(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

The University of Michigan is running a $240 Million athletics debt. I'm sure their programs will eventually crumble.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/201...ics-debt-a

(07-02-2017 09:50 PM)fanhood Wrote:  Here are the basketball budgets for 2016-2017... for comparison's sake...

AAC
12) University of Memphis 11,226,419
17) University of Connecticut 9,516,308
43) University of Cincinnati 7,421,986
53) Southern Methodist University 7,086,547
56) Wichita State University 6,920,933
70) University of Tulsa 6,174,244
76) University of Houston 6,023,125
78) Temple University 5,920,903
92) University of South Florida-Main Campus 4,711,026
102) Tulane University of Louisiana 3,987,379
119) East Carolina University 3,187,963
120) University of Central Florida 3,166,282
 
MWC
79) San Diego State University 5,734,713
86) University of Nevada-Las Vegas 5,386,263
95) Colorado State University-Fort Collins 4,264,867
103) University of New Mexico-Main Campus 3,736,179
105) University of Wyoming 3,702,699
113) Utah State University 3,363,296
118) California State University-Fresno 3,234,934
152) Boise State University 2,503,447
169) University of Nevada-Reno 2,288,942
207) San Jose State University 1,851,101
Air Force - No Info

Top 10 Men's Basketball Budgets
1) University of Kentucky 18,910,412
2) University of Louisville 17,900,031
3) Duke University 17,890,632
4) Syracuse University 13,876,720
5) Indiana University-Bloomington 12,129,479
6) University of Arizona 11,761,006
7) Florida State University 11,730,040
8) University of Kansas 11,636,720
9) Georgetown University 11,343,826
10) Marquette University 11,308,266

^^^ fanhood, Theses numbers really are spectacular. It seems that San Diego State (the MWC's biggest basketball budget) would have the #9 spot in the AAC.

(07-03-2017 01:07 PM)BalancedManSPE Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

The University of Michigan is running a $240 Million athletics debt. I'm sure their programs will eventually crumble.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/201...ics-debt-a

You don't work in the private sector, do you?

(07-03-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  You don't work in the private sector, do you?

Hey Mr. #9 (aka fanhood), Athletics are a front door to the contemporary University. They drive enrollment numbers like nothing else.
Athletic debt is a marketing expense. Having terrible athletics is more costly to a University.
ECU's new President likely gave Compher an extension because he was agreeable to the cuts. Potential ADs aren't all that attracted to jobs that come with that directive, particularly when they are already running last amongst their peer group in the standings. Rookie mistake.
All AAC basketball budgets should at least be at 5 million, and I'm sure the bottom group will get there.

(07-03-2017 01:41 PM)BalancedManSPE Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  You don't work in the private sector, do you?

Hey Mr. #9 (aka fanhood), Athletics are a front door to the contemporary University. They drive enrollment numbers like nothing else.
Athletic debt is a marketing expense. Having terrible athletics is more costly to a University.
ECU's new President likely gave Compher an extension because he was agreeable to the cuts. Potential ADs aren't all that attracted to jobs that come with that directive, particularly when they are already running last amongst their peer group in the standings. Rookie mistake.
All AAC basketball budgets should at least be at 5 million, and I'm sure the bottom group will get there.

That is what I thought.

(07-03-2017 02:01 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:41 PM)BalancedManSPE Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:24 PM)fanhood Wrote:  You don't work in the private sector, do you?

Hey Mr. #9 (aka fanhood), Athletics are a front door to the contemporary University. They drive enrollment numbers like nothing else.
Athletic debt is a marketing expense. Having terrible athletics is more costly to a University.
ECU's new President likely gave Compher an extension because he was agreeable to the cuts. Potential ADs aren't all that attracted to jobs that come with that directive, particularly when they are already running last amongst their peer group in the standings. Rookie mistake.
All AAC basketball budgets should at least be at 5 million, and I'm sure the bottom group will get there.

That is what I thought.

P6 Baby

Now go to the Michigan message boards, or all of the other P schools.

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:28 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 08:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 02:31 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 09:50 PM)fanhood Wrote:  Revenue: 2014-2015

55. Central Florida AAC $51,455,603
56 Air Force Mt. West $50,191,669
57 San Diego State Mt. West $49,011,745
58 East Carolina AAC $48,918,305
59 South Florida AAC $45,479,012
60 Nevada-Las Vegas Mt. West $45,015,536

Wow, look at that disparity (insert sarcasm).

I will tell you the same thing I tell my daughter.......your emotions, do not dictate reality.

Hmmm, notice you left off our top school and only went to three, whats the rest of your league doing? Where is Navy on this list, they and Air force should be a nice comparison.
See when you only do a partial look at statistics you can make them say anything.

I just grabbed a bundle of schools. With that, you just proved my point. Any statistician is going to throw away the outliers. Sorry pal, those were the highest teams on the list. Again, your emotions do not dictate reality.

And you answering the question you want doesn't make your answer right.

I never said anything about throwing out the outliers. I said i noticed you didn't include all the budgets. In fact you picked budgets 3,4,5 that we have numbers for in the AAC and compared them to the top three of the MWC. Thats a false comparison. I even pointed out the two academies would be a great comparison as they have similar restrictions and advantages. I wanted a full comparison, i mean only having 9 or 10 different data points means it doesn't do you much good to eliminate outliers because.there isn't enough examples to truely have outliers.

So yeah Fanhood gonna fanhood and looks as though its genetic from his daughter example.

First, I showed you the third highest revenue generating team per the USA Today 2014-2015 Academic Year Calendar. Your highest rated team (per revenue) was UCONN, with the second and third being UC and UCF. Look at the link below, the AAC and MW are all bundled together.

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

Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

My old boss and mentor would look at you and say "Cash Flow, and Profit. Don't understand? Look at the spread sheets."

