Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
beefcake0520 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 18
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 0
I Root For: marshall
Location:
Post: #71
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 12:32 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 11:18 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 09:30 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Which one do you think a AD can depend on when making a budget....

student fees
money usually generated by winning

Student fees are there first day in July.

Some of you are looking at this the wrong way when you look at % of money coming from student fees. Those are not going away and it's about like students paying for season tickets (usually great seats) just as those of us who buy season tickets and the donation that comes with it.

So when looking at student fees you need to look at them and the number of students. While Marshall is towards the bottom (top depending on the way you look at it) in the dollars giving to the AD in student fees. Their average per student is a lot higher than some of those schools that get a larger % of their overall money from student fees.

Other words ...

(example might not be exact numbers)
Marshall is only getting 20% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 10,000
FIU is getting 50% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 55,000

Marshall is charging their students more than FIU. So FIU has more room to grow a budget than Marshall and it's not close.

For Marshall to grow they need dollars from tickets and donations because their students are close to being at the of the amount they can afford. Western is in that same boat. The problem with that Marshall is also close to hitting their ceiling in money from tickets and donations. At least going by their historical numbers.

So Marshall who is getting less than FIU from students is kind of locked in without a source for new money growth. The only way to over come that is getting more fans in the seats and donations.

FIU can up their student fees by 100 and add 5.5 million to their budget. Marshall would need to increase student fees by $550 to get that much money. FIU is low in money from tickets and donations so if they all of a sudden start winning and drawing fans and the donations that comes with more fans. They have a larger up side on that end also

Now which school has a more health budget the one getting a lower amount of overall funds from student fees or the one that is charging students a lower amount of dollars but a larger % of overall budget coming from those fees..with room to grow on student fees?

Not a bad analysis but its a little flawed as well. Marshall's budget prior to joining CUSA was below 20 mil. The attendance didn't change much, nor did the ticket price, other than the farce facility fee that was charged and stolen by the president at that time. The only thing that has changed is we earned our way to getting P5 home games to boost average attendance somewhat and joining CUSA gave us a more valuable license fee vs. the MAC. Given MU's smaller enrollment, we should probably be at the bottom of the list, but community support and pedigree keeps us off of it.

FIU does have way more room to grow than most anyone in the conference based on your numbers, but that's about where it stops. Numbers only mean something when its applied. FAU probably has more realistic numbers to apply with nicer facilities, it would be interesting to see them do well on the field and how that affects donations, ticket sales etc. They have more potential to be the next USF, UCF than FIU does at this point. FIU just hasn't taken sports seriously, lack on facility investment is hampering them and of course Miami barely backs the Hurricanes, FIU really has no shot of doing much better with all the factors against them. I would venture to say that the room to grow more would fall to UNT. Such a large enrollment and a new stadium baffles me a bit on program interest. UTSA has tons of room to grow, its already been proven that community interest is there, they just need to give them something to cheer for. UTEP under the Mike Price (successful portion) era had amazing attendance and support. Playing down there at that time was intimidating with a packed sun bowl, I haven't looked it up, maybe their revenue at that time was higher than it is now? I dunno.

Anyways, my point is that the ceiling of a good number of CUSA programs is very high, but also next to impossible to reach.

The thing about facilities is they all age and they all can be replaced / upgraded. Like 2 new practice fields, one grass the other turf for fall:
[Image: DEJmXYNW0AAQJ7M.jpg]

Plus new Jubotron, turf and players' dinning area at the stadium. Y'all think the stadium is crap but folks consistently use it for ads and video shoots.
[Image: C8Q4z6mUwAA9kuw.jpg]

There has been upgrades/additions to baseball/bb arena seating/softball etc.

FIU's problem is not facilities, our problem is a lack of consistent success and good leadership in the AD. Two winning seasons since 14 years will not fill the seats. FIU was doing well with donations during Mario years including $2.8M in donations in 2013, the year just after he was fired (no winning season before, 2 bowls games then dud). That dropped to $152k in 2015, 3 years into Turner's era. So yeah, we can do better than we are now because we have done better before. "Win and they will come".

You are free to have your own opinion about facilities, but as far as football is concerned, it has a long ways to go. Where exactly is all the press box at anyways? There is nothing wrong with seating and it is pretty on ground level, but whats above the ground level matters a whole heck of a lot because right now you basically have no press box and this isn't your first year in CUSA. At this point in time it doesn't look like a D1A stadium. Are there any projections of when the next phase of construction will start? Winning helps a lot, but facilities help you recruit to win.

Not trying to start a facilities war, just stating the obvious.
07-12-2017 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIU4Ever Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,236
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 117
I Root For: FIU
Location:
Post: #72
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 01:23 PM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 12:32 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 11:18 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 09:30 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Which one do you think a AD can depend on when making a budget....

student fees
money usually generated by winning

Student fees are there first day in July.

