(01-24-2018 08:38 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 07:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 05:16 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 05:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's zero evidence that, e.g., Appalachian State's degrees are more valuable because they are FBS now than when they were FCS.

But it's a hard truth that student fees and transfers have gone from $6m to $20m. That's $14m in cold cash lost every year.

You consider it lost and I consider it invested. That's the disconnect.

Investments have to show a return, a positive ROI.

Except for FBS football - for some reason admins rarely seem to hold it to that standard. I wonder why?

To be fair, the other athletic programs lose plenty of money too. Its just that football is a LOT more expensive and requires additional investments in other money losing sports.

Most G5 FBS athletic departments are on track to individually lose 150,000,000 to 200,000,000 over this decade. Two. Hundred. Million. Dollars. At almost every G5 institution. And the FCS schools are losing plenty of money too.

They aren't losing 15-20 million dollars a year, not even one of them.

Actually, they are. Here's a list of school deficits from a few years back. http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I've actually looked up a couple of school's financial reports that break out revenue and expenses by sport and they appear to match up reasonably well with this study. Many public institutions don't break out athletic revenue and expenses so its hard to validate the numbers for each institution, but for the ones I was able to find the data for, it does appear to match up.

Here's some fun numbers (I think you're from the MAC, right, so I'll use them - The Belt and CUSA are similar...the AAC's public schools actually have higher deficits)

Eastern Michigan - USA Today says 24 million deficit. Mlive says 27 million institutional subsidy. The school doesn't appear to report athletic costs and revenue as a separate line item in their official reports.

Western Michigan - 24 million deficit

Central Michigan - 21 million deficit

Akron - 24 million deficit

Miami (OH) - 23 million deficit

Northern Illinois - 17 million deficit

Toledo - 14 million deficit

Kent - 19 million deficit. I was able to find a NCAA report for them. Looks like the number for 2015 was around 20.8 million of a deficit. http://kentstatesports.com/documents/201...Report.pdf

Ball State - 17 million deficit

Bowling Green - 12 million deficit

Buffalo - 25 million deficit

Ohio - 21 million deficit

So, per USA Today, the average in the MAC is just north or 20 million per school....For a total per year of 241 million dollars in subsidies required to participate in MAC athletics. Or 2.4 Billion over 10 years. Looking at a few other sources, it doesn't appear that the USA Today numbers from a few years back are out of order here. There might be something that USA Today missed. These numbers do appear to include scholarship costs, which might inflate the deficit slightly (as there's some incremental cost that is probably less than the per unit cost, but it looks like its based off of University reporting).

-----

And the MAC is by no means unique in the G5.

the money is not lost in a vacuem
contstruction, venders, employee's, student's, taxes, community, tourist, marketing,
the list is proablly endless

(01-24-2018 09:56 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  the money is not lost in a vacuem
contstruction, venders, employee's, student's, taxes, community, tourist, marketing,
the list is proablly endless

Sure, there are economic impacts. Even if you assume that the economic impact benefit is equal to the outlay (which I highly doubt - but I'll let that stand for now) The question is whether the students at these schools should be financing those benefits. Basically, those with the least ability to pay for it are the ones financing it.

For some reason, Temple isn't listed in the study. But the website billypenn claimed in a 2016 article that it had a direct subsidy of 8.1 million plus in 2012 as well as a student fee of 790 per student. That fee covers everything, but assuming that Temple is spending roughly what South Florida does and that half that fee goes to athletics (which would be consistent with their peers), that works out to a student subsidy of 15 million from the students...or a total subsidy of around 23 million, which would be actually low for a public institution in the AAC.

Seems to me, that the beneficiaries of those benefits need to be paying a greater percentage of the cost of it. They need to step up.

And lets get real. How many people actually travelled to Philly to attend a Temple football game last season and got a hotel room? Lets just say 100,000 (I'm not including the band or the football team delegations - they're being subsidized directly and Temple is paying for it on their away games - and I'm being really generous - or assuming that you're hosting Penn State). So lets call it maybe 50,000 hotel room nights per season. So maybe 10 million in spending on a hotel. And another 5 million in local spending. So assuming a margin of 20 percent, and a tax rate of 15 percent, that's around 7,500,000 in real economic impact to Philly's economy. Do you really think that Tulsa or SMU are sending more than 500 fans to the game there? And many of the fans that do go, are probably alumni from a 100 mile radius of the school anyway. Local spending, for it to be really a driver in a local economy, must be incremental. If the people buying a hot dog and a beer at the stadium wouldn't be spending some of that money at a restaurant or some other diversion that day anyway?