Lets start on the things we agree on. I will use your source of information.

Now lets talk business. I went to a private university, you know one not suckinh off the teat of the state as you conservatives like to say. Its a real bonifide business with a long history of making it in the rough and tumble world of free markets. I worked in its athletic department, the smallest by far of any FBS playing school. Yet we spend and play with the big boys, why? Because its only one part of the business and its profitibility lags far behind its value. Its a freakin 1 to 3 hour free comercial for the school just to get started depending on the sport. So I think I'll look at the budget and not the revenue since that is a strong indicator of on field performance although not a guarantee.

So here are the results of who is trying to do what :

46) Uconn 72,000,000
53) san diego state 53,600,000
54) Cincinnati 51,700,000
55) ECU 49, 350, 000
56) UCF 47, 600,000
57) Hawaii 47,000,000
58) South Florida 46,850,000
59) Houston 45,400,000
60) UNLV 44,900,000
61) James Madison 44,800,000
62) Boise st 44,200,000
63) Air Force 43,400,000
64) Memphis 43,280,000
65) Old Dominiom 42,780,000
66) New Mexico 42,180,000
67) Fresno St 41,500,000
68) Colorado St 38,780,000
69) Army 37, 200,000
70) Umass 36,890,000
71) Akron 34,000,000
72) Eastern Michigan 33,950,000
73) Texas St 33,900,000
74) Wyoming 33,300,000
75) Western Michigan 33,250,000


91) San Jose St 28,470,000
92) Utah St 28,280,000
100) Nevada 27,000,000
113) Wichita St 25,100,000 (no football)


No records on Navy, BYU but what I could find

Us dept of education for 2013 BYU would put them right behind SDSU less than 50,000 diference.
(54) BYU 53, 500,000

According to the NAAA for Navy it was at 41,000,000

(68) Navy 41,000,000

So what does this tell us? 3 of the 12 MWC teams are below CUSA budgets and within touching distance of a AAC basketball only add.

Uconn is way out in front of everyone else and by far the highest spender not in the top 5 leagues.

The AAC has 6 in the top 60, the MWC has 3.

Uconn, Cincinnati, and ECU spend roughly 50,000,000 plus SDSU does as well.

UCF, South Florida, and Houston roughly spend 45-47,500,000
Hawaii and UNLV do too.

None of the football members drop below 40,000,000 for the AAC.

5 of the MWC teams spend 38 million or less.

Your emotions are irrelevant fanhood, the mwc is far behind the AAC and is within touching distance of AAC if we only played basketball.

Someone remind me that JMU has a larger budget than Boise State if we lose to them this September.

(07-02-2017 07:30 PM)BalancedManSPE Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 07:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  2015/2016 numbers supplied to the govt for Title 9 purposes, show Houston at $50m, Memphis at $49m, USF at $48m and ECU at $43m. Surprised by fball revenue, I would have expected more based on Pirate attendance numbers alone.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Wow... Those numbers make more sense.
ECU is trending in the wrong direction. Basketball could be a big resource for them if they just put forth the effort. What's the old saying... It takes money to make money.

These numbers are not directly related to revenue from any particular sport. (I understand the difference in revenue and budget, but budget should be a reflection of revenue trends.)

The numbers supplied by EADA show a one year decrease of $5,396,335 in the category "Not Allocated Revenues" for ECU. This is 94.7% of the $5,698,578 reported revenue decrease. Numbers for other schools vary widely. UCF reported "Not Allocated Revenues" of $20,509,985 for 2014-15 down from $16,206,618 for 2015-16. The range of "Not Allocated Revenues" for the AAC goes from Tulsa at $6,355,752 to UConn at $26,444,515. UConn "Not Allocated Revenues", for example, are down over $22,000,000 from the previous year, while at the same time increasing total revenues over $7,000,000.

The EADA Handbook under Total Revenues says:
The Not Allocated by Gender/Sports category should include revenues not attributable to a particular sport or sports. Those revenues include, but are not limited to, alumni contributions to the athletic department not targeted to a particular sport or sports, investment interest income, student activity fees, and the athletics director’s salary. Money budgeted for a team for which there were no participants should also be included under “Not Allocated by Gender/Sport.”

I would really like to see what exactly went into this category. Was there an issue with disgruntled donors?

One issue with the EADA report is discrepancy with other reports. The EADA shows 2014-15 "Grand Total Revenues" for Cincinnati are $42,861,532 while USA Today reported $52,536,185. Other parts of the EADA report don't match the USA Today report so it's hard to say what's accurate.

It is not unusual for school revenues to fluctuate. Here is the USA Today total revenue report for Cincinnati:
2015 * $52,536,185
2014 * $59,100,453
2013 * $61,915,431
2012 * $48,892,291
2011 * $42,724,841
2010 * $40,920,893
2009 * $43,925,633
2008 * $32,281,546
2007 * $28,395,897
2006 * $22,099,791
2005 * $21,124,176

For what it's worth, the 2015-16 EADA report lines up AAC revenues this way, with Navy not included:
1 * UConn * $79,267,924
2 * SMU * $56,909,290
3 * Tulane * $53,141,211
4 * UCF * $52,317,442
5 * Houston * $50,886,777
6 * Temple * $50,886,490
7 * Memphis * $49,849,343
8 * USF * $48,405,192
9 * Cincinnati * $43,367,493
10 * ECU * $43,045,337
11 * Tulsa * $40,465,787
12 * Wichita State * $27,252,700

Whatever adjustments in reporting may or may not occur, we need to look at the long term trends. ECU has more than doubled its athletic revenue over the last decade while maintaining the lowest subsidy for FBS schools in the conference, and providing cost of attendance higher than at least 25 P5* schools for student athletes. If budget adjustments need to be made, so be it. As a conference the AAC is trending upward. It is separating from the G4. ECU still needs to fix basketball.

