Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #61
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-03-2017 07:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, re enrollment, it could be sheer coincidence. E.g., I saw a report that said Houston's Graduate School of Social Work is one of the fastest growing in the country right now. It would surprise me if many social work grad students made their attendance decision based on Houston's willingness to transfer millions in tuition to athletics each year.

Second, that choice argument seems similar to arguments that redneck companies that wanted to discriminate made 50 years ago, such as "well, we don't serve african-americans but so what, they can always choose to go to a business that does, because there are that do". Wasn't persuasive to the courts. Point is, a university exists for academics. If I'm a student and Houston has a program I think fits best for me but I also dislike my tuition going to Chase The Dream Of Big Time Athletics, I shouldn't have to possibly sacrifice that academic fit to attend a less-fitting university that isn't chasing that dream with my tuition dollars. That's a choice no student should have to make.

Student fees are bad, but at least there is a modicum (not much, but a modicum) of choice involved because usually they are the result of a student vote. Institutional transfers are even worse though because they are made by ambitious administrators without student input.

C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

Because it wasnt spot on. African Americans were singled out on the basis of race and were flat out denied the right to go to certain schools. That's an entirely different world than economic choice. Economic choice is around you everywhere. Lexus is a better car than a Camry---but more people choose Carmry's because they are cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. The courts don't require that Toyota remove options from the Lexus to make it into a Camry. Natucket cost more to live on than the Jersey Shore---but there is no court is going to require owners in Nantucket reduce their asking prices so those that want smaller mortgages can buy them. Everyone is required to have a license plate---but you dont have to pay extra for a vanity plate unless you choose to. Its up to you. If you dont want to pay for athletics, go to schools that dont spend a dime on athletics. Your in control.

Look, the states can dictate whatever they wont---but in doing so they take away freedom of choice.

First, as my original comment shows, I was talking about discrimination against African Americans by businesses, not universities. Second, I thought it went without saying that a business refusing to serve someone because they are African American is infinitely more morally reprehensible than a school forcing a student to pay an athletic fee. Obvious, and not the point.

But since that analogy proved a distraction, let me just make the point without an analogy: IMO, universities are about academics. Therefore, no student should be in the position of having to choose between paying an athletic fee they find onerous and missing out on the academic program that fits them best. E.g., if I'm a mechanical engineering major, and I determine that University X is the best fit for me in terms of convenience, class scheduling, faculty qualifications, etc., but I also find their president's feverish drive to spend my tuition money trying to dress the school up for Power Football Conference membership repellent, I shouldn't be forced to choose between (a) holding my nose and paying those fees, and (b) instead attending a school Y whose academic programs are a worse fit but doesn't have the same onerous commitment to Big Time athletics.

If the academics are the perfect fit, then the cost is the cost. Its like getting mad at Harvard because they have a fee for something you'll never get anything out of---but everything else is a perfect fit. Thats life---pay the fee and get the education you want. If the fee is that objectionable, go elsewhere. Your life. Your money. Your choice.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2017 09:01 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-03-2017 09:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #62
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-03-2017 08:51 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 07:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  C'mon. Racism? Not even in the same ballpark.

You missed the analogy, which was spot on, to complain about the form it took?

Because it wasnt spot on. African Americans were singled out on the basis of race and were flat out denied the right to go to certain schools. That's an entirely different world than economic choice. Economic choice is around you everywhere. Lexus is a better car than a Camry---but more people choose Carmry's because they are cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain. The courts don't require that Toyota remove options from the Lexus to make it into a Camry. Natucket cost more to live on than the Jersey Shore---but there is no court is going to require owners in Nantucket reduce their asking prices so those that want smaller mortgages can buy them. Everyone is required to have a license plate---but you dont have to pay extra for a vanity plate unless you choose to. Its up to you. If you dont want to pay for athletics, go to schools that dont spend a dime on athletics. Your in control.

Look, the states can dictate whatever they wont---but in doing so they take away freedom of choice.

First, as my original comment shows, I was talking about discrimination against African Americans by businesses, not universities. Second, I thought it went without saying that a business refusing to serve someone because they are African American is infinitely more morally reprehensible than a school forcing a student to pay an athletic fee. Obvious, and not the point.

But since that analogy proved a distraction, let me just make the point without an analogy: IMO, universities are about academics. Therefore, no student should be in the position of having to choose between paying an athletic fee they find onerous and missing out on the academic program that fits them best. E.g., if I'm a mechanical engineering major, and I determine that University X is the best fit for me in terms of convenience, class scheduling, faculty qualifications, etc., but I also find their president's feverish drive to spend my tuition money trying to dress the school up for Power Football Conference membership repellent, I shouldn't be forced to choose between (a) holding my nose and paying those fees, and (b) instead attending a school Y whose academic programs are a worse fit but doesn't have the same onerous commitment to Big Time athletics.


We're both USF, so please don't think of this being a douchey, but I don't believe universities are soley about academics. If all you care about is that, get an online degree from somewhere. IMO, college is about learning in all aspects including socially. The world is full of choices and I realize you are not a supporter of USF football. We didn't have football when I went to USF but I sure wish we did. I go to as many games as I can each season and donate money each year to our athletic programs. Football is only 20 years old at USF and hopefully as our alumni base continues to grow more people will donate so there is less need for internal funding. I fully support USF's desire to achieve P5 level athletics.

FWIW, USF didn't have football when I attended either, but I always have been a supporter of USF football. I attended USF from 1983-1994, and the last few years of that time was when the beginnings of football were taking shape with campus task forces studying its feasibility and the like. I voiced my support for football during that time and have supported it these past 20 years.

I also would like nothing better than for USF to achieve membership in a P5 conference, remote as that possibility seems right now. But philosophically, I don't support the massive student subsidizing of athletics.

