Since we are constantly told that football is a big financial drain on a University unless they are P5 on this website better data tools are required to get an apples to apples comparison on spending and revenues.
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/
For this example I will be comparing MAC poster child EMU with neighboring Oakland University to see the difference in revenue having a G5 football program brings opposed to not having a FB program at all.
Eastern Michigan University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 4,961,550
Competition Guarantees 1,755,990
Donor Contributions 1,073,330
Ticket Sales 776,377
Oakland University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 1,321,263
Competition Guarantees 267,800
Donor Contributions 703,860
Ticket Sales 242,113
EMU is pulling in 8.57 million of revenue sources with its FBS program while Oakland with no FB team 2.53 million.
The EMU FB team is worth over 6 million in revenue. It spent 6.2 million on its entire coaching staff for the department.
(07-24-2019 09:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]Since we are constantly told that football is a big financial drain on a University unless they are P5 on this website better data tools are required to get an apples to apples comparison on spending and revenues.
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/
For this example I will be comparing MAC poster child EMU with neighboring Oakland University to see the difference in revenue having a G5 football program brings opposed to not having a FB program at all.
Eastern Michigan University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 4,961,550
Competition Guarantees 1,755,990
Donor Contributions 1,073,330
Ticket Sales 776,377
Oakland University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 1,321,263
Competition Guarantees 267,800
Donor Contributions 703,860
Ticket Sales 242,113
EMU is pulling in 8.57 million of revenue sources with its FBS program while Oakland with no FB team 2.53 million.
The EMU FB team is worth over 6 million in revenue. It spent 6.2 million on its entire coaching staff for the department.
And how much did EMU spend on football? How much on stadium maintenance? And a number they don't give you, depreciation on the football stadium?
Can a G5 use its revenue to fund an entire athletic department?
Boise State University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 7,026,574
Corporate Sponsorship/Marketing, Licensing 4,641,861
Donor Contributions 10,328,892
Ticket Sales 7,378,826
Competition Guarantees 546,500
Core Expenses (not including net transfers)
Facilites and Equipment 11,822,490
Coaches Compensation 8,558,520
Game Expenses and Travel 4,919,212
Boise is pulling in 29.9 million in revenue against 25.3 million in core expenses. Clearly FB is covering the expenses for the entire athletic department at Boise State.
At a place like EMU its 8.57 mil of revenue against 14.73 million of core expenses so FB is covering 58% of athletic department expenses. Revenue that is mostly tied to conference distributions and game guarantees for having that FBS football program.
(07-24-2019 09:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]Since we are constantly told that football is a big financial drain on a University unless they are P5 on this website better data tools are required to get an apples to apples comparison on spending and revenues.
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/
For this example I will be comparing MAC poster child EMU with neighboring Oakland University to see the difference in revenue having a G5 football program brings opposed to not having a FB program at all.
Eastern Michigan University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 4,961,550
Competition Guarantees 1,755,990
Donor Contributions 1,073,330
Ticket Sales 776,377
Oakland University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 1,321,263
Competition Guarantees 267,800
Donor Contributions 703,860
Ticket Sales 242,113
EMU is pulling in 8.57 million of revenue sources with its FBS program while Oakland with no FB team 2.53 million.
The EMU FB team is worth over 6 million in revenue. It spent 6.2 million on its entire coaching staff for the department.
First, you can't attribute all differences between these two schools to football. If school X has football and school Y does not, and if school X has $3m in donations and school Y has $2m in donations, you can't attribute the $1m more for X to football. They could get that amount without football, we don't know. The same applies for NCAA distributions, etc. You can't just use football as the residual catch-all explanation for differences, you have to tie money directly to football.
Second, it doesn't matter if EMU football program is worth $6m in revenue, if its football expenses - total expenses - are more than $6m, and you don't provide that information.
So basically, you have ambiguous revenue data, and no cost data, so ... we can't conclude anything from this.
This article says the football program cost more than $9m to operate in 2017:
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html
(07-25-2019 05:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2019 09:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]Since we are constantly told that football is a big financial drain on a University unless they are P5 on this website better data tools are required to get an apples to apples comparison on spending and revenues.
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/
For this example I will be comparing MAC poster child EMU with neighboring Oakland University to see the difference in revenue having a G5 football program brings opposed to not having a FB program at all.