Some of you are looking at this the wrong way when you look at % of money coming from student fees. Those are not going away and it's about like students paying for season tickets (usually great seats) just as those of us who buy season tickets and the donation that comes with it.

So when looking at student fees you need to look at them and the number of students. While Marshall is towards the bottom (top depending on the way you look at it) in the dollars giving to the AD in student fees. Their average per student is a lot higher than some of those schools that get a larger % of their overall money from student fees.

Other words ...

(example might not be exact numbers)
Marshall is only getting 20% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 10,000
FIU is getting 50% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 55,000

Marshall is charging their students more than FIU. So FIU has more room to grow a budget than Marshall and it's not close.

For Marshall to grow they need dollars from tickets and donations because their students are close to being at the of the amount they can afford. Western is in that same boat. The problem with that Marshall is also close to hitting their ceiling in money from tickets and donations. At least going by their historical numbers.

So Marshall who is getting less than FIU from students is kind of locked in without a source for new money growth. The only way to over come that is getting more fans in the seats and donations.

FIU can up their student fees by 100 and add 5.5 million to their budget. Marshall would need to increase student fees by $550 to get that much money. FIU is low in money from tickets and donations so if they all of a sudden start winning and drawing fans and the donations that comes with more fans. They have a larger up side on that end also

Now which school has a more health budget the one getting a lower amount of overall funds from student fees or the one that is charging students a lower amount of dollars but a larger % of overall budget coming from those fees..with room to grow on student fees?

Not a bad analysis but its a little flawed as well. Marshall's budget prior to joining CUSA was below 20 mil. The attendance didn't change much, nor did the ticket price, other than the farce facility fee that was charged and stolen by the president at that time. The only thing that has changed is we earned our way to getting P5 home games to boost average attendance somewhat and joining CUSA gave us a more valuable license fee vs. the MAC. Given MU's smaller enrollment, we should probably be at the bottom of the list, but community support and pedigree keeps us off of it.

FIU does have way more room to grow than most anyone in the conference based on your numbers, but that's about where it stops. Numbers only mean something when its applied. FAU probably has more realistic numbers to apply with nicer facilities, it would be interesting to see them do well on the field and how that affects donations, ticket sales etc. They have more potential to be the next USF, UCF than FIU does at this point. FIU just hasn't taken sports seriously, lack on facility investment is hampering them and of course Miami barely backs the Hurricanes, FIU really has no shot of doing much better with all the factors against them. I would venture to say that the room to grow more would fall to UNT. Such a large enrollment and a new stadium baffles me a bit on program interest. UTSA has tons of room to grow, its already been proven that community interest is there, they just need to give them something to cheer for. UTEP under the Mike Price (successful portion) era had amazing attendance and support. Playing down there at that time was intimidating with a packed sun bowl, I haven't looked it up, maybe their revenue at that time was higher than it is now? I dunno.

Anyways, my point is that the ceiling of a good number of CUSA programs is very high, but also next to impossible to reach.

The thing about facilities is they all age and they all can be replaced / upgraded. Like 2 new practice fields, one grass the other turf for fall:
[Image: DEJmXYNW0AAQJ7M.jpg]

Plus new Jubotron, turf and players' dinning area at the stadium. Y'all think the stadium is crap but folks consistently use it for ads and video shoots.
[Image: C8Q4z6mUwAA9kuw.jpg]

There has been upgrades/additions to baseball/bb arena seating/softball etc.

FIU's problem is not facilities, our problem is a lack of consistent success and good leadership in the AD. Two winning seasons since 14 years will not fill the seats. FIU was doing well with donations during Mario years including $2.8M in donations in 2013, the year just after he was fired (no winning season before, 2 bowls games then dud). That dropped to $152k in 2015, 3 years into Turner's era. So yeah, we can do better than we are now because we have done better before. "Win and they will come".

You are free to have your own opinion about facilities, but as far as football is concerned, it has a long ways to go. Where exactly is all the press box at anyways? There is nothing wrong with seating and it is pretty on ground level, but whats above the ground level matters a whole heck of a lot because right now you basically have no press box and this isn't your first year in CUSA. At this point in time it doesn't look like a D1A stadium. Are there any projections of when the next phase of construction will start? Winning helps a lot, but facilities help you recruit to win.

Not trying to start a facilities war, just stating the obvious.

What does a "D1A stadium" look like?
07-12-2017 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FriscoDawg Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 492
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #73
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.
The real truth is that amounts indirectly spent for athletics from the university budget are reported on the NCAA report in the categories Indirect institutional support (#6 on page 24 of the linked document) and Indirect institutional support-Athletic Facilities Debt Service, Lease and Rental Fees (#6A also on page 24). 6A is a new category just added to the NCAA report in the last couple of years.