(06-30-2017 11:00 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 07:27 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:58 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  And it seems this little nugget got swept under the rug.

I can't see how the athletic department's financial issues along with a host of other issues didn't send up red flags to those in charge that something is amiss with the athletic department. I don't see the Stadium project's projected revenue offsetting the deficit.

I don't see how all of this is financially plausible unless they are expecting some conference media deal windfalls.

It sucks but ECU might just be ahead of the curve in not ignoring the problems many G5 schools are who continue to live on subsidy credit cards above their means.

There will be a lot of programs starting this process in earnest in the next 4-5 years unless they get out of these conferences.

Spot on. Welcome to the party UConn.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-husk...story.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The flagship will be fine. We aren't competing with any other state school. I'd be more worried if we were the #4/5 school within our borders.

I was talking about UConn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cant believe a mwc fan was on here touting how similar the conference budgets were by comparing the top 3 MWC to the 3, 4, and 5 AAC team lol. Top to bottom AAC is way higher, by average its way higher, our top is higher and our bottom is higher. Really no way to spin it, MWC is way, way behind AAC in revenue and spending.

(07-05-2017 02:34 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  cant believe a mwc fan was on here touting how similar the conference budgets were by comparing the top 3 MWC to the 3, 4, and 5 AAC team lol. Top to bottom AAC is way higher, by average its way higher, our top is higher and our bottom is higher. Really no way to spin it, MWC is way, way behind AAC in revenue and spending.

(07-03-2017 07:09 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:28 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 08:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 02:31 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  Hmmm, notice you left off our top school and only went to three, whats the rest of your league doing? Where is Navy on this list, they and Air force should be a nice comparison.
See when you only do a partial look at statistics you can make them say anything.

I just grabbed a bundle of schools. With that, you just proved my point. Any statistician is going to throw away the outliers. Sorry pal, those were the highest teams on the list. Again, your emotions do not dictate reality.

And you answering the question you want doesn't make your answer right.

I never said anything about throwing out the outliers. I said i noticed you didn't include all the budgets. In fact you picked budgets 3,4,5 that we have numbers for in the AAC and compared them to the top three of the MWC. Thats a false comparison. I even pointed out the two academies would be a great comparison as they have similar restrictions and advantages. I wanted a full comparison, i mean only having 9 or 10 different data points means it doesn't do you much good to eliminate outliers because.there isn't enough examples to truely have outliers.

So yeah Fanhood gonna fanhood and looks as though its genetic from his daughter example.

First, I showed you the third highest revenue generating team per the USA Today 2014-2015 Academic Year Calendar. Your highest rated team (per revenue) was UCONN, with the second and third being UC and UCF. Look at the link below, the AAC and MW are all bundled together.

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

Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

My old boss and mentor would look at you and say "Cash Flow, and Profit. Don't understand? Look at the spread sheets."

Lets start on the things we agree on. I will use your source of information.

Now lets talk business. I went to a private university, you know one not suckinh off the teat of the state as you conservatives like to say. Its a real bonifide business with a long history of making it in the rough and tumble world of free markets. I worked in its athletic department, the smallest by far of any FBS playing school. Yet we spend and play with the big boys, why? Because its only one part of the business and its profitibility lags far behind its value. Its a freakin 1 to 3 hour free comercial for the school just to get started depending on the sport. So I think I'll look at the budget and not the revenue since that is a strong indicator of on field performance although not a guarantee.

So here are the results of who is trying to do what :

46) Uconn 72,000,000
53) san diego state 53,600,000
54) Cincinnati 51,700,000
55) ECU 49, 350, 000
56) UCF 47, 600,000
57) Hawaii 47,000,000
58) South Florida 46,850,000
59) Houston 45,400,000
60) UNLV 44,900,000
61) James Madison 44,800,000
62) Boise st 44,200,000
63) Air Force 43,400,000
64) Memphis 43,280,000
65) Old Dominiom 42,780,000
66) New Mexico 42,180,000
67) Fresno St 41,500,000
68) Colorado St 38,780,000
69) Army 37, 200,000
70) Umass 36,890,000
71) Akron 34,000,000
72) Eastern Michigan 33,950,000
73) Texas St 33,900,000
74) Wyoming 33,300,000
75) Western Michigan 33,250,000


91) San Jose St 28,470,000
92) Utah St 28,280,000
100) Nevada 27,000,000
113) Wichita St 25,100,000 (no football)


No records on Navy, BYU but what I could find

Us dept of education for 2013 BYU would put them right behind SDSU less than 50,000 diference.
(54) BYU 53, 500,000

According to the NAAA for Navy it was at 41,000,000

(68) Navy 41,000,000

So what does this tell us? 3 of the 12 MWC teams are below CUSA budgets and within touching distance of a AAC basketball only add.

Uconn is way out in front of everyone else and by far the highest spender not in the top 5 leagues.

The AAC has 6 in the top 60, the MWC has 3.

Uconn, Cincinnati, and ECU spend roughly 50,000,000 plus SDSU does as well.

UCF, South Florida, and Houston roughly spend 45-47,500,000
Hawaii and UNLV do too.

None of the football members drop below 40,000,000 for the AAC.

5 of the MWC teams spend 38 million or less.

Your emotions are irrelevant fanhood, the mwc is far behind the AAC and is within touching distance of AAC if we only played basketball.

This is the funniest post I have ever seen on this board. There you write 12 paragraphs making your point, yet the numbers show the AAC and MW intermingled. Classic.

Oh, and one word of advice. Don't assume I am a "fan of the MW." As you can see, my team is doing just fine. Only silly people like yourselves root for a conference. It's quite pathetic actually.

Be careful with your emotions. Something tells me this board has not fully recovered from Bowl Season. I suspect there will be a spillover in the 2017 season.