Eastern Michigan University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 4,961,550
Competition Guarantees 1,755,990
Donor Contributions 1,073,330
Ticket Sales 776,377
Oakland University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 1,321,263
Competition Guarantees 267,800
Donor Contributions 703,860
Ticket Sales 242,113
EMU is pulling in 8.57 million of revenue sources with its FBS program while Oakland with no FB team 2.53 million.
The EMU FB team is worth over 6 million in revenue. It spent 6.2 million on its entire coaching staff for the department.
First, you can't attribute all differences between these two schools to football. If school X has football and school Y does not, and if school X has $3m in donations and school Y has $2m in donations, you can't attribute the $1m more for X to football. They could get that amount without football, we don't know. The same applies for NCAA distributions, etc. You can't just use football as the residual catch-all explanation for differences, you have to tie money directly to football.
Second, it doesn't matter if EMU football program is worth $6m in revenue, if its football expenses - total expenses - are more than $6m, and you don't provide that information.
So basically, you have ambiguous revenue data, and no cost data, so ... we can't conclude anything from this.
This article says the football program cost more than $9m to operate in 2017:
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html
But that is including scholarships.
That is like having family members stay for free at your home and then calculating the fair market hotel cost of their stays after the fact for accounting purposes.
According to the Equity in Athletics Database, which I admit isn't perfect:
EMU football generates $8.5 million (28%) in revenue vs $8.5 million (28%) in expenses. The problem is, these numbers can be massaged. They may actually have $2 million in revenue vs $8.5 million in expenses. They can take donations and other sources and move them around to make it look like football is break-even.
If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money. The professors are going to be on campus teaching either way. Adding the athletes to their classroom is not a significant increase in costs to the university. Also add in general fundraising for the school's, which typically happens after being wined and dined at a sporting event, and you see that the athletics are their way of generating donations as well. Lastly, the free publicity for your school via 2 or 3 hour commercials each fall and winter are invaluable.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
(07-25-2019 08:41 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money.
As i explained to Kitty, the notion of "taking out sunk costs" is absurd. But even if we did, I seriously doubt that. I bet 90% of G5 and below football programs still cost more than they bring in.
(07-25-2019 07:37 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 05:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2019 09:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]Since we are constantly told that football is a big financial drain on a University unless they are P5 on this website better data tools are required to get an apples to apples comparison on spending and revenues.
http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/
For this example I will be comparing MAC poster child EMU with neighboring Oakland University to see the difference in revenue having a G5 football program brings opposed to not having a FB program at all.
Eastern Michigan University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 4,961,550
Competition Guarantees 1,755,990
Donor Contributions 1,073,330
Ticket Sales 776,377
Oakland University
NCAA/Conference Distributions/Media Rights 1,321,263
Competition Guarantees 267,800
Donor Contributions 703,860
Ticket Sales 242,113
EMU is pulling in 8.57 million of revenue sources with its FBS program while Oakland with no FB team 2.53 million.
The EMU FB team is worth over 6 million in revenue. It spent 6.2 million on its entire coaching staff for the department.
First, you can't attribute all differences between these two schools to football. If school X has football and school Y does not, and if school X has $3m in donations and school Y has $2m in donations, you can't attribute the $1m more for X to football. They could get that amount without football, we don't know. The same applies for NCAA distributions, etc. You can't just use football as the residual catch-all explanation for differences, you have to tie money directly to football.
Second, it doesn't matter if EMU football program is worth $6m in revenue, if its football expenses - total expenses - are more than $6m, and you don't provide that information.
So basically, you have ambiguous revenue data, and no cost data, so ... we can't conclude anything from this.
This article says the football program cost more than $9m to operate in 2017:
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/201..._1000.html
But that is including scholarships.
That is like having family members stay for free at your home and then calculating the fair market hotel cost of their stays after the fact for accounting purposes.
Using your logic, EMU could just have free tuition and room and board for everyone, athlete or not, and it would not incur any actual costs because well the "home" is already there and it's no cost to anyone to crash there. I mean, I might as well call up Rice University right now, which charges $50,000 in tuition and say "hey, since your buildings and professors and dorms are already there, why not let me come over and live in the dorms and take classes for free, it's not costing you anything!"
That is nonsensical, so obviously the costs of a scholarship have to be included, not just for athletes but scholarships for actual academics as well. The fact that real costs are incurred is why non-scholarship students have to pay tuition, book fees, meal fees, dorm fees, etc. All those things cost money.
