argument that "because they budgeted it for athletics that does not mean it came at the expense of academics" it totally ridiculous just like many of the points you fail at on this forum

so the money is not coming from endowed funds ir even if some of it is then it is VERY LITTLE of that and still if the money was not spent on athletics then it would absolutely be available to academics

that is like saying "my kid has no shoes and pants with holes in them, but I budgeted this money for eating out and cable TV so you can't blame me for wasting money on cable TV and eating out instead of sending my kid to school clothed properly.....I BUDGETED THAT MONEY FOR CABLE TV AND EATING OUT NOT KIDS CLOTHS!!!!"


and lastly to show how completely wrong you are

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...125669.php

It's also a costly gamble. UH has spent more than $21 million in each of the past three years supporting an athletics program that doesn't make enough money to sustain itself. Last year, UH gave $26 million to its athletics program - the seventh-highest subsidy in the nation, according to an annual analysis of NCAA finances by USA Today. Athletics spending has frustrated some UH faculty and has driven up the cost of attendance. Rising student fees accounted for nearly 20 percent of athletic revenue at UH in 2014.

It's a practice that UH apparently realizes it cannot keep up. Chancellor Renu Khator wrote as much in an email obtained by the Houston Chronicle. If UH does not get into a major conference soon, "it will be difficult for us to sustain it," she wrote in 2014 to a UH professor who sent her an article about college athletics spending.

"It's a big bet and we're not a cash-rich school," Jonathan Snow, the president of UH's faculty senate, said in a recent interview.

so over the last 3 years from the date of that report they spent $68+ million on athletics with only about $21 million of that coming from the dedicated student fee for athletics

who in their right mind would try and argue that a university could not have done something MAJOR for the academic side with $47 million additional dollars sent on ACADEMICS over a three year period....and that would still be with a very large $7+ million dollars a year in dedicated student fees going to athletics which is higher than a very large portion of the P5

that represents a massive number of new faculty, that represents a large portion of a major research building or that represents a massive amount of dollars available to match grants or pay graduate student stipends

but we are all suppose to believe that because "it was budgeted for athletics" buy the administration (that has admitted the amount spent was not sustainable) that academics somehow does not miss that money

that is the most brain dead argument in history

and again you can't use the "well if they got in the Big 12 and got $30 million they could cut that subsidy".......because as I have already showed the results of cutting that subsidy down to even something VERY HIGH relative to other P5 schools cuts the dem coogs doh athletics budget down to something EXTREMELY LOW relative to other P5 schools especially those in the Big 12......it would cut it down to something like $58 million with a subsidy still in the $7 million dollar range which as I showed is nowhere close to $80 million dollars with a subsidy in the $4 million dollar range......not to mention the multi-year buy in that would have happened to gain membership and the fact that Big 12 revenues per team would have ALL taken a hit

Give me a break, try playing a cusa schedule for 20 years and see what that does to your athletic program. You are clearly worried of one day having to compete with UH on a level playing field.

Also... how can one write as much as you did without punctuation is beyond me.
04-24-2017 12:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.