Oh and by the way, the problem with including all of the economic pluses from people from outside Philly coming to town to watch Temple football is that you need to subtract some of the net OUTFLOW of money when your Philly based fans take money out of your local economy and spend it elsewhere when they travel to attend an away Temple game. Basically, they're not spending money in Philly when they're in Orlando watching Temple play UCF. Heck, for some schools that travel well but who don't attract a lot of fans...the actual economic impact of inflows from fans coming in less outflows of lower economic activity because locals are going out of town to watch a team play (or are saving to afford to do so) could theoretically be negative. My guess is that Temple's is positive. But not anywhere near what the backers are claiming.

The whole problem with this economic impact number is that its nearly impossible to calculate.

(01-24-2018 09:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, they are. Here's a list of school deficits from a few years back. http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I've actually looked up a couple of school's financial reports that break out revenue and expenses by sport and they appear to match up reasonably well with this study. Many public institutions don't break out athletic revenue and expenses so its hard to validate the numbers for each institution, but for the ones I was able to find the data for, it does appear to match up.

Here's some fun numbers (I think you're from the MAC, right, so I'll use them - The Belt and CUSA are similar...the AAC's public schools actually have higher deficits)

Eastern Michigan - USA Today says 24 million deficit. Mlive says 27 million institutional subsidy. The school doesn't appear to report athletic costs and revenue as a separate line item in their official reports.

Western Michigan - 24 million deficit

Central Michigan - 21 million deficit

Akron - 24 million deficit

Miami (OH) - 23 million deficit

Northern Illinois - 17 million deficit

Toledo - 14 million deficit

Kent - 19 million deficit. I was able to find a NCAA report for them. Looks like the number for 2015 was around 20.8 million of a deficit. http://kentstatesports.com/documents/201...Report.pdf

Ball State - 17 million deficit

Bowling Green - 12 million deficit

Buffalo - 25 million deficit

Ohio - 21 million deficit

You're confusing "total allocation" with deficits in those numbers. Look at Rutgers, for example. It's revenue and expenses are identical. Does that add up to a $28M deficit? WVU's revenue that year was $20M more than expenses, but it's running a $4M deficit?

The "total allocated" in that report, more than anything, is how much each school is soaking its students for athletic fees. It's sort of what the deficit *would* be, if it didn't raise money to cover athletic expenses from student fees from other areas. That's different from actually running a deficit, or losing that money as you described it. Look at Cal... that's a deficit.

The methodology for that USA Today report lays it out.

"The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)

"The NCAA and others consider student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money “allocated,” or everything not generated by the department’s athletics functions."

(01-24-2018 10:46 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 09:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, they are. Here's a list of school deficits from a few years back. http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I've actually looked up a couple of school's financial reports that break out revenue and expenses by sport and they appear to match up reasonably well with this study. Many public institutions don't break out athletic revenue and expenses so its hard to validate the numbers for each institution, but for the ones I was able to find the data for, it does appear to match up.

Here's some fun numbers (I think you're from the MAC, right, so I'll use them - The Belt and CUSA are similar...the AAC's public schools actually have higher deficits)

Eastern Michigan - USA Today says 24 million deficit. Mlive says 27 million institutional subsidy. The school doesn't appear to report athletic costs and revenue as a separate line item in their official reports.

Western Michigan - 24 million deficit

Central Michigan - 21 million deficit

Akron - 24 million deficit

Miami (OH) - 23 million deficit

Northern Illinois - 17 million deficit

Toledo - 14 million deficit

Kent - 19 million deficit. I was able to find a NCAA report for them. Looks like the number for 2015 was around 20.8 million of a deficit. http://kentstatesports.com/documents/201...Report.pdf

Ball State - 17 million deficit

Bowling Green - 12 million deficit

Buffalo - 25 million deficit

Ohio - 21 million deficit

You're confusing "total allocation" with deficits in those numbers. Look at Rutgers, for example. It's revenue and expenses are identical. Does that add up to a $28M deficit? WVU's revenue that year was $20M more than expenses, but it's running a $4M deficit?