(07-25-2019 08:41 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money. The professors are going to be on campus teaching either way. Adding the athletes to their classroom is not a significant increase in costs to the university. Also add in general fundraising for the school's, which typically happens after being wined and dined at a sporting event, and you see that the athletics are their way of generating donations as well. Lastly, the free publicity for your school via 2 or 3 hour commercials each fall and winter are invaluable.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
not even close
there are 534 athletes at UC
OUT OF STATE tuition is $26,334, room and board for a year $11,340
so pretending that the university is charging out of state rates for 100% of the athletes (much less for the actual out of state ones) that is $37,684 per year
X 534 that is $20,123,256
subsidies for UC $26,745,506
so pretending that they are paying over double the in state tuition for 100% of the athletes at UC they are still over $6.5 million in the hole
and the advertising aspect really holds little water
not to mention as I showed in a thread using Georgia State numbers 100% of the $20 million they were subsidizing athletics pretty much cost them $20 million in research
because just using the basics of faculty pay, faculty to student ratios, and average faculty research if they used that $20 million in athletics subsidies every year to hire faculty those faculty just doing the same average research as their current faculty would have produced right at $20 million a year in research
and using north Texas state enrollment numbers there was pretty no corresponding increase in enrollment relative to massively increased athletics spending....in fact they have leveled off and their growth has dramatically slowed as their athletics spending has increased.....and their admissions requirements have not changed in over a decade and closer to a decade and a half and in fact they have gone down slightly as they worked some auto admissions deals with a few DFW metro area school districts.....and their freshman metrics have declined as well (% students in top 25% of HS class down 6% and their SATs down 10 points their ACTs are up 1 point though)
so there are two cases where the "advertising" is not paying off and where money could go towards lowering high student to faculty ratios and towards generating more research
and again for UC that was using a dramatically inflated tuition number
(07-25-2019 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 08:41 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money.
As i explained to Kitty, the notion of "taking out sunk costs" is absurd. But even if we did, I seriously doubt that. I bet 90% of G5 and below football programs still cost more than they bring in.
Tuition, room, board... it is probably $20M that is "accounted" for but real cost to UC is probably closer to 5%-10%. The professors would be there whether the 534 student athletes were there anyway considering there are over 46,000 total students. Health insurance is the biggest additional cost they could drop for those athletes. Take away the scholarship costs from the expenditure line, and UC suddenly is very close to breaking even or even profitable. Add in the donations to academics and athletics and any loss is dwarfed by the fundraising. The value of the recruiting tool for prospective students who watch games on TV is also worth millions (instead of a school having to advertise itself through 30 second ad buys).
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
(07-25-2019 11:03 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 08:41 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money.
As i explained to Kitty, the notion of "taking out sunk costs" is absurd. But even if we did, I seriously doubt that. I bet 90% of G5 and below football programs still cost more than they bring in.
Tuition, room, board... it is probably $20M that is "accounted" for but real cost to UC is probably closer to 5%-10%. The professors would be there whether the 534 student athletes were there anyway considering there are over 46,000 total students. Health insurance is the biggest additional cost they could drop for those athletes. Take away the scholarship costs from the expenditure line, and UC suddenly is very close to breaking even or even profitable. Add in the donations to academics and athletics and any loss is dwarfed by the fundraising. The value of the recruiting tool for prospective students who watch games on TV is also worth millions (instead of a school having to advertise itself through 30 second ad buys).
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
this is financial illiteracy at it's finest......you have a great job ahead of you being a financial advisor for pro athletes (that want to go broke faster than average)
how is the "real cost" 5% to 10%.......athletes food is free?
you are pretending that universities that almost always have more demand for dorm space than they have actual dorm space would just have 534 empty beds if they did not fill them with athletes so there would be no one paying to live in those rooms
athletes do not use water and utilities....they do not have people that clean their rooms.....the rooms they live in have never been remodeled and never will be remodeled they just last forever
you should teach hotel restaurant management (for hotel and restaurant managers looking to go broke)......hey that hotel room is going to be empty just rent it for 5% to 10% of what you charged everyone else it is all income!!!!
hey we have empty tables someone put on the gorilla suit and go let passers by know that we are charging 5% to 10% of menu prices first come first served!!!!