Athletic programs can and should support themselves, via ticket sales and alumni contributions, both of which are truly voluntary and thus reflect real demand for it. Our alumni contributions are very low and ticket sales are poor. Attendance is poor at basketball and lukewarm/poor for football even with free tickets for students. It's hard to argue that there really is a strong desire for Big Time athletics at our school when the support for it just isn't there.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2017 11:08 PM by quo vadis.)
07-03-2017 11:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #63
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

1. it is a $1.3 billion dollar budget

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...BUDGET.php

2. the argument that "this is a % of that budget" is specious at best because a very large portion of that budget is not available for athletics and funds specific things that are set expenses

3. lets look at some numbers and use actual common sense instead of nonsense and we will look at the 2014-15 fiscal year because that is when numbers are readily available for everything needed

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

the athletics budget for dem coogs doh
Year.....Ticket Sales.....Contributions........Rights / Licensing......Student Fees.....School Funds.....Other......Total Revenues
2015.....$4,283,816......$6,408,388.........$7,225,130...........$7,260,060............$18,733,954........$903,862.........$44,815,210

so

A. there is no "$26 million in free money from people that have left the university" there is $18,821,196 in ticket sales, contributions, rights and licensing and "other"

so that is about $8 million short of that "free money"

B. in 2014-15 the dem coogs doh budget (page 27) was $1.1632 billion

http://www.uh.edu/finance/Departments/Bu...Budget.pdf

now lets go over that budget

$173.6 was state appropriations and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$44.9 was HEAF/NRUF and thus again not eligible to be spent on athletics

$178.1 was contracts and grants and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$49.2 was endowment income and gifts and we know the athletics contributions for that year from above ($6,408,388)

so $49.2 - $6,408,388 = $42,791,612 not generated by athletics and not donated for athletics

then there is $146 million in other operating income

so we know what athletics generated with ticket sales, $4,283,816, rights/licensing $7,225,130 so the rest was not generated by athletics

so from a budget of $1.1632 billion we have a total of $573,882,666 not eligible to be used for athletics

so that leaves $589,317,334 from tuition and other monies available to subsidize athletics

and we know that in the "tuition and FEES" there is already $7,260,060 in student fees as well so we have to subtract that

so we have $582,057,274 left to take money from and subsidize athletics with

so $18,733,954 in school funds as a subsidy from $582,057,274 in money that can actually possibly be used for athletics is 3.21% of the available funds that can subsidize athletics

and while that may not seem like a large % I can guarantee if the state mandated that dem coogs doh cut their tuition income by 3% they would complain a great deal, but they will think nothing of cutting the available money from tuition by 3% and taking it away from academic needs and putting it towards athletics

4. as for the "enrollment growth" argument

lets compare other similar universities

...........2009 enrollments....2015 enrollments....gain

north Texas State 34,781...37,175.......2,394
Texas State.........30,803...37,979 ......7,176
Texas Tech..........30,097...35,546.......5,449
dem coogs doh.....37,000...42,704.......5,704
UTA...................28,085...37,008........8,923
UTEP...................20,977...23,308 .....2,331
UTD.................15,783...24,554 .........8,771
UTSA................28,955...28,787 ...... -168

so UTA and UTD that do not have football and in the case of UTD they do not even have D1-A or D1-AA athletics had the largest enrollment gains over that period of time

Texas State that had just moved up in that time period had the next largest gain and then dem coogs doh in the mega ultra fastest growing city on earth evAR barely grew their enrollment faster than Texas Tech and then UTEP and north Texas state and UTSA with an enrollment drop in spite of adding D1-A football (in large part because of increased enrollment metrics in one large jump)

so there is clearly no real validity to the argument that spending that money on "marketing" through D1-A athletics pays off in terms of enrollment

and in the case of UTD they have a higher tuition and a much smaller athletics presence and yet their enrollment has grown dramatically in a metro area with UTA also growing very fast (and with no D1-A football) and with north Texas state just up the road in Denton

but of course what UTD HAS DONE is funnel that higher tuition (the highest of any public university in Texas by a large margin) into ACADEMIC REPUTATION and their rankings in all publications reflect that

so there is clear evidence that spending on ACADEMICS pays off because Texas State has been doing the same as well and so has UTA
07-04-2017 03:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #64
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-03-2017 11:04 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  From a UC perspective: the AD is the bulk of our university's marketing arm. If it needs to be subsidized, so be it.

Hiring managers will only hire new grads from universities they have heard of. $20 million a year is a small price to pay to ensure that a hiring manager in Los Angeles or New York has heard of UC. For EMU or Youngstown State this strategy isn't worth $20 million because they aren't getting much publicity for sports. But it works for UC.

Most college presidents understand this. That's why Huggins was forced out at UC - no matter how many wins he had, he projected a bad image for the university.

It's funny that universities, which are supposed to be bastions of science, are often run by administrators who, in defending bloated athletic subsidies, talk confidently about the benefits outweighing the cost with no evidence presented other than their gut instinct or somesuch to back it up. 07-coffee3
07-04-2017 06:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #65
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-03-2017 06:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Look, the states can dictate whatever they want---but in doing so they take away freedom of choice. Personally, I'd like to see a $10K online 4-yr degree backed by a major state supported institution that is a of solid quality, widely accepted as "legit" by the business world, and never even requires the student to step foot on campus until his graduation date. Thats whats needed to handle the highly price sensitive segment of the higher education market. There is no reason that cant be done in todays world where most everyone has access to the internet and computer.

I'm not so sure. E.g., even taking your concept of 'choice' at face value: Imagine a state with 6 state universities. Currently, all 6 spend a lot on athletics to maintain or pursue "big time" status, two of them have self-supporting athletics so no student fees or tuition transfers while the other four do not and sock their students with big fees. Then the state passes an Ohio-type law banning student fees/transfers, forcing those four schools to significantly ramp-down their athletic departments.

So before the law, students had no effective choice among state schools, all 6 were funding big time athletics, 100%. Now, after the passage of the law, 2 of them still do while 4 do not. So now the student does have choice, as there are now some schools that have big time athletics and some that do not.

In this case, the law improved student "choice" in the matter of athletics.
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2017 07:00 AM by quo vadis.)
07-04-2017 06:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #66
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-03-2017 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that at non-power schools, big-time spending on athletics is an administrator and alumni idea, not a student idea.

