ETSU athletic budget (revenue) now above $12 million annually. Look at the ETSU numbers from 2006 to 2011. At almost 80% subsidized now, does the continued old worn out argument that football was dropped due to "losing $1 million a year" -- "operating at a deficit" have any legitimacy or credibility at all? Note
Student Fees among other things. Most of all,
what do these numbers suggest about the Stanton/Mullins athletic model?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...54955804/1
(06-20-2012 04:20 PM)Buc66 Wrote: [ -> ]ETSU athletic budget (revenue) now above $12 million annually. Look at the ETSU numbers from 2006 to 2011. At almost 80% subsidized now, does the continued old worn out argument that football was dropped due to "losing $1 million a year" -- "operating at a deficit" have any legitimacy or credibility at all? Note Student Fees among other things. Most of all, what do these numbers suggest about the Stanton/Mullins athletic model?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...54955804/1
That's a great question! Phrasing your question a different way might be "what happens to the money?" Looking at that list, the numbers regarding the revenues/expenses/subsidies of TSU, Austin Peay, UT-Martin, and Tennessee Tech don't measure-up to ETSU's . . . and they all have football programs. We don't have football: reasoning dictates that our expenses should be less with a lesser need for subsidy. So where does the money go?
(06-21-2012 02:22 AM)BucSinceTheSixties Wrote: [ -> ] (06-20-2012 04:20 PM)Buc66 Wrote: [ -> ]ETSU athletic budget (revenue) now above $12 million annually. Look at the ETSU numbers from 2006 to 2011. At almost 80% subsidized now, does the continued old worn out argument that football was dropped due to "losing $1 million a year" -- "operating at a deficit" have any legitimacy or credibility at all? Note Student Fees among other things. Most of all, what do these numbers suggest about the Stanton/Mullins athletic model?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...54955804/1
That's a great question! Phrasing your question a different way might be "what happens to the money?" Looking at that list, the numbers regarding the revenues/expenses/subsidies of TSU, Austin Peay, UT-Martin, and Tennessee Tech don't measure-up to ETSU's . . . and they all have football programs. We don't have football: reasoning dictates that our expenses should be less with a lesser need for subsidy. So where does the money go?
Travel maybe? OVC has alot of day trips (up and backs) while there is essentially only one or two in the ASun.
With athletics and the university as a whole being a non-profit, wouldn't our expenses have to be close to our revenue? In other words, don't we have to spend pretty much what we take in?
(06-21-2012 08:44 AM)Statman101 Wrote: [ -> ]Travel maybe? OVC has alot of day trips (up and backs) while there is essentially only one or two in the ASun.
That's a very good observation. It can't be cheap sending multiple sports teams on multiple trips to Florida.
(06-21-2012 12:32 PM)BucMania Wrote: [ -> ]With athletics and the university as a whole being a non-profit, wouldn't our expenses have to be close to our revenue? In other words, don't we have to spend pretty much what we take in?
One would think that is correct. But from where we sit, we'll never know the accounting shell games institutions play with public money...
(06-21-2012 12:52 PM)BucSinceTheSixties Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2012 12:32 PM)BucMania Wrote: [ -> ]With athletics and the university as a whole being a non-profit, wouldn't our expenses have to be close to our revenue? In other words, don't we have to spend pretty much what we take in?
One would think that is correct. But from where we sit, we'll never know the accounting shell games institutions play with public money...
I imagine higher education financing is so complex that most of us wouldn't understand it whether or not all the cards were put on the table - or even recognize whether the truth is told or not. It might be argued that some folks here WAY over-simplify and over-generalize.
The numbers say this:
1. Under the Stanton/Mullins athletic model, overall athletic spending has increased 79.1% in the nine years since football was dropped. Factoring in inflation, it has increased 56.5%. (a whole book could be written about the results obtained thereof with relation to athletics being the front porch/front window onto the university)
2. The June 5, 2012 JC Press article continues the argument that football was dropped because it was "losing $1 million a year" or "operating at a deficit". NOTE: The JC Press dug that dead horse up again and continue to try to ride him.
DOES ANYONE GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THIS?