(07-25-2019 10:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 08:41 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money. The professors are going to be on campus teaching either way. Adding the athletes to their classroom is not a significant increase in costs to the university. Also add in general fundraising for the school's, which typically happens after being wined and dined at a sporting event, and you see that the athletics are their way of generating donations as well. Lastly, the free publicity for your school via 2 or 3 hour commercials each fall and winter are invaluable.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
not even close
there are 534 athletes at UC
OUT OF STATE tuition is $26,334, room and board for a year $11,340
so pretending that the university is charging out of state rates for 100% of the athletes (much less for the actual out of state ones) that is $37,684 per year
X 534 that is $20,123,256
subsidies for UC $26,745,506
so pretending that they are paying over double the in state tuition for 100% of the athletes at UC they are still over $6.5 million in the hole
and the advertising aspect really holds little water
not to mention as I showed in a thread using Georgia State numbers 100% of the $20 million they were subsidizing athletics pretty much cost them $20 million in research
because just using the basics of faculty pay, faculty to student ratios, and average faculty research if they used that $20 million in athletics subsidies every year to hire faculty those faculty just doing the same average research as their current faculty would have produced right at $20 million a year in research
and using north Texas state enrollment numbers there was pretty no corresponding increase in enrollment relative to massively increased athletics spending....in fact they have leveled off and their growth has dramatically slowed as their athletics spending has increased.....and their admissions requirements have not changed in over a decade and closer to a decade and a half and in fact they have gone down slightly as they worked some auto admissions deals with a few DFW metro area school districts.....and their freshman metrics have declined as well (% students in top 25% of HS class down 6% and their SATs down 10 points their ACTs are up 1 point though)
so there are two cases where the "advertising" is not paying off and where money could go towards lowering high student to faculty ratios and towards generating more research
and again for UC that was using a dramatically inflated tuition number
Why would the advertising and fundraising aspects not be considered in the value for the schools?
The money that comes for the $26M for subsidies comes from tuition fees every quarter, isn't out of the general fund. Then it goes right back into the school through the hand back from athletics to UC.
Lastly, the budget for the school this fiscal year is over $1.3B. Advertising for the school would be much larger without the free publicity athletics gives the school. Certainly more than the $26m in subsidies that goes right back until the school's bottom line.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
(07-25-2019 11:12 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 11:03 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 08:41 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money.
As i explained to Kitty, the notion of "taking out sunk costs" is absurd. But even if we did, I seriously doubt that. I bet 90% of G5 and below football programs still cost more than they bring in.
Tuition, room, board... it is probably $20M that is "accounted" for but real cost to UC is probably closer to 5%-10%. The professors would be there whether the 534 student athletes were there anyway considering there are over 46,000 total students. Health insurance is the biggest additional cost they could drop for those athletes. Take away the scholarship costs from the expenditure line, and UC suddenly is very close to breaking even or even profitable. Add in the donations to academics and athletics and any loss is dwarfed by the fundraising. The value of the recruiting tool for prospective students who watch games on TV is also worth millions (instead of a school having to advertise itself through 30 second ad buys).
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
this is financial illiteracy at it's finest......you have a great job ahead of you being a financial advisor for pro athletes (that want to go broke faster than average)
how is the "real cost" 5% to 10%.......athletes food is free?
you are pretending that universities that almost always have more demand for dorm space than they have actual dorm space would just have 534 empty beds if they did not fill them with athletes so there would be no one paying to live in those rooms
athletes do not use water and utilities....they do not have people that clean their rooms.....the rooms they live in have never been remodeled and never will be remodeled they just last forever
Then tell me, what are the real costs for those then? The maintenance staff are already there... again a sunk cost. Out of 46,000 students, removing 534 would make little to no change to that budget. Same goes with food prep as the athletes eat in the same cafeterias as the general student population.
The stipends are where the biggest true cost would be found.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Quo's point of view on this is the G4 runs a $35 million budget paid almost in its entirety by a $35 million dollar student fee.
The shortfall in the EMU example is closer to $8 million dollars with funding for students and admin com coming from different academic units.
It's a funding gap but hardly a critical one and definitely not spiralling out of control as EMU is not accelerating its spending.
It was UConn who decided to quit its FB conference partially because of lack of ability to compete at the AAC level. Partially because of the spiraling cost of the FB which couldn't bring in revenue with its performance.
G4 programs do bring in decent revenue. Some in the MAC are over 12 million revenue so that operational gap is even smaller.
Eastern Michigan reported a cost of $8,551,496 for Football in 2018 to the US Department of Education. They also report $8,350,989 in non categorized expenses, which comparing like G5 and D1 Basketball schools of the same type where a typical overhead is $2-4M, we can safely say the real cost of EMU football is closer to $15M a year. When the facility overhaul is added to the figure, the total is probably closer to $20M.