Then you get rid of the athletics fee and increase tuition by that much. That makes it a yearly vote by every student. If the student disagrees, then they enroll elsewhere.

Problem solved
07-04-2017 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
C2__ Offline
Caltex2
*

Posts: 23,634
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 552
I Root For: Houston, PVAMU
Location: Zamunda
Post: #67
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 03:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

1. it is a $1.3 billion dollar budget

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...BUDGET.php

2. the argument that "this is a % of that budget" is specious at best because a very large portion of that budget is not available for athletics and funds specific things that are set expenses

3. lets look at some numbers and use actual common sense instead of nonsense and we will look at the 2014-15 fiscal year because that is when numbers are readily available for everything needed

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

the athletics budget for dem coogs doh
Year.....Ticket Sales.....Contributions........Rights / Licensing......Student Fees.....School Funds.....Other......Total Revenues
2015.....$4,283,816......$6,408,388.........$7,225,130...........$7,260,060............$18,733,954........$903,862.........$44,815,210

so

A. there is no "$26 million in free money from people that have left the university" there is $18,821,196 in ticket sales, contributions, rights and licensing and "other"

so that is about $8 million short of that "free money"

B. in 2014-15 the dem coogs doh budget (page 27) was $1.1632 billion

http://www.uh.edu/finance/Departments/Bu...Budget.pdf

now lets go over that budget

$173.6 was state appropriations and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$44.9 was HEAF/NRUF and thus again not eligible to be spent on athletics

$178.1 was contracts and grants and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$49.2 was endowment income and gifts and we know the athletics contributions for that year from above ($6,408,388)

so $49.2 - $6,408,388 = $42,791,612 not generated by athletics and not donated for athletics

then there is $146 million in other operating income

so we know what athletics generated with ticket sales, $4,283,816, rights/licensing $7,225,130 so the rest was not generated by athletics

so from a budget of $1.1632 billion we have a total of $573,882,666 not eligible to be used for athletics

so that leaves $589,317,334 from tuition and other monies available to subsidize athletics

and we know that in the "tuition and FEES" there is already $7,260,060 in student fees as well so we have to subtract that

so we have $582,057,274 left to take money from and subsidize athletics with

so $18,733,954 in school funds as a subsidy from $582,057,274 in money that can actually possibly be used for athletics is 3.21% of the available funds that can subsidize athletics

and while that may not seem like a large % I can guarantee if the state mandated that dem coogs doh cut their tuition income by 3% they would complain a great deal, but they will think nothing of cutting the available money from tuition by 3% and taking it away from academic needs and putting it towards athletics

4. as for the "enrollment growth" argument

lets compare other similar universities

...........2009 enrollments....2015 enrollments....gain

north Texas State 34,781...37,175.......2,394
Texas State.........30,803...37,979 ......7,176
Texas Tech..........30,097...35,546.......5,449
dem coogs doh.....37,000...42,704.......5,704
UTA...................28,085...37,008........8,923
UTEP...................20,977...23,308 .....2,331
UTD.................15,783...24,554 .........8,771
UTSA................28,955...28,787 ...... -168

so UTA and UTD that do not have football and in the case of UTD they do not even have D1-A or D1-AA athletics had the largest enrollment gains over that period of time

Texas State that had just moved up in that time period had the next largest gain and then dem coogs doh in the mega ultra fastest growing city on earth evAR barely grew their enrollment faster than Texas Tech and then UTEP and north Texas state and UTSA with an enrollment drop in spite of adding D1-A football (in large part because of increased enrollment metrics in one large jump)

so there is clearly no real validity to the argument that spending that money on "marketing" through D1-A athletics pays off in terms of enrollment

and in the case of UTD they have a higher tuition and a much smaller athletics presence and yet their enrollment has grown dramatically in a metro area with UTA also growing very fast (and with no D1-A football) and with north Texas state just up the road in Denton

but of course what UTD HAS DONE is funnel that higher tuition (the highest of any public university in Texas by a large margin) into ACADEMIC REPUTATION and their rankings in all publications reflect that

so there is clear evidence that spending on ACADEMICS pays off because Texas State has been doing the same as well and so has UTA

Enrollment size is overrated. I'd rather be Tulane than UTSA. I'd rather be Cal than UCF. Quality and admission standards over quantity. Anyone can ballon to 50k if they let anyone in.
07-04-2017 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #68
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 11:38 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 03:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

1. it is a $1.3 billion dollar budget

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...BUDGET.php

2. the argument that "this is a % of that budget" is specious at best because a very large portion of that budget is not available for athletics and funds specific things that are set expenses

3. lets look at some numbers and use actual common sense instead of nonsense and we will look at the 2014-15 fiscal year because that is when numbers are readily available for everything needed

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

the athletics budget for dem coogs doh
Year.....Ticket Sales.....Contributions........Rights / Licensing......Student Fees.....School Funds.....Other......Total Revenues
2015.....$4,283,816......$6,408,388.........$7,225,130...........$7,260,060............$18,733,954........$903,862.........$44,815,210

so

A. there is no "$26 million in free money from people that have left the university" there is $18,821,196 in ticket sales, contributions, rights and licensing and "other"

so that is about $8 million short of that "free money"

B. in 2014-15 the dem coogs doh budget (page 27) was $1.1632 billion

http://www.uh.edu/finance/Departments/Bu...Budget.pdf

now lets go over that budget

$173.6 was state appropriations and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$44.9 was HEAF/NRUF and thus again not eligible to be spent on athletics

$178.1 was contracts and grants and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$49.2 was endowment income and gifts and we know the athletics contributions for that year from above ($6,408,388)

so $49.2 - $6,408,388 = $42,791,612 not generated by athletics and not donated for athletics

then there is $146 million in other operating income

so we know what athletics generated with ticket sales, $4,283,816, rights/licensing $7,225,130 so the rest was not generated by athletics

so from a budget of $1.1632 billion we have a total of $573,882,666 not eligible to be used for athletics

so that leaves $589,317,334 from tuition and other monies available to subsidize athletics

and we know that in the "tuition and FEES" there is already $7,260,060 in student fees as well so we have to subtract that

so we have $582,057,274 left to take money from and subsidize athletics with

so $18,733,954 in school funds as a subsidy from $582,057,274 in money that can actually possibly be used for athletics is 3.21% of the available funds that can subsidize athletics

and while that may not seem like a large % I can guarantee if the state mandated that dem coogs doh cut their tuition income by 3% they would complain a great deal, but they will think nothing of cutting the available money from tuition by 3% and taking it away from academic needs and putting it towards athletics