The "total allocated" in that report, more than anything, is how much each school is soaking its students for athletic fees. It's sort of what the deficit *would* be, if it didn't raise money to cover athletic expenses from student fees from other areas. That's different from actually running a deficit, or losing that money as you described it. Look at Cal... that's a deficit.

The methodology for that USA Today report lays it out.

"The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)

"The NCAA and others consider student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money “allocated,” or everything not generated by the department’s athletics functions."

Either way, its the amount that either the students or the taxpayers are funding the athletic department. Perhaps I should use 'subsidy'. From the standpoint of the taxpayers and students, does it really matter? The only reason there's a subsidy is because without it, there'd be a deficit. Yes, there are a few schools that show a surplus as a net amount after the subsidy, but there appear to be others that show a deficit after it too. Its probably, at best, a wash.

I actually also had a question about whether these numbers made sense. So I went and tried to find some actual athletic department financial statements for a few teams that actually had breakouts of the athletic department budgets. I was able to find Coastal Carolina and Kent State. Most schools simply don't have that information readily available. But they did. And the numbers pretty much matched up. In fact Kent State's numbers were actually worse than the USA Today figure (the school ran a deficit after the subsidy that year). And yes, donations to the athletic department were listed on there as well.

What G5 school is transferring significant funds back to the institution? Why the hell would they do that? Basically charging the students money so they could simply transfer it back to the school? My guess is those would be either negligible amounts or rare years when the athletic department received an unexpected windfall. My guess is that the deficit or surpluses at G5 schools will probably be a wash over a several year period.

The argument put forward here is the G5 should not have football because its costing too much in student fees.

All revenue.....TV, Conference, Marketing, Tickets, Guarantees is either directly or indirectly tied to football.

Without football the 8, 9, 10 million of revenue they are reporting would not exist and they would be worse off financially.

-Its not just total attendance its also ticket prices that go up in FBS.
-Marketing deals are worth more with FBS football than without football.
-Without FBS forget any shot at TV money.
-10-20 million dollar local economic impact of football on the economy is lost.

yo Tom
your missing employs at stadium, pay ckeck & taxes
Temple also makes payments to Linc, which would include EAGLES [superbowl] games & 20 other events
media [TV, radio, print] all have employes
the list is endless

How about money BB coaches raise for cancer research.

(01-25-2018 03:37 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The argument put forward here is the G5 should not have football because its costing too much in student fees.

All revenue.....TV, Conference, Marketing, Tickets, Guarantees is either directly or indirectly tied to football.

Without football the 8, 9, 10 million of revenue they are reporting would not exist and they would be worse off financially.

-Its not just total attendance its also ticket prices that go up in FBS.
-Marketing deals are worth more with FBS football than without football.
-Without FBS forget any shot at TV money.
-10-20 million dollar local economic impact of football on the economy is lost.

1) Not just the G5, FCS and yes, P5, if those schools still can't pay their bills without heavy subsidies.

2) "Local impact" is meaningless for this discussion, because the objection is to student fees. If the local economy really does benefit that way, and there are serious doubts it does, but even if, then that means the local government should kick in to support football, not the students. There's no reason for students to pay high fees so local restaurants and hotels can make more money.

3) I think we all agree that all revenues directly related to athletics have to be counted, such as TV deals, conference payouts, licensing/marketing deals, tickets, concessions, etc.

But what the data show is that for many schools, even with all that added in, football (and athletics generally) brings in far less than it costs, thus the student fees and transfers.

(01-25-2018 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 03:37 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The argument put forward here is the G5 should not have football because its costing too much in student fees.

All revenue.....TV, Conference, Marketing, Tickets, Guarantees is either directly or indirectly tied to football.

Without football the 8, 9, 10 million of revenue they are reporting would not exist and they would be worse off financially.

-Its not just total attendance its also ticket prices that go up in FBS.
-Marketing deals are worth more with FBS football than without football.
-Without FBS forget any shot at TV money.
-10-20 million dollar local economic impact of football on the economy is lost.

1) Not just the G5, FCS and yes, P5, if those schools still can't pay their bills without heavy subsidies.

2) "Local impact" is meaningless for this discussion, because the objection is to student fees. If the local economy really does benefit that way, and there are serious doubts it does, but even if, then that means the local government should kick in to support football, not the students. There's no reason for students to pay high fees so local restaurants and hotels can make more money.

3) I think we all agree that all revenues directly related to athletics have to be counted, such as TV deals, conference payouts, licensing/marketing deals, tickets, concessions, etc.