As noted above the football total does not include overhead or the $40M for facility overhaul underway (claims to be paid by donations). In fact more money is going into the facility upgrade project than is donated to EMich, both athletic and academic, in a decade. Yet the Athletic Department is claiming it will be 100% paid for by donations.
The State of Michigan transfers well over $20M a year in tax payer money, in the form of a an Institutional payment to the Athletic Department annually. In fact $203.4M has been transferred in the previous 9 years, and the total will be $225M or more for the decade.
2018-19: TBD
2017-18: $23,109,498
2016-17: $24,307,633
2015-16: $27,309,988
2014-15: $23,510,865
2013-14: $20,791,879
2012-13: $22,726,082
2011-12: $21,191,628
2010-11: $20,461,479
2009-10: $19,990,490
Football is the source of at least 70% of the budget shortfall. To claim it makes money requires fancy accounting tricks, moving expenses to other lines on the ledger. EMU is no stranger to fancy accounting, they are one of several schools that play games with attendance to claim they meet the 15K attendance average every other year -- just 7,000 fans a game disguise themselves as aluminum bench seats.
There is no money without the FB.
No TV money.
Marketing and game guarantees aren't worth a hill of beans.
(07-25-2019 04:51 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]There is no money without the FB.
No TV money.
Marketing and game guarantees aren't worth a hill of beans.
EMU spends $30M to get less than $10M a year in return. In addition they are draining donations to build football practice facilities.
This is a case of an athletic department bilking the State of Michigan out of nearly a quarter billion dollars to keep a football program going that has minuscule support.
You are feeding into this fraud by claiming it brings in money. Well I guess you could say buying a thousand widgets for $3 and then selling them for $1 on EBay is "bringing in money" too.
(07-25-2019 06:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 04:51 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]There is no money without the FB.
No TV money.
Marketing and game guarantees aren't worth a hill of beans.
EMU spends $30M to get less than $10M a year in return. In addition they are draining donations to build football practice facilities.
This is a case of an athletic department bilking the State of Michigan out of nearly a quarter billion dollars to keep a football program going that has minuscule support.
You are feeding into this fraud by claiming it brings in money. Well I guess you could say buying a thousand widgets for $3 and then selling them for $1 on EBay is "bringing in money" too.
How much of that $30M would never have been donated without athletics?
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
(07-25-2019 11:03 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (07-25-2019 08:41 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]If you take out the sunk cost (scholarships) every AD department in the country is making money.
As i explained to Kitty, the notion of "taking out sunk costs" is absurd. But even if we did, I seriously doubt that. I bet 90% of G5 and below football programs still cost more than they bring in.
Tuition, room, board... it is probably $20M that is "accounted" for but real cost to UC is probably closer to 5%-10%. The professors would be there whether the 534 student athletes were there anyway considering there are over 46,000 total students. Health insurance is the biggest additional cost they could drop for those athletes. Take away the scholarship costs from the expenditure line, and UC suddenly is very close to breaking even or even profitable. Add in the donations to academics and athletics and any loss is dwarfed by the fundraising. The value of the recruiting tool for prospective students who watch games on TV is also worth millions (instead of a school having to advertise itself through 30 second ad buys).
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Look at a school like Cincy: What are the scholarship costs that are charged to athletics? What are the student subsidy costs?
If the athletic 'deficit' really is just a paper deficit not a real one, then student fees and institutional transfers should = athletic scholarships. Erase the athletic scholarships which you say are bogus paper 'costs' and if athletics is paying its way there should be no need for transfers/subsidies.
Is that the case? Does a student who is socked with a $800 a semester athletic fee get a check for that fee back a month later because the money just cycles back to the academic side from athletics, it's just one big you give me a dollar and i give it back paper shuffle right?
Of course not. The students who pay the fee do not get the money back, it is sucked up by athletics. Proof of this is that if athletics ceased to exist, surely the fees would too.
At best, your argument just boils down to something (IIRC) Attackcoog once claimed, which was in effect football and other athletics does not "run a deficit" because other students cover all their costs with their mandatory fees! So it's not really a "deficit" for UC or USF, because they've managed to pass those costs on to their non-athlete students.
But even from that jaded POV, athletics isn't "paying" for itself, much less anything else, it's being paid for by the other students.
Heck, using your and Kit-Kat logic, every single student -not just athletes, everyone - who attends UC or EMU or USF should be able to attend for free - tuition, books, room, board, all for nothing - because by golly the sunk cost "infrastructure" and professors are all already there, so the campus incurs no costs when the student shows up and attends class, stays in a dorm, eats meals, etc.
Not very sensible to me.