4. as for the "enrollment growth" argument

lets compare other similar universities

...........2009 enrollments....2015 enrollments....gain

north Texas State 34,781...37,175.......2,394
Texas State.........30,803...37,979 ......7,176
Texas Tech..........30,097...35,546.......5,449
dem coogs doh.....37,000...42,704.......5,704
UTA...................28,085...37,008........8,923
UTEP...................20,977...23,308 .....2,331
UTD.................15,783...24,554 .........8,771
UTSA................28,955...28,787 ...... -168

so UTA and UTD that do not have football and in the case of UTD they do not even have D1-A or D1-AA athletics had the largest enrollment gains over that period of time

Texas State that had just moved up in that time period had the next largest gain and then dem coogs doh in the mega ultra fastest growing city on earth evAR barely grew their enrollment faster than Texas Tech and then UTEP and north Texas state and UTSA with an enrollment drop in spite of adding D1-A football (in large part because of increased enrollment metrics in one large jump)

so there is clearly no real validity to the argument that spending that money on "marketing" through D1-A athletics pays off in terms of enrollment

and in the case of UTD they have a higher tuition and a much smaller athletics presence and yet their enrollment has grown dramatically in a metro area with UTA also growing very fast (and with no D1-A football) and with north Texas state just up the road in Denton

but of course what UTD HAS DONE is funnel that higher tuition (the highest of any public university in Texas by a large margin) into ACADEMIC REPUTATION and their rankings in all publications reflect that

so there is clear evidence that spending on ACADEMICS pays off because Texas State has been doing the same as well and so has UTA

Enrollment size is overrated. I'd rather be Tulane than UTSA. I'd rather be Cal than UCF. Quality and admission standards over quantity. Anyone can ballon to 50k if they let anyone in.

Because they are getting more applications----Houston's been able to become more selective in who they admit while increasing their enrollment. Thats really the best of both worlds. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2017 01:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-04-2017 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #69
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 11:38 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 03:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

1. it is a $1.3 billion dollar budget

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...BUDGET.php

2. the argument that "this is a % of that budget" is specious at best because a very large portion of that budget is not available for athletics and funds specific things that are set expenses

3. lets look at some numbers and use actual common sense instead of nonsense and we will look at the 2014-15 fiscal year because that is when numbers are readily available for everything needed

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

the athletics budget for dem coogs doh
Year.....Ticket Sales.....Contributions........Rights / Licensing......Student Fees.....School Funds.....Other......Total Revenues
2015.....$4,283,816......$6,408,388.........$7,225,130...........$7,260,060............$18,733,954........$903,862.........$44,815,210

so

A. there is no "$26 million in free money from people that have left the university" there is $18,821,196 in ticket sales, contributions, rights and licensing and "other"

so that is about $8 million short of that "free money"

B. in 2014-15 the dem coogs doh budget (page 27) was $1.1632 billion

http://www.uh.edu/finance/Departments/Bu...Budget.pdf

now lets go over that budget

$173.6 was state appropriations and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$44.9 was HEAF/NRUF and thus again not eligible to be spent on athletics

$178.1 was contracts and grants and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$49.2 was endowment income and gifts and we know the athletics contributions for that year from above ($6,408,388)

so $49.2 - $6,408,388 = $42,791,612 not generated by athletics and not donated for athletics

then there is $146 million in other operating income

so we know what athletics generated with ticket sales, $4,283,816, rights/licensing $7,225,130 so the rest was not generated by athletics

so from a budget of $1.1632 billion we have a total of $573,882,666 not eligible to be used for athletics

so that leaves $589,317,334 from tuition and other monies available to subsidize athletics

and we know that in the "tuition and FEES" there is already $7,260,060 in student fees as well so we have to subtract that

so we have $582,057,274 left to take money from and subsidize athletics with

so $18,733,954 in school funds as a subsidy from $582,057,274 in money that can actually possibly be used for athletics is 3.21% of the available funds that can subsidize athletics

and while that may not seem like a large % I can guarantee if the state mandated that dem coogs doh cut their tuition income by 3% they would complain a great deal, but they will think nothing of cutting the available money from tuition by 3% and taking it away from academic needs and putting it towards athletics

4. as for the "enrollment growth" argument

lets compare other similar universities

...........2009 enrollments....2015 enrollments....gain

north Texas State 34,781...37,175.......2,394
Texas State.........30,803...37,979 ......7,176
Texas Tech..........30,097...35,546.......5,449
dem coogs doh.....37,000...42,704.......5,704
UTA...................28,085...37,008........8,923
UTEP...................20,977...23,308 .....2,331
UTD.................15,783...24,554 .........8,771
UTSA................28,955...28,787 ...... -168

so UTA and UTD that do not have football and in the case of UTD they do not even have D1-A or D1-AA athletics had the largest enrollment gains over that period of time

Texas State that had just moved up in that time period had the next largest gain and then dem coogs doh in the mega ultra fastest growing city on earth evAR barely grew their enrollment faster than Texas Tech and then UTEP and north Texas state and UTSA with an enrollment drop in spite of adding D1-A football (in large part because of increased enrollment metrics in one large jump)

so there is clearly no real validity to the argument that spending that money on "marketing" through D1-A athletics pays off in terms of enrollment

and in the case of UTD they have a higher tuition and a much smaller athletics presence and yet their enrollment has grown dramatically in a metro area with UTA also growing very fast (and with no D1-A football) and with north Texas state just up the road in Denton

but of course what UTD HAS DONE is funnel that higher tuition (the highest of any public university in Texas by a large margin) into ACADEMIC REPUTATION and their rankings in all publications reflect that

so there is clear evidence that spending on ACADEMICS pays off because Texas State has been doing the same as well and so has UTA

Enrollment size is overrated. I'd rather be Tulane than UTSA. I'd rather be Cal than UCF. Quality and admission standards over quantity. Anyone can ballon to 50k if they let anyone in.