It seems that the general complaint is that without football, ETSU has increased spending. Why would you guys assume that spending wouldn't increase? Spending in athletics on a national level has increased as astronomic levels for all divisions of athletics. With or without football, ETSU would have, and will continue, to increase spending. I looked at all the ASun, OVC, Big South, and SoCon schools listed on that database. Every single school has increased spending, most at a significant level. ETSU is really just part of a national trend. I'm not sure why that's a difficult thing to understand. Here's the data
2006 2011
App State $9 million $15.5 million
Austin Peay $4.8 million $8.8 million
Citadel $9.1 million $12.2 million
Coastal Carolina $13 million $19 million
C of C $9.4 million $12.6 million
ETSU $7.5 million $11.4 million
Eastern Illinois $8.6 million $11.7 million
Eastern Kentucky $9.4 million $12.4 million
FGCU $2.8 million $9.2 million
Georgia Southern $9.5 million $11.4 million
Jacksonville State $9.5 million $12.1 million
Kennesaw State $5.9 million $10.9 million
Morehead State $6.3 million $9.3 million
Murray State $10.3 million $13.3 million
UNC Asheville $3.3 million $4.8 million
UNC Greensboro $8.6 million $13.7 million
Radford $5.8 million $10 million
USC Upstate $3.6 million $6.5 million
SEMO $7.3 million $9.2 million
SIU Edwardsville $3.1 million $7.3 million
Tennessee State $8.3 million $10.7 million
Tenn Tech $7 million $10.7 million
UT Chattanooga $11 million $13.7 million
UT Martin $5.5 million $9.5 million
VMI $8.1 million $10.7 million
Western Carolina $7.5 million $8.7 million
Winthrop $8.9 million $10.7 million
I also don't get why all don't understand that football did indeed operate at a deficit. That is entirely true. It would also be true to say that every sport program at ETSU operates at a deficit. Football just had a significantly higher deficit. They were spending around roughly $2 million a year on football and football generated roughly $1 million a year in revenue. There's your $1 million dollar deficit. They made the decision that that deficit was too much of a burden and cut football. If you cut football, you lose the $1 million dollars of revenue per year, but you eliminate $2 million in expenses. Therefore you come out $1 million ahead of where you were. That is simple math and shouldn't be hard to understand.
Now, it's fair to argue if that was the correct decision, but to deny the actual monetary loss is silly.
(06-22-2012 02:49 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that the general complaint is that without football, ETSU has increased spending. Why would you guys assume that spending wouldn't increase? Spending in athletics on a national level has increased as astronomic levels for all divisions of athletics. With or without football, ETSU would have, and will continue, to increase spending. I looked at all the ASun, OVC, Big South, and SoCon schools listed on that database. Every single school has increased spending, most at a significant level. ETSU is really just part of a national trend. I'm not sure why that's a difficult thing to understand. Here's the data
2006 2011
App State $9 million $15.5 million
Austin Peay $4.8 million $8.8 million
Citadel $9.1 million $12.2 million
Coastal Carolina $13 million $19 million
C of C $9.4 million $12.6 million
ETSU $7.5 million $11.4 million
Eastern Illinois $8.6 million $11.7 million
Eastern Kentucky $9.4 million $12.4 million
FGCU $2.8 million $9.2 million
Georgia Southern $9.5 million $11.4 million
Jacksonville State $9.5 million $12.1 million
Kennesaw State $5.9 million $10.9 million
Morehead State $6.3 million $9.3 million
Murray State $10.3 million $13.3 million
UNC Asheville $3.3 million $4.8 million
UNC Greensboro $8.6 million $13.7 million
Radford $5.8 million $10 million
USC Upstate $3.6 million $6.5 million
SEMO $7.3 million $9.2 million
SIU Edwardsville $3.1 million $7.3 million
Tennessee State $8.3 million $10.7 million
Tenn Tech $7 million $10.7 million
UT Chattanooga $11 million $13.7 million
UT Martin $5.5 million $9.5 million
VMI $8.1 million $10.7 million
Western Carolina $7.5 million $8.7 million
Winthrop $8.9 million $10.7 million
Did not state, imply or show any misunderstanding of the fact that all schools have increased athletic spending. My basset hound knows that. Your response is completely off target, and, as usual, you try to change the topic when you can't respond to the facts on the table. Show us the data, the facts, the numbers that demonstrate that ETSU has improved its athletic image, standing, profile, front porch appeal, et al with this ever increasing spending model that it has been on for the past nine years. Then, we'll have something to talk about.
(06-22-2012 02:52 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote: [ -> ]I also don't get why all don't understand that football did indeed operate at a deficit. That is entirely true. It would also be true to say that every sport program at ETSU operates at a deficit. Football just had a significantly higher deficit. They were spending around roughly $2 million a year on football and football generated roughly $1 million a year in revenue. There's your $1 million dollar deficit. They made the decision that that deficit was too much of a burden and cut football. If you cut football, you lose the $1 million dollars of revenue per year, but you eliminate $2 million in expenses. Therefore you come out $1 million ahead of where you were. That is simple math and shouldn't be hard to understand.
Now, it's fair to argue if that was the correct decision, but to deny the actual monetary loss is silly.
I do understand that football was operating at a deficit, so would a third grader. Yea, at 80% subsidized, it is a correct conclusion that "every sport program at ETSU operates at a deficit". And, as a single sport (you're trying to compare apples and oranges), football did and should have a significantly higher dollar deficit in a highly subsidized program. It costs to play the game. You say $2 mil a year to run football that generated $1 mil in revenue, thus a $1 mil deficit. In an 80% subsidized program, covering 50% of your costs is beating the subsidy by 30%. Try grouping several of the non/low-revenue sports together that cost $2 mil a year to operate, and I guarantee you that they
ARE NOT together covering 50% of their costs, or 80%, or even 90%. So instead of $1 mil ahead of where you started, you're losing that entire $2 mil. a year -- simple math that shouldn't be hard to understand.