(07-05-2017 08:44 PM)fanhood Wrote:  This is the funniest post I have ever seen on this board. There you write 12 paragraphs making your point, yet the numbers show the AAC and MW intermingled. Classic.

Intermingled??

This doesn't look "intermingled" to me. The MWC lacks serious commitment to multi-bid basketball. The AAC is clearly tea-bagging the MWC. San Diego would have the 9th ranked budget... if you want to claim that's intermingled. lulz. Classic indeed.

ICYMI, Here are the basketball budgets for 2016-2017....

AAC
12) University of Memphis 11,226,419
17) University of Connecticut 9,516,308
43) University of Cincinnati 7,421,986
53) Southern Methodist University 7,086,547
56) Wichita State University 6,920,933
70) University of Tulsa 6,174,244
76) University of Houston 6,023,125
78) Temple University 5,920,903
92) University of South Florida-Main Campus 4,711,026
102) Tulane University of Louisiana 3,987,379
119) East Carolina University 3,187,963
120) University of Central Florida 3,166,282
 
MWC
79) San Diego State University 5,734,713
86) University of Nevada-Las Vegas 5,386,263
95) Colorado State University-Fort Collins 4,264,867
103) University of New Mexico-Main Campus 3,736,179
105) University of Wyoming 3,702,699
113) Utah State University 3,363,296
118) California State University-Fresno 3,234,934
152) Boise State University 2,503,447
169) University of Nevada-Reno 2,288,942
207) San Jose State University 1,851,101
Air Force - No Info

Top 10 Men's Basketball Budgets
1) University of Kentucky 18,910,412
2) University of Louisville 17,900,031
3) Duke University 17,890,632
4) Syracuse University 13,876,720
5) Indiana University-Bloomington 12,129,479
6) University of Arizona 11,761,006
7) Florida State University 11,730,040
8) University of Kansas 11,636,720
9) Georgetown University 11,343,826
10) Marquette University 11,308,266

(07-05-2017 08:44 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:09 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:28 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 08:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  I just grabbed a bundle of schools. With that, you just proved my point. Any statistician is going to throw away the outliers. Sorry pal, those were the highest teams on the list. Again, your emotions do not dictate reality.

And you answering the question you want doesn't make your answer right.

I never said anything about throwing out the outliers. I said i noticed you didn't include all the budgets. In fact you picked budgets 3,4,5 that we have numbers for in the AAC and compared them to the top three of the MWC. Thats a false comparison. I even pointed out the two academies would be a great comparison as they have similar restrictions and advantages. I wanted a full comparison, i mean only having 9 or 10 different data points means it doesn't do you much good to eliminate outliers because.there isn't enough examples to truely have outliers.

So yeah Fanhood gonna fanhood and looks as though its genetic from his daughter example.

First, I showed you the third highest revenue generating team per the USA Today 2014-2015 Academic Year Calendar. Your highest rated team (per revenue) was UCONN, with the second and third being UC and UCF. Look at the link below, the AAC and MW are all bundled together.

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

Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

My old boss and mentor would look at you and say "Cash Flow, and Profit. Don't understand? Look at the spread sheets."

Lets start on the things we agree on. I will use your source of information.

Now lets talk business. I went to a private university, you know one not suckinh off the teat of the state as you conservatives like to say. Its a real bonifide business with a long history of making it in the rough and tumble world of free markets. I worked in its athletic department, the smallest by far of any FBS playing school. Yet we spend and play with the big boys, why? Because its only one part of the business and its profitibility lags far behind its value. Its a freakin 1 to 3 hour free comercial for the school just to get started depending on the sport. So I think I'll look at the budget and not the revenue since that is a strong indicator of on field performance although not a guarantee.

So here are the results of who is trying to do what :

46) Uconn 72,000,000
53) san diego state 53,600,000
54) Cincinnati 51,700,000
55) ECU 49, 350, 000
56) UCF 47, 600,000
57) Hawaii 47,000,000
58) South Florida 46,850,000
59) Houston 45,400,000
60) UNLV 44,900,000
61) James Madison 44,800,000
62) Boise st 44,200,000
63) Air Force 43,400,000
64) Memphis 43,280,000
65) Old Dominiom 42,780,000
66) New Mexico 42,180,000
67) Fresno St 41,500,000
68) Colorado St 38,780,000
69) Army 37, 200,000
70) Umass 36,890,000
71) Akron 34,000,000
72) Eastern Michigan 33,950,000
73) Texas St 33,900,000
74) Wyoming 33,300,000
75) Western Michigan 33,250,000


91) San Jose St 28,470,000
92) Utah St 28,280,000
100) Nevada 27,000,000
113) Wichita St 25,100,000 (no football)


No records on Navy, BYU but what I could find

Us dept of education for 2013 BYU would put them right behind SDSU less than 50,000 diference.
(54) BYU 53, 500,000

According to the NAAA for Navy it was at 41,000,000

(68) Navy 41,000,000

So what does this tell us? 3 of the 12 MWC teams are below CUSA budgets and within touching distance of a AAC basketball only add.

Uconn is way out in front of everyone else and by far the highest spender not in the top 5 leagues.

The AAC has 6 in the top 60, the MWC has 3.

Uconn, Cincinnati, and ECU spend roughly 50,000,000 plus SDSU does as well.

UCF, South Florida, and Houston roughly spend 45-47,500,000
Hawaii and UNLV do too.

None of the football members drop below 40,000,000 for the AAC.

5 of the MWC teams spend 38 million or less.

Your emotions are irrelevant fanhood, the mwc is far behind the AAC and is within touching distance of AAC if we only played basketball.

This is the funniest post I have ever seen on this board. There you write 12 paragraphs making your point, yet the numbers show the AAC and MW intermingled. Classic.

