Keep in mind, most public D-1 schools have their athletic department set up as a not for profit, 501c3 auxiliary corporation, student fees and all. Dining services, housing, parking, and recreation often work the same way.

(07-01-2017 05:19 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Actually, for a STATE (public) University, there are State boards and commissions that actually regulate tuitions (and any tuition increases) and how that money is spent.

Maybe things are different in Ohio, but I'm guessing you're just misinformed.

State funding is a huge portion of public school budgets, for most states' public universities. So yes, the state controls the purse strings of the state appropriation ... but at least in Minnesota they can't literally force the school to charge less tuition. At the end of the day, they can only remove state funding (as a last resort). Guessing same or very similar in Ohio.

(07-01-2017 05:19 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  And ALL accredited Colleges and Universities have to meet accounting standards by their accrediting agencies as to how they collect and spend money. You can actually lose your accreditation FASTER because you misspend money than over academic issues.

Guessing here you're also vastly overstating this or are completely misinformed. Sure, accounting standards probably need to be met. But that likely means systems and audits, and preventing fraud. It has nothing to do with "preventing" a school from spending unrestricted dollars on things like athletics.

Athletic revenues & budgets are extremely easy to manipulate. For example - shirt sales, parking revenue, AD office space, stadium construction (both donations and costs) - these can all legitimately placed in the athletic budget, but they don't have to be.

I've followed Cincinnati's budget numbers for a long time. They swing pretty dramatically up or down depending on the political winds. For example, back when the biggest threat was a faculty rebellion over athletic subsidies, the athletic budget mysteriously decreased. Then the biggest threat became conference reallignment, and UC was judged for having a small athletic budget, so the budget mysteriously increased by about 40%.

(07-01-2017 10:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Athletic revenues & budgets are extremely easy to manipulate. For example - shirt sales, parking revenue, AD office space, stadium construction (both donations and costs) - these can all legitimately placed in the athletic budget, but they don't have to be.

I've followed Cincinnati's budget numbers for a long time. They swing pretty dramatically up or down depending on the political winds. For example, back when the biggest threat was a faculty rebellion over athletic subsidies, the athletic budget mysteriously decreased. Then the biggest threat became conference reallignment, and UC was judged for having a small athletic budget, so the budget mysteriously increased by about 40%.

It's good to know the numbers are honest, and so are the leaders running the school

(07-01-2017 10:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Athletic revenues & budgets are extremely easy to manipulate. For example - shirt sales, parking revenue, AD office space, stadium construction (both donations and costs) - these can all legitimately placed in the athletic budget, but they don't have to be.

I've followed Cincinnati's budget numbers for a long time. They swing pretty dramatically up or down depending on the political winds. For example, back when the biggest threat was a faculty rebellion over athletic subsidies, the athletic budget mysteriously decreased. Then the biggest threat became conference reallignment, and UC was judged for having a small athletic budget, so the budget mysteriously increased by about 40%.

Exactly right. There's no outside auditing of reported athletic department finances. Within certain limits, the accountants working in the AD's office might as well ask the AD and school president, "So, what would you like our reported figures for revenue and expenses to look like this year?"

That's why you have to look at the budget numbers generally and not get caught up in close comparisons.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

these laws are good things imho.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-30-2017 01:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 11:08 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  As long as existing student fees are all within the same range they won't block anyone.

The school to be most concerned has to be Cincinnati who has the largest student fees. Plus they are losing the Big East exit fees next year.

The Big East exit fees will be replaced by increased revenue from the basketball arena, which reopens next year after a huge renovation that focused on high-revenue premium seating.

Did UC pay for the reno?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(07-01-2017 04:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2017 02:52 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Cherry picking student fees + school funds for a few institutions....

Connecticut 28.1 mil
Eastern Michigan 27.8 mil
Houston 26.0 mil

Miami 23.9 mil
Cincinnati 23.2 mil
Bowling Green 12.9 mil

Schools that are over 25 million are ultra high subsidy.

UConn is a state flagship school and Houston has a big enrollment so per student 26 million isn't too bad.

EMU has an operating budget of $307.9 million for this year. Over 9% of their budget is institutional support going to athletics, the highest in FBS.