But what the data show is that for many schools, even with all that added in, football (and athletics generally) brings in far less than it costs, thus the student fees and transfers.

That’s because football is marketing to the university. Your marketing department is an expense item—not a profit center. Why would anyone pay $750,000 to sponsor a NASCAR for one race? All you get is a logo on the paint job of a car racing around the track for an couple of hours. How much money does that logo on the paint job make?

If you dropped football and spent money on advertising, the students would pay the same total tuition—the marketing would just be hidden in the cost structure of the tuition. The UCF budget is 1.5 billion. They spend about 45 million on Sports—of which generated revenue covers half the cost. So, on a budget of 1.5 billion–a marketing cost of 20 million is around 1% of the budget. Most companies use 10% of total revenue as the marketing rule of thumb—though high growth companies will easily exceed twice that number or more.

Thus, in a business context, the athletic department takes up about 10% of the total funds that should be allocated to the marketing budget but likely accounts for 90% of the goodwill and name recognition value derived from all the combined university marketing efforts. It appears to be a pretty good deal in that context. That doesn’t even consider its value as a student amenity.

One other point—the business world doesn’t have Title IV. Football and men’s basketball provide virtually all the offsetting revenue for the athletic department. Athletic departments would have far less red ink if they were not required to carry money losing sports in the name of equality of opportunity.

His point overrides. As I said though, these things are voted on and agreed upon and they wouldn't be passed without stiff student opposition. It's up to students to campaign against and vote against these ridiculous students fees. Faculty too.

(01-25-2018 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 03:37 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The argument put forward here is the G5 should not have football because its costing too much in student fees.

All revenue.....TV, Conference, Marketing, Tickets, Guarantees is either directly or indirectly tied to football.

Without football the 8, 9, 10 million of revenue they are reporting would not exist and they would be worse off financially.

-Its not just total attendance its also ticket prices that go up in FBS.
-Marketing deals are worth more with FBS football than without football.
-Without FBS forget any shot at TV money.
-10-20 million dollar local economic impact of football on the economy is lost.

1) Not just the G5, FCS and yes, P5, if those schools still can't pay their bills without heavy subsidies.

2) "Local impact" is meaningless for this discussion, because the objection is to student fees. If the local economy really does benefit that way, and there are serious doubts it does, but even if, then that means the local government should kick in to support football, not the students. There's no reason for students to pay high fees so local restaurants and hotels can make more money.

3) I think we all agree that all revenues directly related to athletics have to be counted, such as TV deals, conference payouts, licensing/marketing deals, tickets, concessions, etc.

But what the data show is that for many schools, even with all that added in, football (and athletics generally) brings in far less than it costs, thus the student fees and transfers.

That’s because football is marketing to the university. Your marketing department is an expense item—not a profit center. Why would anyone pay $750,000 to sponsor a NASCAR for one race? All you get is a logo on the paint job of a car racing around the track for an couple of hours. How much money does that logo on the paint job make?

Like all functional area expenses, marketing is actually an investment - firms make a marketing investment in something like sponsoring a NASCAR racer because they expect that to translate into increased revenues that more than offset the costs of sponsorship. If it doesn't, then they won't do it again.

So like any investment, football has to be assessed in terms of its return.

Unfortunately, most schools simply seem to take it on faith that their football teams add more value than they cost. There's precious little evidence for that, save at the biggest-brand schools.

Notre Dame? No doubt it's true when they say that football built their library or their science lab. At LSU, i know that the athletics department is required to transfer at least $7.5 million each year to the university (meaning the actual academic side), and since the SECN kicked in that has risen to $10m. That's a positive ROI.

At G5 schools? Their science lab and library have less materials because money that could have better funded them has been transferred to fund football.

I disagree, impact is all that matters, universities need towns around them

(01-25-2018 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 03:37 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The argument put forward here is the G5 should not have football because its costing too much in student fees.

All revenue.....TV, Conference, Marketing, Tickets, Guarantees is either directly or indirectly tied to football.

Without football the 8, 9, 10 million of revenue they are reporting would not exist and they would be worse off financially.

-Its not just total attendance its also ticket prices that go up in FBS.
-Marketing deals are worth more with FBS football than without football.
-Without FBS forget any shot at TV money.
-10-20 million dollar local economic impact of football on the economy is lost.