Oh, and one word of advice. Don't assume I am a "fan of the MW." As you can see, my team is doing just fine. Only silly people like yourselves root for a conference. It's quite pathetic actually.

Be careful with your emotions. Something tells me this board has not fully recovered from Bowl Season. I suspect there will be a spillover in the 2017 season.

Intermingled? Do you mean that because I wrote them all out from 50-75?

Its clear your top three are would be up there with the AAC, everybody else isn't on the level.

Now perhaps you forgot what the statement was you were trying to disprove, that the MWC is lacking in budgets compared to the AAC. I dont think thats the case though. My guess is you looked up the numbers, realized you were wrong, and then cherry picked the 3 budgets that made your argument look legit.

Conviently leaving off three teams who are close to a MVC basketball only school.

(07-05-2017 08:44 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:09 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:28 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 08:06 AM)fanhood Wrote:  I just grabbed a bundle of schools. With that, you just proved my point. Any statistician is going to throw away the outliers. Sorry pal, those were the highest teams on the list. Again, your emotions do not dictate reality.

And you answering the question you want doesn't make your answer right.

I never said anything about throwing out the outliers. I said i noticed you didn't include all the budgets. In fact you picked budgets 3,4,5 that we have numbers for in the AAC and compared them to the top three of the MWC. Thats a false comparison. I even pointed out the two academies would be a great comparison as they have similar restrictions and advantages. I wanted a full comparison, i mean only having 9 or 10 different data points means it doesn't do you much good to eliminate outliers because.there isn't enough examples to truely have outliers.

So yeah Fanhood gonna fanhood and looks as though its genetic from his daughter example.

First, I showed you the third highest revenue generating team per the USA Today 2014-2015 Academic Year Calendar. Your highest rated team (per revenue) was UCONN, with the second and third being UC and UCF. Look at the link below, the AAC and MW are all bundled together.

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

Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

My old boss and mentor would look at you and say "Cash Flow, and Profit. Don't understand? Look at the spread sheets."

Lets start on the things we agree on. I will use your source of information.

Now lets talk business. I went to a private university, you know one not suckinh off the teat of the state as you conservatives like to say. Its a real bonifide business with a long history of making it in the rough and tumble world of free markets. I worked in its athletic department, the smallest by far of any FBS playing school. Yet we spend and play with the big boys, why? Because its only one part of the business and its profitibility lags far behind its value. Its a freakin 1 to 3 hour free comercial for the school just to get started depending on the sport. So I think I'll look at the budget and not the revenue since that is a strong indicator of on field performance although not a guarantee.

So here are the results of who is trying to do what :

46) Uconn 72,000,000
53) san diego state 53,600,000
54) Cincinnati 51,700,000
55) ECU 49, 350, 000
56) UCF 47, 600,000
57) Hawaii 47,000,000
58) South Florida 46,850,000
59) Houston 45,400,000
60) UNLV 44,900,000
61) James Madison 44,800,000
62) Boise st 44,200,000
63) Air Force 43,400,000
64) Memphis 43,280,000
65) Old Dominiom 42,780,000
66) New Mexico 42,180,000
67) Fresno St 41,500,000
68) Colorado St 38,780,000
69) Army 37, 200,000
70) Umass 36,890,000
71) Akron 34,000,000
72) Eastern Michigan 33,950,000
73) Texas St 33,900,000
74) Wyoming 33,300,000
75) Western Michigan 33,250,000


91) San Jose St 28,470,000
92) Utah St 28,280,000
100) Nevada 27,000,000
113) Wichita St 25,100,000 (no football)


No records on Navy, BYU but what I could find

Us dept of education for 2013 BYU would put them right behind SDSU less than 50,000 diference.
(54) BYU 53, 500,000

According to the NAAA for Navy it was at 41,000,000

(68) Navy 41,000,000

So what does this tell us? 3 of the 12 MWC teams are below CUSA budgets and within touching distance of a AAC basketball only add.

Uconn is way out in front of everyone else and by far the highest spender not in the top 5 leagues.

The AAC has 6 in the top 60, the MWC has 3.

Uconn, Cincinnati, and ECU spend roughly 50,000,000 plus SDSU does as well.

UCF, South Florida, and Houston roughly spend 45-47,500,000
Hawaii and UNLV do too.

None of the football members drop below 40,000,000 for the AAC.

5 of the MWC teams spend 38 million or less.

Your emotions are irrelevant fanhood, the mwc is far behind the AAC and is within touching distance of AAC if we only played basketball.

This is the funniest post I have ever seen on this board. There you write 12 paragraphs making your point, yet the numbers show the AAC and MW intermingled. Classic.

Oh, and one word of advice. Don't assume I am a "fan of the MW." As you can see, my team is doing just fine. Only silly people like yourselves root for a conference. It's quite pathetic actually.

Be careful with your emotions. Something tells me this board has not fully recovered from Bowl Season. I suspect there will be a spillover in the 2017 season.

Something tells me that you'll be posting on our board a little less when your team is 1-3 in two months. Tick Tock


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-06-2017 07:34 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 08:44 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:09 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:28 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  And you answering the question you want doesn't make your answer right.

I never said anything about throwing out the outliers. I said i noticed you didn't include all the budgets. In fact you picked budgets 3,4,5 that we have numbers for in the AAC and compared them to the top three of the MWC. Thats a false comparison. I even pointed out the two academies would be a great comparison as they have similar restrictions and advantages. I wanted a full comparison, i mean only having 9 or 10 different data points means it doesn't do you much good to eliminate outliers because.there isn't enough examples to truely have outliers.

So yeah Fanhood gonna fanhood and looks as though its genetic from his daughter example.

First, I showed you the third highest revenue generating team per the USA Today 2014-2015 Academic Year Calendar. Your highest rated team (per revenue) was UCONN, with the second and third being UC and UCF. Look at the link below, the AAC and MW are all bundled together.