Miami has a 23.9 million subsidy on a $715 million dollar budget. Only 3.3% of their budget is going to athletic subsidy. They could move the subsidy to 50 million and still be proportionally more thrifty than EMU.

Cincinnati has a 23.2 million subsidy on a 1.26 billion dollar budget 1.8%. To get to the 9% of EMU they'd have to be subsidizing to the tune of 139 million a year.

Bowling Green has a 12.9 million subsidy on a $288 million dollar budget for a 4.4% percent subsidy. BG has the smallest budget in the MAC but with the smallest athletic budget is still in line percentage wise with the conference. They are known to pay among the least for FB and BB coaches in the MAC.

These schools are all Strivers, Chasing the Dream, they've got a mission for university improvement that is tied to achieving Big Time athletics, as defined by P5 membership, and the sad fact is nine out of ten will never get there.

how can some of them be that stupid?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-30-2017 10:21 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Not going to bother tOSU, but could be an issue for the rest of the schools in the state.

Quote:Plus, the budget calls on the state chancellor to investigate all higher education fees charged to students and gives him the power to block a fee he does not determine to be in the best interest of students. Universities could appeal that decision to the state Controlling Board, a bipartisan legislative spending oversight panel.

From a Dispatch article on the state higher ed budget.

Bye-bye MAC. Maybe Akron and their new stadium can make it.

(07-01-2017 10:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Athletic revenues & budgets are extremely easy to manipulate. For example - shirt sales, parking revenue, AD office space, stadium construction (both donations and costs) - these can all legitimately placed in the athletic budget, but they don't have to be.

I've followed Cincinnati's budget numbers for a long time. They swing pretty dramatically up or down depending on the political winds. For example, back when the biggest threat was a faculty rebellion over athletic subsidies, the athletic budget mysteriously decreased. Then the biggest threat became conference reallignment, and UC was judged for having a small athletic budget, so the budget mysteriously increased by about 40%.

You can't hide or misaccount for core athletic spending: coaching salaries, operational budgets for teams, travel budgets for teams, operational budgets for gameday operations at facilities, and athletic scholarship dollars.

Anything beyond that, I think rightly should be up to the school to account for how they see fit. Is debt service for a new athletic facility something that belongs in the athletic dept budget, or the general school facility maintenance budget? What if it's not just a stadium, but also contains space and equipment for university IT operations??

Should the budget for a dining hall that is used mostly or even exclusively by athletes belong in the athletic dept budget, or within the operation budget of the school's dining services? What if the dining hall is technically open to all students, but is located outside the footprint of the regular campus. and/or can have chunks of time "reserved" for just the team??


Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's very easy to "complicate" such matters, beyond a first glance reasonable doubt!

(06-30-2017 10:21 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Not going to bother tOSU, but could be an issue for the rest of the schools in the state.

Quote:Plus, the budget calls on the state chancellor to investigate all higher education fees charged to students and gives him the power to block a fee he does not determine to be in the best interest of students. Universities could appeal that decision to the state Controlling Board, a bipartisan legislative spending oversight panel.

From a Dispatch article on the state higher ed budget.

Tosu will be the only public univ. sports left. What they should do is collect all the schools' sports revenue into one state pool and allocate it to the various publics in proportion to undergrad enrollment to preserve the campus athletics experience for all students, not just those in Columbus.

(07-02-2017 06:08 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 10:21 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Not going to bother tOSU, but could be an issue for the rest of the schools in the state.

Quote:Plus, the budget calls on the state chancellor to investigate all higher education fees charged to students and gives him the power to block a fee he does not determine to be in the best interest of students. Universities could appeal that decision to the state Controlling Board, a bipartisan legislative spending oversight panel.

From a Dispatch article on the state higher ed budget.

Tosu will be the only public univ. sports left. What they should do is collect all the schools' sports revenue into one state pool and allocate it to the various publics in proportion to undergrad enrollment to preserve the campus athletics experience for all students, not just those in Columbus.

(07-02-2017 06:08 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 10:21 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Not going to bother tOSU, but could be an issue for the rest of the schools in the state.