Because they are getting more applications----Houston's been able to become more selective in who they admit while increasing their enrollment. Thats really the best of both worlds. 04-cheers

but the reality is UTD in a metro area with 2 large state universities, a small state school and a number of private schools is still growing faster and they still have some of the highest freshman metrics in Texas especially for a public school

they are pretty much equal with A&M and just behind UT and doing it without athletics while their academic rep moves up rapidly
07-04-2017 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #70
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 03:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

1. it is a $1.3 billion dollar budget

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...BUDGET.php

2. the argument that "this is a % of that budget" is specious at best because a very large portion of that budget is not available for athletics and funds specific things that are set expenses

3. lets look at some numbers and use actual common sense instead of nonsense and we will look at the 2014-15 fiscal year because that is when numbers are readily available for everything needed

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

the athletics budget for dem coogs doh
Year.....Ticket Sales.....Contributions........Rights / Licensing......Student Fees.....School Funds.....Other......Total Revenues
2015.....$4,283,816......$6,408,388.........$7,225,130...........$7,260,060............$18,733,954........$903,862.........$44,815,210

so

A. there is no "$26 million in free money from people that have left the university" there is $18,821,196 in ticket sales, contributions, rights and licensing and "other"

so that is about $8 million short of that "free money"

B. in 2014-15 the dem coogs doh budget (page 27) was $1.1632 billion

http://www.uh.edu/finance/Departments/Bu...Budget.pdf

now lets go over that budget

$173.6 was state appropriations and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$44.9 was HEAF/NRUF and thus again not eligible to be spent on athletics

$178.1 was contracts and grants and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$49.2 was endowment income and gifts and we know the athletics contributions for that year from above ($6,408,388)

so $49.2 - $6,408,388 = $42,791,612 not generated by athletics and not donated for athletics

then there is $146 million in other operating income

so we know what athletics generated with ticket sales, $4,283,816, rights/licensing $7,225,130 so the rest was not generated by athletics

so from a budget of $1.1632 billion we have a total of $573,882,666 not eligible to be used for athletics

so that leaves $589,317,334 from tuition and other monies available to subsidize athletics

and we know that in the "tuition and FEES" there is already $7,260,060 in student fees as well so we have to subtract that

so we have $582,057,274 left to take money from and subsidize athletics with

so $18,733,954 in school funds as a subsidy from $582,057,274 in money that can actually possibly be used for athletics is 3.21% of the available funds that can subsidize athletics

and while that may not seem like a large % I can guarantee if the state mandated that dem coogs doh cut their tuition income by 3% they would complain a great deal, but they will think nothing of cutting the available money from tuition by 3% and taking it away from academic needs and putting it towards athletics

4. as for the "enrollment growth" argument

lets compare other similar universities

...........2009 enrollments....2015 enrollments....gain

north Texas State 34,781...37,175.......2,394
Texas State.........30,803...37,979 ......7,176
Texas Tech..........30,097...35,546.......5,449
dem coogs doh.....37,000...42,704.......5,704
UTA...................28,085...37,008........8,923
UTEP...................20,977...23,308 .....2,331
UTD.................15,783...24,554 .........8,771
UTSA................28,955...28,787 ...... -168

so UTA and UTD that do not have football and in the case of UTD they do not even have D1-A or D1-AA athletics had the largest enrollment gains over that period of time

Texas State that had just moved up in that time period had the next largest gain and then dem coogs doh in the mega ultra fastest growing city on earth evAR barely grew their enrollment faster than Texas Tech and then UTEP and north Texas state and UTSA with an enrollment drop in spite of adding D1-A football (in large part because of increased enrollment metrics in one large jump)

so there is clearly no real validity to the argument that spending that money on "marketing" through D1-A athletics pays off in terms of enrollment

and in the case of UTD they have a higher tuition and a much smaller athletics presence and yet their enrollment has grown dramatically in a metro area with UTA also growing very fast (and with no D1-A football) and with north Texas state just up the road in Denton

but of course what UTD HAS DONE is funnel that higher tuition (the highest of any public university in Texas by a large margin) into ACADEMIC REPUTATION and their rankings in all publications reflect that

so there is clear evidence that spending on ACADEMICS pays off because Texas State has been doing the same as well and so has UTA

And thats my point. There are plenty of options for those that dont want a dime of their tuition going to athletics. Let the students decide what they want. If the UH administration is incorrect, the market will let them know that.

Thus far, UH has been increasing enrollment while also becoming more selective in who they admit. The current enrollment trends appear to be exactly what the UH administration had in mind when they chose to invest more in athletics.
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2017 01:17 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-04-2017 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #71
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that at non-power schools, big-time spending on athletics is an administr. ator and alumni idea, not a student idea.

Then you get rid of the athletics fee and increase tuition by that much. That makes it a yearly vote by every student. If the student disagrees, then they enroll elsewhere.