Louisiana Tech's 2015-2016 allocated funds (subsidy) breaks down this way:
Direct institutional support (university transfer) $8,095,811
Indirect institutional support $1,451,845
Indirect institutional support-debt service $603,792
Total allocated funds $10,151,448 (matches what USA Today lists)

Indirect institutional support is how university-paid costs related to but not directly paid for by athletics are shown on the annual NCAA reports. Maintenance staff salaries paid by the university as a whole who perform at least part of their work at athletic facilities should be one of the most common items reported as indirect institutional support.

Since the direct and indirect categories became part of the NCAA reports for 2004-2005, Louisiana Tech has reported between $1.14 million and $2.09 million in that category each year. When ESPN did the FBS budget analysis instead of USA Today, it broke down the numbers by category. In 2009-2010, 49 of the 97 FBS schools reported included indirect support amounts averaging almost $2.19 million with Tennessee topping the list at $12,552,020.

And one final response to the Arkansas State posters claiming IRS numbers are being used. Amounts reported for tax compliance are not classified in the manner required for the NCAA Financial Reporting System amounts posted in the USA Today database.
07-12-2017 08:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thegoldstandard Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,430
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 240
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #74
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 08:42 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.
The real truth is that amounts indirectly spent for athletics from the university budget are reported on the NCAA report in the categories Indirect institutional support (#6 on page 24 of the linked document) and Indirect institutional support-Athletic Facilities Debt Service, Lease and Rental Fees (#6A also on page 24). 6A is a new category just added to the NCAA report in the last couple of years.

Louisiana Tech's 2015-2016 allocated funds (subsidy) breaks down this way:
Direct institutional support (university transfer) $8,095,811
Indirect institutional support $1,451,845
Indirect institutional support-debt service $603,792
Total allocated funds $10,151,448 (matches what USA Today lists)

Indirect institutional support is how university-paid costs related to but not directly paid for by athletics are shown on the annual NCAA reports. Maintenance staff salaries paid by the university as a whole who perform at least part of their work at athletic facilities should be one of the most common items reported as indirect institutional support.

Since the direct and indirect categories became part of the NCAA reports for 2004-2005, Louisiana Tech has reported between $1.14 million and $2.09 million in that category each year. When ESPN did the FBS budget analysis instead of USA Today, it broke down the numbers by category. In 2009-2010, 49 of the 97 FBS schools reported included indirect support amounts averaging almost $2.19 million with Tennessee topping the list at $12,552,020.

And one final response to the Arkansas State posters claiming IRS numbers are being used. Amounts reported for tax compliance are not classified in the manner required for the NCAA Financial Reporting System amounts posted in the USA Today database.
Is tops included those numbers? I would assume the direct inst support?
07-12-2017 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FriscoDawg Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 492
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #75
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 09:02 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 08:42 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.
The real truth is that amounts indirectly spent for athletics from the university budget are reported on the NCAA report in the categories Indirect institutional support (#6 on page 24 of the linked document) and Indirect institutional support-Athletic Facilities Debt Service, Lease and Rental Fees (#6A also on page 24). 6A is a new category just added to the NCAA report in the last couple of years.

Louisiana Tech's 2015-2016 allocated funds (subsidy) breaks down this way:
Direct institutional support (university transfer) $8,095,811
Indirect institutional support $1,451,845
Indirect institutional support-debt service $603,792
Total allocated funds $10,151,448 (matches what USA Today lists)

Indirect institutional support is how university-paid costs related to but not directly paid for by athletics are shown on the annual NCAA reports. Maintenance staff salaries paid by the university as a whole who perform at least part of their work at athletic facilities should be one of the most common items reported as indirect institutional support.

Since the direct and indirect categories became part of the NCAA reports for 2004-2005, Louisiana Tech has reported between $1.14 million and $2.09 million in that category each year. When ESPN did the FBS budget analysis instead of USA Today, it broke down the numbers by category. In 2009-2010, 49 of the 97 FBS schools reported included indirect support amounts averaging almost $2.19 million with Tennessee topping the list at $12,552,020.

And one final response to the Arkansas State posters claiming IRS numbers are being used. Amounts reported for tax compliance are not classified in the manner required for the NCAA Financial Reporting System amounts posted in the USA Today database.
Is tops included those numbers? I would assume the direct inst support?
Per Board of Regents' rules the full cost of all athletic scholarships is included in amounts allowed to be transferred that are reported as direct institutional support on the revenue side and as athletics student aid on the expense side. What little is left of TOPS should be counted in that total.
07-12-2017 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.