Quote:Plus, the budget calls on the state chancellor to investigate all higher education fees charged to students and gives him the power to block a fee he does not determine to be in the best interest of students. Universities could appeal that decision to the state Controlling Board, a bipartisan legislative spending oversight panel.

From a Dispatch article on the state higher ed budget.

Tosu will be the only public univ. sports left. What they should do is collect all the schools' sports revenue into one state pool and allocate it to the various publics in proportion to undergrad enrollment to preserve the campus athletics experience for all students, not just those in Columbus.

That is the price you pay for spending money not allocated for Athletics on Athletics. At some point the State will call you on it.

But I think you overstate it. Several schools are drawing less than 10% of their budget from school funds, which means they can makes some cuts and freeze pay for a few years to get that down to zero. The schools with no student fees and minimal gate are in big trouble (Akson, Wright State, Youngstown State)

(07-02-2017 08:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 06:08 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 10:21 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Not going to bother tOSU, but could be an issue for the rest of the schools in the state.

Quote:Plus, the budget calls on the state chancellor to investigate all higher education fees charged to students and gives him the power to block a fee he does not determine to be in the best interest of students. Universities could appeal that decision to the state Controlling Board, a bipartisan legislative spending oversight panel.

From a Dispatch article on the state higher ed budget.

Tosu will be the only public univ. sports left. What they should do is collect all the schools' sports revenue into one state pool and allocate it to the various publics in proportion to undergrad enrollment to preserve the campus athletics experience for all students, not just those in Columbus.

That is the price you pay for spending money not allocated for Athletics on Athletics. At some point the State will call you on it.

But I think you overstate it. Several schools are drawing less than 10% of their budget from school funds, which means they can makes some cuts and freeze pay for a few years to get that down to zero. The schools with no student fees and minimal gate are in big trouble (Akson, Wright State, Youngstown State)

A couple of things worth noting---for the most part, the state doesnt pay the budget for state colleges. Those days are long past. The state contributes toward the budget, but they dont pay anywhere near all of it. They pay about a thid of the cost on average these days.

Worse yet, the amount the states pay on a national basis is continuing to decrease, down from a peak of about 60% in 1975. If the current trend line holds, it will reach 0% by 2059. So, honestly, maybe the state shouldn't really have much say anymore. Let the market determine how the money is spent. There are plenty of colleges out there that spend very little or nothing on athletics. If you dont want any of your tuition to support athletics, then go somewhere with no athletics program. Whats wrong with a little freedom of choice? Given that the studet is carrying 2/3rds of the load---why not let the "customer" decide what he/she wants?

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

(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).

(07-02-2017 09:47 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Houston athletics is one of the worst tit suckers in the American-

Houston??? Actually, I'm fine with how the American Conference is. If you really want to go after schools known for "tit sucking " as you call it, look no further than the state of Louisiana at schools like ULM-a very notorious tit sucker on the Louisiana taxpayers, and don't forget Grambling either.

(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.

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.

(07-02-2017 09:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  A couple of things worth noting---for the most part, the state doesnt pay the budget for state colleges. Those days are long past. The state contributes toward the budget, but they dont pay anywhere near all of it. They pay about a thid of the cost on average these days.

Worse yet, the amount the states pay on a national basis is continuing to decrease, down from a peak of about 60% in 1975. If the current trend line holds, it will reach 0% by 2059. So, honestly, maybe the state shouldn't really have much say anymore. Let the market determine how the money is spent. There are plenty of colleges out there that spend very little or nothing on athletics. If you dont want any of your tuition to support athletics, then go somewhere with no athletics program. Whats wrong with a little freedom of choice? Given that the studet is carrying 2/3rds of the load---why not let the "customer" decide what he/she wants?

So it doesn't really matter if subsidies are coming from student fees or "school funds", as long as more is spent on academics and operations than what the state (taxpayers) actually provides. Nevertheless, I am glad to see the State of Ohio taking an interest in its universities; the challenge for them is going to be not appearing mean and heavy-handed if they start shutting down some sports programs (which would really reverberate throughout the G5). They will also need to determine the monetary values of university PR/marketing via sports and quality of student life when deciding what the cutoffs are going to be - difficult things to calculate.