Problem solved

A true yearly vote would be to make the athletic fee, in whatever form it takes, voluntary. If a studen wants to pay it they do, if not they don't. And yes, either way they still attend that school. Problem solved. 07-coffee3
07-04-2017 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #72
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 03:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

1. it is a $1.3 billion dollar budget

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...BUDGET.php

2. the argument that "this is a % of that budget" is specious at best because a very large portion of that budget is not available for athletics and funds specific things that are set expenses

3. lets look at some numbers and use actual common sense instead of nonsense and we will look at the 2014-15 fiscal year because that is when numbers are readily available for everything needed

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

the athletics budget for dem coogs doh
Year.....Ticket Sales.....Contributions........Rights / Licensing......Student Fees.....School Funds.....Other......Total Revenues
2015.....$4,283,816......$6,408,388.........$7,225,130...........$7,260,060............$18,733,954........$903,862.........$44,815,210

so

A. there is no "$26 million in free money from people that have left the university" there is $18,821,196 in ticket sales, contributions, rights and licensing and "other"

so that is about $8 million short of that "free money"

B. in 2014-15 the dem coogs doh budget (page 27) was $1.1632 billion

http://www.uh.edu/finance/Departments/Bu...Budget.pdf

now lets go over that budget

$173.6 was state appropriations and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$44.9 was HEAF/NRUF and thus again not eligible to be spent on athletics

$178.1 was contracts and grants and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$49.2 was endowment income and gifts and we know the athletics contributions for that year from above ($6,408,388)

so $49.2 - $6,408,388 = $42,791,612 not generated by athletics and not donated for athletics

then there is $146 million in other operating income

so we know what athletics generated with ticket sales, $4,283,816, rights/licensing $7,225,130 so the rest was not generated by athletics

so from a budget of $1.1632 billion we have a total of $573,882,666 not eligible to be used for athletics

so that leaves $589,317,334 from tuition and other monies available to subsidize athletics

and we know that in the "tuition and FEES" there is already $7,260,060 in student fees as well so we have to subtract that

so we have $582,057,274 left to take money from and subsidize athletics with

so $18,733,954 in school funds as a subsidy from $582,057,274 in money that can actually possibly be used for athletics is 3.21% of the available funds that can subsidize athletics

and while that may not seem like a large % I can guarantee if the state mandated that dem coogs doh cut their tuition income by 3% they would complain a great deal, but they will think nothing of cutting the available money from tuition by 3% and taking it away from academic needs and putting it towards athletics

4. as for the "enrollment growth" argument

lets compare other similar universities

...........2009 enrollments....2015 enrollments....gain

north Texas State 34,781...37,175.......2,394
Texas State.........30,803...37,979 ......7,176
Texas Tech..........30,097...35,546.......5,449
dem coogs doh.....37,000...42,704.......5,704
UTA...................28,085...37,008........8,923
UTEP...................20,977...23,308 .....2,331
UTD.................15,783...24,554 .........8,771
UTSA................28,955...28,787 ...... -168

so UTA and UTD that do not have football and in the case of UTD they do not even have D1-A or D1-AA athletics had the largest enrollment gains over that period of time

Texas State that had just moved up in that time period had the next largest gain and then dem coogs doh in the mega ultra fastest growing city on earth evAR barely grew their enrollment faster than Texas Tech and then UTEP and north Texas state and UTSA with an enrollment drop in spite of adding D1-A football (in large part because of increased enrollment metrics in one large jump)

so there is clearly no real validity to the argument that spending that money on "marketing" through D1-A athletics pays off in terms of enrollment

and in the case of UTD they have a higher tuition and a much smaller athletics presence and yet their enrollment has grown dramatically in a metro area with UTA also growing very fast (and with no D1-A football) and with north Texas state just up the road in Denton

but of course what UTD HAS DONE is funnel that higher tuition (the highest of any public university in Texas by a large margin) into ACADEMIC REPUTATION and their rankings in all publications reflect that

so there is clear evidence that spending on ACADEMICS pays off because Texas State has been doing the same as well and so has UTA

And thats my point. There are plenty of options for those that dont want a dime of their tuition going to athletics. Let the students decide what they want. If the UH administration is incorrect, the market will let them know that.

Thus far, UH has been increasing enrollment while also becoming more selective in who they admit. The current enrollment trends appear to be exactly what the UH administration had in mind when they chose to invest more in athletics.

but my point is there is zero indication that "investing" in athletics is the right investment over other options

because UTSA and UTD are not paying that money towards athletics and yet both have larger enrollment growth and in the case of UTD they have been rapidly moving up many different rankings systems/methods

and UTA has been investing in their academics as well and it is starting to pay off for them also

Texas State is spending on athletics and they are not having the same success and yet even without that athletics success they are still growing faster mainly because they have made changes in academics at the graduate level and in degree program offerings

they went from no engineering degrees to having their engineering enrollment being one of their largest enrollments and same with their health options and they are going to add more engineering programs soon

so academic investment is the better indicator of what students are looking for

plus with Texas State their tuition is still relatively low and more importantly their students were given a vote on their student fee increase that pays $17 million of their subsidy Vs $6 from other university sources

at dem coogs doh it is the opposite the students got a voice on the student fee that covers $7 million then the remaining $18 million the administration made that decision on their own......while crying about what the UT System spends money on ACADEMICALLY (which was not much more than dem coogs doh spend on athletics from the academic side exclusive of student approved fees)
07-04-2017 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #73
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 06:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's funny that universities, which are supposed to be bastions of science, are often run by administrators who, in defending bloated athletic subsidies, talk confidently about the benefits outweighing the cost with no evidence presented other than their gut instinct or somesuch to back it up. 07-coffee3

But it is a small subset of the group. Only about a fourth of four-year schools sponsoring athletics are Division I and only a portion of them rely on the school budget and/or students to pay half or more of the bill.

309 compete in NCAA Division II with limited athletic aid.
450 compete in NCAA Division III with no athletic scholarships.
246 compete in the NAIA with either no athletic scholarships or a restricted number.
07-04-2017 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #74
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 02:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 01:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 03:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 10:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American taking massive sums of tax payer money. Roughly $134M the last decade. The State of Texas higher education should look into that. Houston only drew $2,381,665 in 2006-07 and $2,308,000 in 2007-08. Obviously there was a policy change to go into deep debt after that season, and the debt has been piling up ever since. ("Investment" is the term they will use)

2016-17 $19,000,000 (est)
2015-16 $18,733,954
2014-15 $14,006,414
2013-14 $18,331,757
2012-13 $16,936,151
2011-12 $15,779,750
2010-11 $12,691,796
2009-10 $15,334,786
2008-09 $13,148,040

And yet, enrollment is way up and so is every academic measure. Is it possible that the better students want to experience life on a campus with a competitive athletic department? Again, its still completely within a students control as to how his tuition is spent. If he wants to attend a school where not one cent of his tuition goes to athletics---he can. Not really sure why your being so salty. Lets be honest here---athletics is essentially the marketing department of the university. UH for example has a 1.5 billion dollar budget. The 45 million dollar athletics budget (which is really effectively the schools primary marketing arm) is essentially being subsidized by alumni donations and ticket buyers (26 million in free money from folks that have already left the university). So, who is being subsidized is all in how you look at it. Its really a pretty ingenious way of getting much of your marketing paid for by others---while providing a popular amenity for existing students. The increasing enrollment and grad rates would tend to indicate this form of marketing is working well for UH (at least thus far it is).