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

Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

My old boss and mentor would look at you and say "Cash Flow, and Profit. Don't understand? Look at the spread sheets."

Lets start on the things we agree on. I will use your source of information.

Now lets talk business. I went to a private university, you know one not suckinh off the teat of the state as you conservatives like to say. Its a real bonifide business with a long history of making it in the rough and tumble world of free markets. I worked in its athletic department, the smallest by far of any FBS playing school. Yet we spend and play with the big boys, why? Because its only one part of the business and its profitibility lags far behind its value. Its a freakin 1 to 3 hour free comercial for the school just to get started depending on the sport. So I think I'll look at the budget and not the revenue since that is a strong indicator of on field performance although not a guarantee.

So here are the results of who is trying to do what :

46) Uconn 72,000,000
53) san diego state 53,600,000
54) Cincinnati 51,700,000
55) ECU 49, 350, 000
56) UCF 47, 600,000
57) Hawaii 47,000,000
58) South Florida 46,850,000
59) Houston 45,400,000
60) UNLV 44,900,000
61) James Madison 44,800,000
62) Boise st 44,200,000
63) Air Force 43,400,000
64) Memphis 43,280,000
65) Old Dominiom 42,780,000
66) New Mexico 42,180,000
67) Fresno St 41,500,000
68) Colorado St 38,780,000
69) Army 37, 200,000
70) Umass 36,890,000
71) Akron 34,000,000
72) Eastern Michigan 33,950,000
73) Texas St 33,900,000
74) Wyoming 33,300,000
75) Western Michigan 33,250,000


91) San Jose St 28,470,000
92) Utah St 28,280,000
100) Nevada 27,000,000
113) Wichita St 25,100,000 (no football)


No records on Navy, BYU but what I could find

Us dept of education for 2013 BYU would put them right behind SDSU less than 50,000 diference.
(54) BYU 53, 500,000

According to the NAAA for Navy it was at 41,000,000

(68) Navy 41,000,000

So what does this tell us? 3 of the 12 MWC teams are below CUSA budgets and within touching distance of a AAC basketball only add.

Uconn is way out in front of everyone else and by far the highest spender not in the top 5 leagues.

The AAC has 6 in the top 60, the MWC has 3.

Uconn, Cincinnati, and ECU spend roughly 50,000,000 plus SDSU does as well.

UCF, South Florida, and Houston roughly spend 45-47,500,000
Hawaii and UNLV do too.

None of the football members drop below 40,000,000 for the AAC.

5 of the MWC teams spend 38 million or less.

Your emotions are irrelevant fanhood, the mwc is far behind the AAC and is within touching distance of AAC if we only played basketball.

This is the funniest post I have ever seen on this board. There you write 12 paragraphs making your point, yet the numbers show the AAC and MW intermingled. Classic.

Oh, and one word of advice. Don't assume I am a "fan of the MW." As you can see, my team is doing just fine. Only silly people like yourselves root for a conference. It's quite pathetic actually.

Be careful with your emotions. Something tells me this board has not fully recovered from Bowl Season. I suspect there will be a spillover in the 2017 season.

Something tells me that you'll be posting on our board a little less when your team is 1-3 in two months. Tick Tock


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha!

I will tell you what. I have $10,000 that says SDSU does not start 1-3. If you take the bet, we can both open up Letters of Credit with an agreed upon bank, and put our money there, until he winner has been determined. Once we have the winner, they can bill against the LC. Deal?

(07-04-2017 10:31 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 07:30 PM)BalancedManSPE Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 07:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  2015/2016 numbers supplied to the govt for Title 9 purposes, show Houston at $50m, Memphis at $49m, USF at $48m and ECU at $43m. Surprised by fball revenue, I would have expected more based on Pirate attendance numbers alone.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Wow... Those numbers make more sense.
ECU is trending in the wrong direction. Basketball could be a big resource for them if they just put forth the effort. What's the old saying... It takes money to make money.

These numbers are not directly related to revenue from any particular sport. (I understand the difference in revenue and budget, but budget should be a reflection of revenue trends.)

The numbers supplied by EADA show a one year decrease of $5,396,335 in the category "Not Allocated Revenues" for ECU. This is 94.7% of the $5,698,578 reported revenue decrease. Numbers for other schools vary widely. UCF reported "Not Allocated Revenues" of $20,509,985 for 2014-15 down from $16,206,618 for 2015-16. The range of "Not Allocated Revenues" for the AAC goes from Tulsa at $6,355,752 to UConn at $26,444,515. UConn "Not Allocated Revenues", for example, are down over $22,000,000 from the previous year, while at the same time increasing total revenues over $7,000,000.

The EADA Handbook under Total Revenues says:
The Not Allocated by Gender/Sports category should include revenues not attributable to a particular sport or sports. Those revenues include, but are not limited to, alumni contributions to the athletic department not targeted to a particular sport or sports, investment interest income, student activity fees, and the athletics director’s salary. Money budgeted for a team for which there were no participants should also be included under “Not Allocated by Gender/Sport.”

I would really like to see what exactly went into this category. Was there an issue with disgruntled donors?

One issue with the EADA report is discrepancy with other reports. The EADA shows 2014-15 "Grand Total Revenues" for Cincinnati are $42,861,532 while USA Today reported $52,536,185. Other parts of the EADA report don't match the USA Today report so it's hard to say what's accurate.