(06-22-2012 03:57 PM)Buc66 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-22-2012 02:52 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote: [ -> ]I also don't get why all don't understand that football did indeed operate at a deficit. That is entirely true. It would also be true to say that every sport program at ETSU operates at a deficit. Football just had a significantly higher deficit. They were spending around roughly $2 million a year on football and football generated roughly $1 million a year in revenue. There's your $1 million dollar deficit. They made the decision that that deficit was too much of a burden and cut football. If you cut football, you lose the $1 million dollars of revenue per year, but you eliminate $2 million in expenses. Therefore you come out $1 million ahead of where you were. That is simple math and shouldn't be hard to understand.
Now, it's fair to argue if that was the correct decision, but to deny the actual monetary loss is silly.
I do understand that football was operating at a deficit, so would a third grader. Yea, at 80% subsidized, it is a correct conclusion that "every sport program at ETSU operates at a deficit". And, as a single sport (you're trying to compare apples and oranges), football did and should have a significantly higher dollar deficit in a highly subsidized program. It costs to play the game. You say $2 mil a year to run football that generated $1 mil in revenue, thus a $1 mil deficit. In an 80% subsidized program, covering 50% of your costs is beating the subsidy by 30%. Try grouping several of the non/low-revenue sports together that cost $2 mil a year to operate, and I guarantee you that they ARE NOT together covering 50% of their costs, or 80%, or even 90%. So instead of $1 mil ahead of where you started, you're losing that entire $2 mil. a year -- simple math that shouldn't be hard to understand.
The bottom line of all of this is that football is one of the few sports that has a chance of coming close to paying for itself. Marketing and fundraising could make FCS football viable at our school. I believe Dr. Noland understands this and can unite the alumni and fans and get this done for the betterment of the University.
ETSU $7.5 million $11.4 million
USC Upstate $3.6 million $6.5 million
I've got a question. If we have the same sports as USC Upstate and essentially the same amount of travel, then why is our budget nearly 2X?
(06-22-2012 02:49 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that the general complaint is that without football, ETSU has increased spending. Why would you guys assume that spending wouldn't increase? Spending in athletics on a national level has increased as astronomic levels for all divisions of athletics. With or without football, ETSU would have, and will continue, to increase spending. I looked at all the ASun, OVC, Big South, and SoCon schools listed on that database. Every single school has increased spending, most at a significant level. ETSU is really just part of a national trend. I'm not sure why that's a difficult thing to understand. Here's the data
For me the general complaint is, ETSU has increased athletic spending significantly without significant improvement in key areas. Which leads to the obvious question, where is the money going?
Its one thing to say that cutting football will allow ETSU to spend and improve other sports, or "take the next step" as we were told. Well that hasn't happened. ETSU's basketball budget lags well behind peer institutions, including those with football. ETSU's basketball program has consistently eroded as the years have gone on.
I think that it is prudent to ask why, and more importantly where the increase spending money is and has gone. Student subsidies of athletics has increased, where has that money gone?
ETSU's athletic budget is a black hole. I suspect that a detailed audit would reveal a gross misallocation of resources.
.
Copied from:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...basketball
AD Mike Strickland: "The OVC offers us countless opportunities as we continue to enhance the national profile of our men's basketball program. From local rivalries with schools that resonate with our fan base, to greater exposure on the ESPN family of networks through its partnership with the OVC, we see tremendous positives from this decision. The strength and depth of the OVC is undeniable, but we have full confidence in Coach Byrd, his players and the direction of our program."
I wonder what it would take ($$$$$$) for ETSU to hire this guy? Sounds like he has leadership potential!
(07-08-2012 11:22 PM)BucSinceTheSixties Wrote: [ -> ].
Copied from: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...basketball
AD Mike Strickland: "The OVC offers us countless opportunities as we continue to enhance the national profile of our men's basketball program. From local rivalries with schools that resonate with our fan base, to greater exposure on the ESPN family of networks through its partnership with the OVC, we see tremendous positives from this decision. The strength and depth of the OVC is undeniable, but we have full confidence in Coach Byrd, his players and the direction of our program."
I wonder what it would take ($$$$$$) for ETSU to hire this guy? Sounds like he has leadership potential!
What would ETSU do with Dave?
(07-09-2012 12:22 PM)Buc66 Wrote: [ -> ]What would ETSU do with Dave?
They should stick him where the
Atlantic Sun doesn't shine!
(I'm not exactly sure what that means . . . I just felt like typing it).