1. it is a $1.3 billion dollar budget

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/20...BUDGET.php

2. the argument that "this is a % of that budget" is specious at best because a very large portion of that budget is not available for athletics and funds specific things that are set expenses

3. lets look at some numbers and use actual common sense instead of nonsense and we will look at the 2014-15 fiscal year because that is when numbers are readily available for everything needed

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

the athletics budget for dem coogs doh
Year.....Ticket Sales.....Contributions........Rights / Licensing......Student Fees.....School Funds.....Other......Total Revenues
2015.....$4,283,816......$6,408,388.........$7,225,130...........$7,260,060............$18,733,954........$903,862.........$44,815,210

so

A. there is no "$26 million in free money from people that have left the university" there is $18,821,196 in ticket sales, contributions, rights and licensing and "other"

so that is about $8 million short of that "free money"

B. in 2014-15 the dem coogs doh budget (page 27) was $1.1632 billion

http://www.uh.edu/finance/Departments/Bu...Budget.pdf

now lets go over that budget

$173.6 was state appropriations and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$44.9 was HEAF/NRUF and thus again not eligible to be spent on athletics

$178.1 was contracts and grants and thus not eligible to be spent on athletics

$49.2 was endowment income and gifts and we know the athletics contributions for that year from above ($6,408,388)

so $49.2 - $6,408,388 = $42,791,612 not generated by athletics and not donated for athletics

then there is $146 million in other operating income

so we know what athletics generated with ticket sales, $4,283,816, rights/licensing $7,225,130 so the rest was not generated by athletics

so from a budget of $1.1632 billion we have a total of $573,882,666 not eligible to be used for athletics

so that leaves $589,317,334 from tuition and other monies available to subsidize athletics

and we know that in the "tuition and FEES" there is already $7,260,060 in student fees as well so we have to subtract that

so we have $582,057,274 left to take money from and subsidize athletics with

so $18,733,954 in school funds as a subsidy from $582,057,274 in money that can actually possibly be used for athletics is 3.21% of the available funds that can subsidize athletics

and while that may not seem like a large % I can guarantee if the state mandated that dem coogs doh cut their tuition income by 3% they would complain a great deal, but they will think nothing of cutting the available money from tuition by 3% and taking it away from academic needs and putting it towards athletics

4. as for the "enrollment growth" argument

lets compare other similar universities

...........2009 enrollments....2015 enrollments....gain

north Texas State 34,781...37,175.......2,394
Texas State.........30,803...37,979 ......7,176
Texas Tech..........30,097...35,546.......5,449
dem coogs doh.....37,000...42,704.......5,704
UTA...................28,085...37,008........8,923
UTEP...................20,977...23,308 .....2,331
UTD.................15,783...24,554 .........8,771
UTSA................28,955...28,787 ...... -168

so UTA and UTD that do not have football and in the case of UTD they do not even have D1-A or D1-AA athletics had the largest enrollment gains over that period of time

Texas State that had just moved up in that time period had the next largest gain and then dem coogs doh in the mega ultra fastest growing city on earth evAR barely grew their enrollment faster than Texas Tech and then UTEP and north Texas state and UTSA with an enrollment drop in spite of adding D1-A football (in large part because of increased enrollment metrics in one large jump)

so there is clearly no real validity to the argument that spending that money on "marketing" through D1-A athletics pays off in terms of enrollment

and in the case of UTD they have a higher tuition and a much smaller athletics presence and yet their enrollment has grown dramatically in a metro area with UTA also growing very fast (and with no D1-A football) and with north Texas state just up the road in Denton

but of course what UTD HAS DONE is funnel that higher tuition (the highest of any public university in Texas by a large margin) into ACADEMIC REPUTATION and their rankings in all publications reflect that

so there is clear evidence that spending on ACADEMICS pays off because Texas State has been doing the same as well and so has UTA

And thats my point. There are plenty of options for those that dont want a dime of their tuition going to athletics. Let the students decide what they want. If the UH administration is incorrect, the market will let them know that.

Thus far, UH has been increasing enrollment while also becoming more selective in who they admit. The current enrollment trends appear to be exactly what the UH administration had in mind when they chose to invest more in athletics.

but my point is there is zero indication that "investing" in athletics is the right investment over other options

because UTSA and UTD are not paying that money towards athletics and yet both have larger enrollment growth and in the case of UTD they have been rapidly moving up many different rankings systems/methods

and UTA has been investing in their academics as well and it is starting to pay off for them also

Texas State is spending on athletics and they are not having the same success and yet even without that athletics success they are still growing faster mainly because they have made changes in academics at the graduate level and in degree program offerings

they went from no engineering degrees to having their engineering enrollment being one of their largest enrollments and same with their health options and they are going to add more engineering programs soon

so academic investment is the better indicator of what students are looking for

plus with Texas State their tuition is still relatively low and more importantly their students were given a vote on their student fee increase that pays $17 million of their subsidy Vs $6 from other university sources

at dem coogs doh it is the opposite the students got a voice on the student fee that covers $7 million then the remaining $18 million the administration made that decision on their own......while crying about what the UT System spends money on ACADEMICALLY (which was not much more than dem coogs doh spend on athletics from the academic side exclusive of student approved fees)

A few things worth mentioning, UH has invested significant dollars and efforts in improving academics---it hasnt been all about athletics.