It is not unusual for school revenues to fluctuate. Here is the USA Today total revenue report for Cincinnati:
2015 * $52,536,185
2014 * $59,100,453
2013 * $61,915,431
2012 * $48,892,291
2011 * $42,724,841
2010 * $40,920,893
2009 * $43,925,633
2008 * $32,281,546
2007 * $28,395,897
2006 * $22,099,791
2005 * $21,124,176

For what it's worth, the 2015-16 EADA report lines up AAC revenues this way, with Navy not included:
1 * UConn * $79,267,924
2 * SMU * $56,909,290
3 * Tulane * $53,141,211
4 * UCF * $52,317,442
5 * Houston * $50,886,777
6 * Temple * $50,886,490
7 * Memphis * $49,849,343
8 * USF * $48,405,192
9 * Cincinnati * $43,367,493
10 * ECU * $43,045,337
11 * Tulsa * $40,465,787
12 * Wichita State * $27,252,700

Whatever adjustments in reporting may or may not occur, we need to look at the long term trends. ECU has more than doubled its athletic revenue over the last decade while maintaining the lowest subsidy for FBS schools in the conference, and providing cost of attendance higher than at least 25 P5* schools for student athletes. If budget adjustments need to be made, so be it. As a conference the AAC is trending upward. It is separating from the G4. ECU still needs to fix basketball.

I suspect there's some leeway in both sets of numbers as accounting practices vary state to state. That said, from the spot checking I've done the govt numbers more closely align with operating budgets listed on school websites. USA Today numbers are higher from what I've noticed. Their methodology differs and is compiled by the media. Personally, I give greater weight to the equity numbers as they mirror yearly operating budgets...iow, what universities are spending based on expected revenues. But, both give good info broken down in different ways.

(07-06-2017 02:43 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 08:44 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:09 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 10:28 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  And you answering the question you want doesn't make your answer right.

I never said anything about throwing out the outliers. I said i noticed you didn't include all the budgets. In fact you picked budgets 3,4,5 that we have numbers for in the AAC and compared them to the top three of the MWC. Thats a false comparison. I even pointed out the two academies would be a great comparison as they have similar restrictions and advantages. I wanted a full comparison, i mean only having 9 or 10 different data points means it doesn't do you much good to eliminate outliers because.there isn't enough examples to truely have outliers.

So yeah Fanhood gonna fanhood and looks as though its genetic from his daughter example.

First, I showed you the third highest revenue generating team per the USA Today 2014-2015 Academic Year Calendar. Your highest rated team (per revenue) was UCONN, with the second and third being UC and UCF. Look at the link below, the AAC and MW are all bundled together.

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

Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

My old boss and mentor would look at you and say "Cash Flow, and Profit. Don't understand? Look at the spread sheets."

Lets start on the things we agree on. I will use your source of information.

Now lets talk business. I went to a private university, you know one not suckinh off the teat of the state as you conservatives like to say. Its a real bonifide business with a long history of making it in the rough and tumble world of free markets. I worked in its athletic department, the smallest by far of any FBS playing school. Yet we spend and play with the big boys, why? Because its only one part of the business and its profitibility lags far behind its value. Its a freakin 1 to 3 hour free comercial for the school just to get started depending on the sport. So I think I'll look at the budget and not the revenue since that is a strong indicator of on field performance although not a guarantee.

So here are the results of who is trying to do what :

46) Uconn 72,000,000
53) san diego state 53,600,000
54) Cincinnati 51,700,000
55) ECU 49, 350, 000
56) UCF 47, 600,000
57) Hawaii 47,000,000
58) South Florida 46,850,000
59) Houston 45,400,000
60) UNLV 44,900,000
61) James Madison 44,800,000
62) Boise st 44,200,000
63) Air Force 43,400,000
64) Memphis 43,280,000
65) Old Dominiom 42,780,000
66) New Mexico 42,180,000
67) Fresno St 41,500,000
68) Colorado St 38,780,000
69) Army 37, 200,000
70) Umass 36,890,000
71) Akron 34,000,000
72) Eastern Michigan 33,950,000
73) Texas St 33,900,000
74) Wyoming 33,300,000
75) Western Michigan 33,250,000


91) San Jose St 28,470,000
92) Utah St 28,280,000
100) Nevada 27,000,000
113) Wichita St 25,100,000 (no football)


No records on Navy, BYU but what I could find

Us dept of education for 2013 BYU would put them right behind SDSU less than 50,000 diference.
(54) BYU 53, 500,000

According to the NAAA for Navy it was at 41,000,000

(68) Navy 41,000,000

So what does this tell us? 3 of the 12 MWC teams are below CUSA budgets and within touching distance of a AAC basketball only add.

Uconn is way out in front of everyone else and by far the highest spender not in the top 5 leagues.

The AAC has 6 in the top 60, the MWC has 3.

Uconn, Cincinnati, and ECU spend roughly 50,000,000 plus SDSU does as well.

UCF, South Florida, and Houston roughly spend 45-47,500,000
Hawaii and UNLV do too.

None of the football members drop below 40,000,000 for the AAC.

5 of the MWC teams spend 38 million or less.

Your emotions are irrelevant fanhood, the mwc is far behind the AAC and is within touching distance of AAC if we only played basketball.

This is the funniest post I have ever seen on this board. There you write 12 paragraphs making your point, yet the numbers show the AAC and MW intermingled. Classic.

Oh, and one word of advice. Don't assume I am a "fan of the MW." As you can see, my team is doing just fine. Only silly people like yourselves root for a conference. It's quite pathetic actually.

Be careful with your emotions. Something tells me this board has not fully recovered from Bowl Season. I suspect there will be a spillover in the 2017 season.

Intermingled? Do you mean that because I wrote them all out from 50-75?

Its clear your top three are would be up there with the AAC, everybody else isn't on the level.

Now perhaps you forgot what the statement was you were trying to disprove, that the MWC is lacking in budgets compared to the AAC. I dont think thats the case though. My guess is you looked up the numbers, realized you were wrong, and then cherry picked the 3 budgets that made your argument look legit.

Conviently leaving off three teams who are close to a MVC basketball only school.

Mmmmmm, you might want to look at the numbers a little closer. I only saw seven AAC teams on the list regarding revenue. Maybe there are more, but I am busy now. Nonetheless, the mean of the seven teams of the AAC (top 7) is 57.28. The Median is 58.The mean of the seven teams of the MWC (top 7) is 63.85, while the median is 66. Startling difference!

Again, emotions......

Anyway, have fun rooting for your conference. I'll enjoy another top 25 finish for SDSU.

(07-06-2017 07:51 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 02:43 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 08:44 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 07:09 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:00 PM)fanhood Wrote:  First, I showed you the third highest revenue generating team per the USA Today 2014-2015 Academic Year Calendar. Your highest rated team (per revenue) was UCONN, with the second and third being UC and UCF. Look at the link below, the AAC and MW are all bundled together.

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

Furthermore, it appears that you are stating that your programs expenses (spending) far exceed the revenue they generate? Thats it? Well, you must not be in business, because if that is the case, your programs will eventually crumble. Enjoy.

My old boss and mentor would look at you and say "Cash Flow, and Profit. Don't understand? Look at the spread sheets."

Lets start on the things we agree on. I will use your source of information.

Now lets talk business. I went to a private university, you know one not suckinh off the teat of the state as you conservatives like to say. Its a real bonifide business with a long history of making it in the rough and tumble world of free markets. I worked in its athletic department, the smallest by far of any FBS playing school. Yet we spend and play with the big boys, why? Because its only one part of the business and its profitibility lags far behind its value. Its a freakin 1 to 3 hour free comercial for the school just to get started depending on the sport. So I think I'll look at the budget and not the revenue since that is a strong indicator of on field performance although not a guarantee.

So here are the results of who is trying to do what :

46) Uconn 72,000,000
53) san diego state 53,600,000
54) Cincinnati 51,700,000
55) ECU 49, 350, 000
56) UCF 47, 600,000
57) Hawaii 47,000,000
58) South Florida 46,850,000
59) Houston 45,400,000
60) UNLV 44,900,000
61) James Madison 44,800,000
62) Boise st 44,200,000
63) Air Force 43,400,000
64) Memphis 43,280,000
65) Old Dominiom 42,780,000
66) New Mexico 42,180,000
67) Fresno St 41,500,000
68) Colorado St 38,780,000
69) Army 37, 200,000
70) Umass 36,890,000
71) Akron 34,000,000
72) Eastern Michigan 33,950,000
73) Texas St 33,900,000
74) Wyoming 33,300,000
75) Western Michigan 33,250,000


91) San Jose St 28,470,000
92) Utah St 28,280,000
100) Nevada 27,000,000
113) Wichita St 25,100,000 (no football)


No records on Navy, BYU but what I could find

Us dept of education for 2013 BYU would put them right behind SDSU less than 50,000 diference.
(54) BYU 53, 500,000

According to the NAAA for Navy it was at 41,000,000

(68) Navy 41,000,000

So what does this tell us? 3 of the 12 MWC teams are below CUSA budgets and within touching distance of a AAC basketball only add.

Uconn is way out in front of everyone else and by far the highest spender not in the top 5 leagues.

The AAC has 6 in the top 60, the MWC has 3.

Uconn, Cincinnati, and ECU spend roughly 50,000,000 plus SDSU does as well.

UCF, South Florida, and Houston roughly spend 45-47,500,000
Hawaii and UNLV do too.

None of the football members drop below 40,000,000 for the AAC.

5 of the MWC teams spend 38 million or less.

Your emotions are irrelevant fanhood, the mwc is far behind the AAC and is within touching distance of AAC if we only played basketball.

This is the funniest post I have ever seen on this board. There you write 12 paragraphs making your point, yet the numbers show the AAC and MW intermingled. Classic.

Oh, and one word of advice. Don't assume I am a "fan of the MW." As you can see, my team is doing just fine. Only silly people like yourselves root for a conference. It's quite pathetic actually.

Be careful with your emotions. Something tells me this board has not fully recovered from Bowl Season. I suspect there will be a spillover in the 2017 season.

Intermingled? Do you mean that because I wrote them all out from 50-75?

Its clear your top three are would be up there with the AAC, everybody else isn't on the level.

Now perhaps you forgot what the statement was you were trying to disprove, that the MWC is lacking in budgets compared to the AAC. I dont think thats the case though. My guess is you looked up the numbers, realized you were wrong, and then cherry picked the 3 budgets that made your argument look legit.

Conviently leaving off three teams who are close to a MVC basketball only school.

Mmmmmm, you might want to look at the numbers a little closer. I only saw seven AAC teams on the list regarding revenue. Maybe there are more, but I am busy now. Nonetheless, the mean of the seven teams of the AAC (top 7) is 57.28. The Median is 58.The mean of the seven teams of the MWC (top 7) is 63.85, while the median is 66. Startling difference!

Again, emotions......

Anyway, have fun rooting for your conference. I'll enjoy another top 25 finish for SDSU.

I can't believe I missed this until it was linked in the Grading Aresco thread.
fanhood gonna fanhood.

This is either fanhood blatantly but inelegantly trolling, or fanhood actually doesn't understand middle school math. You don't take a sample of 12 and then drop the low five to find the mean or median of the top 58%. That's the opposite of how mean and median work, even if you are comparing samples of different sizes.
You could do a Central Mean dropping top and bottom outliers, but that really doesn't make sense for these sample sizes.

So the AAC n=8 -- Navy number is valid from Capital Gazette conversation with AD Chet Gladchuk in 2015.

AAC Mean $49, 647,500
AAC Median $46,125,000

mwc Mean $39,384,167
mwc Median $ 41,840,000

We don't have the AAC's four private schools' numbers, but if they're around Navy's (and no reason to think otherwise) we're STILL head and shoulders above the mwc. From the numbers we have - 25% higher on average.