As for the relatively modest UH investment in athletics, I think your leaving out a significant part of the picture. Private donated funds accounted for half of the new stadium cost, half of the basketball arena renovation, and all of the basketball training center, and all the IPF. That almost 140 million in private "free money" the athletic department collected primarily due to its increased spending and performance in athletics. That doesnt include privately raised funds used to upgrade the football locker room, the baseball field (new artificial surface/new scoreboard/new clubhouse-training facility currently under construction), or the renovation of the track and field facilities.

In addition, the university has a billion dollar capital fund raising effort underway (announced within the last year) that is already approaching 800 million in pledged funds. Frankly, I dont think that would have been possible without the good will and higher profile the recent athletics success has brought to the university.

These two items, along with increasing enrollment, increasing applications, and the ability to raise freshman standards while growing enrollment--all appear to be indications that the the relatively modest investment in athletics has been a significant net positive for the school.

So, to say there is no evidence that the schools investment in athletics is having a positive affect on the university is, at the very minimum, an overstatement.
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2017 06:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-04-2017 06:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #75
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 06:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-03-2017 11:04 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  From a UC perspective: the AD is the bulk of our university's marketing arm. If it needs to be subsidized, so be it.

Hiring managers will only hire new grads from universities they have heard of. $20 million a year is a small price to pay to ensure that a hiring manager in Los Angeles or New York has heard of UC. For EMU or Youngstown State this strategy isn't worth $20 million because they aren't getting much publicity for sports. But it works for UC.

Most college presidents understand this. That's why Huggins was forced out at UC - no matter how many wins he had, he projected a bad image for the university.

It's funny that universities, which are supposed to be bastions of science, are often run by administrators who, in defending bloated athletic subsidies, talk confidently about the benefits outweighing the cost with no evidence presented other than their gut instinct or somesuch to back it up. 07-coffee3

I know what you mean. My undergraduate institution (a D-3 school) had a new president who wasted $4 million to advertise our school on MTV in 2003.

But UC gets a 2-3 hour advertisement on national TV 15-20 times a year. We get mentioned tens of thousands of times on nightly news and newspapers all over the country. That's worth way more than $20 million.
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2017 12:55 AM by Captain Bearcat.)
07-05-2017 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,176
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #76
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-05-2017 12:55 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I know what you mean. My undergraduate institution (a D-3 school) had a new president who wasted $4 million to advertise our school on MTV in 2003.

But UC gets a 2-3 hour advertisement on national TV 15-20 times a year. We get mentioned tens of thousands of times on nightly news and newspapers all over the country. That's worth way more than $20 million.

I doubt it. The audience is primarily Joe six-pack and not Mr. Big-Bucks donor nor corporate research grant director nor even a mass audience of honor students considering their college choices.

The ROI is not there because it's an undirected campaign, which doesn't make much sense unless you are selling Walmart products like Bud Lite or Tide.
07-05-2017 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #77
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-04-2017 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A true yearly vote would be to make the athletic fee, in whatever form it takes, voluntary. If a studen wants to pay it they do, if not they don't. And yes, either way they still attend that school. Problem solved. 07-coffee3

That solution doesn't work as well, because then you incur the cost and hassle of the vote every year.

Tuition is tuition, nothing to vote on ... except if you decide not to enroll there because you think it is too high.
07-05-2017 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #78
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-05-2017 02:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(07-05-2017 12:55 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I know what you mean. My undergraduate institution (a D-3 school) had a new president who wasted $4 million to advertise our school on MTV in 2003.

But UC gets a 2-3 hour advertisement on national TV 15-20 times a year. We get mentioned tens of thousands of times on nightly news and newspapers all over the country. That's worth way more than $20 million.

I doubt it. The audience is primarily Joe six-pack and not Mr. Big-Bucks donor nor corporate research grant director nor even a mass audience of honor students considering their college choices.

The ROI is not there because it's an undirected campaign, which doesn't make much sense unless you are selling Walmart products like Bud Lite or Tide.

It doesnt matter. As a result of being an D1-FBS school with a television TV contract, most any child will be bombarded with literally heard hundreds---perhaps even thousands--of audio or video mentions of the school coming from newspaper articles, radio news spots, radio sports broadcasts, or televised games. That will occur day after day for his/her entire childhood, long before he/she even considers where they might go to college, they will slowly become familiar with the school name and will begin to have a perception of that university. At the LEAST effective level, this subtle subconscious wave of marketing creates an image in a childs head that the schools is "big time" and might allow their mailer to not hit the trash can when his senior year rolls around. At its MOST effective level, it actually indoctrinates some kids into the fandom of the school's sports teams so there is no doubt where that kid is going when it comes time to pick a school. At its most effective, this type of advertising literally allows the school to weave itself into the culture of a region.

That said, for this type of marketing to do it best work, the games need to be on a big common platform thats easy to find and even easier to stumble on to when just channel surfing. ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, and ESPN are probably the best for this. ESPN2, FS1, and ESPNU are next in line. Your not getting nearly as much mileage out of your investment if your games on are something like ASN, MW-Digital Network, or ESPN3. The concept still works---just not as well.
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2017 08:02 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-05-2017 07:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #79
RE: State of Ohio Looking into Banning or Limiting Athletic Subsidies
(07-05-2017 07:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A true yearly vote would be to make the athletic fee, in whatever form it takes, voluntary. If a studen wants to pay it they do, if not they don't. And yes, either way they still attend that school. Problem solved. 07-coffee3

That solution doesn't work as well, because then you incur the cost and hassle of the vote every year.

Tuition is tuition, nothing to vote on ... except if you decide not to enroll there because you think it is too high.

I think I made a mistake in how I expressed myself in the last post. By a "yearly vote", I didn't mean an annual vote of the whole student body to impose or not impose a fee on the whole student body. I was actually referring to no vote at all, meaning no ability by the school or fellow students to impose a fee an athletic fee on an unwilling student. So the "annual vote" would take the form of each student choosing, at the time he/she pays their bill for the coming year, to either pay an athletic fee or not pay it. Those who want to support athletics via a fee added to their tuition would pay it, those that didn't, wouldn't.

True choice. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2017 08:48 AM by quo vadis.)
07-05-2017 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.