1) Not just the G5, FCS and yes, P5, if those schools still can't pay their bills without heavy subsidies.

2) "Local impact" is meaningless for this discussion, because the objection is to student fees. If the local economy really does benefit that way, and there are serious doubts it does, but even if, then that means the local government should kick in to support football, not the students. There's no reason for students to pay high fees so local restaurants and hotels can make more money.

3) I think we all agree that all revenues directly related to athletics have to be counted, such as TV deals, conference payouts, licensing/marketing deals, tickets, concessions, etc.

But what the data show is that for many schools, even with all that added in, football (and athletics generally) brings in far less than it costs, thus the student fees and transfers.

That’s because football is marketing to the university. Your marketing department is an expense item—not a profit center. Why would anyone pay $750,000 to sponsor a NASCAR for one race? All you get is a logo on the paint job of a car racing around the track for an couple of hours. How much money does that logo on the paint job make?

Like all functional area expenses, marketing is actually an investment - firms make a marketing investment in something like sponsoring a NASCAR racer because they expect that to translate into increased revenues that more than offset the costs of sponsorship. If it doesn't, then they won't do it again.

So like any investment, football has to be assessed in terms of its return.

Unfortunately, most schools simply seem to take it on faith that their football teams add more value than they cost. There's precious little evidence for that, save at the biggest-brand schools.

Notre Dame? No doubt it's true when they say that football built their library or their science lab. At LSU, i know that the athletics department is required to transfer at least $7.5 million each year to the university (meaning the actual academic side), and since the SECN kicked in that has risen to $10m. That's a positive ROI.

At G5 schools? Their science lab and library have less materials because money that could have better funded them has been transferred to fund football.

That was my point in the rest of the post above.

First, the entire athletic department costs the school about 1% of its operating budget. It would typically cost twice that much, but generated revenue cuts the cost by half (marketing is essentially subsidized by alumni, fans, and other outside entities).

Most companies spend about 10% of total revenue on advertising and marketing. Many spend far more than that. The athletic department at a school like UCF represents just 10% of the typical marketing budget for a business with 1.5 billion in revenue.

So, basically 90% of any goodwill and name recognition created by the marketing department is generated by the schools sports teams--which account for only 10% of the normal marketing budget. Plus, this doesnt even address its value as a amenity to the students.

Sure, some students dont care about football and sports--but are they going to take your school off their 'options" list because of a 1% difference in cost? Proably not. But a student who wants football games to be part of his college experience is most definitely cutting your schools from the list if it doesn't have football.

Lets put it this way--schools are competing against one another for students. If USF wants to drop football and redirect 1% of their budget elsewhere--they should do that. In a decade we will know if that was a wise choice or not. My guess is that UCF would be a huge beneficiary of such a decision.

The idea that administrators are just blindly throwing money into a money losing department with no real purpose is silly. They didnt rise to those positions because they are stupid. The value of the athletic department to a school cannot be measured by simply looking at its profit or loss.

One more thing I find interesting--most of the cost of the athletic department is scholarships. My guess ithe charged amount of the scholarship and its actual cost to the school are not the same (Im virtually certain it actually costs the school less than they charge that athletic department). Additionally, I think Its interesting that we dont attack or expect any other program in a school that awards scholarships to make money. How much money does the school band make? Hell, how much money does the school make on academic scholarships handed out? The fact is---they lose money on those programs. They are give aways.

(01-25-2018 11:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One more thing I find interesting--most of the cost of the athletic department is scholarships. My guess ithe charged amount of the scholarship and its actual cost to the school are not the same (Im virtually certain it actually costs the school less than they charge that athletic department). Additionally, I think Its interesting that we dont attack or expect any other program in a school that awards scholarships to make money. How much money does the school band make? Hell, how much money does the school make on academic scholarships handed out? The fact is---they lose money on those programs. They are give aways.

Agreed with you on everything up to this point. My guess is the reason why high level athletics is in the spotlight is because its expenses have grown exponentially.

Alabama's legendary Coach Bear Bryant was paid a total compensation of $450,000 in his final year (1982) or ~$1.2M in 2018 dollars. Today Nick Saban is paid just north of ~$11M, or 10 times what their 6 time national championship winning coach made when adjusted for inflation.

To me this argument is not about whether a program can afford the expense or even whether the program generates value greater than the cost, rather it's about questioning in general the exponential increase in expenditure.

If band directors were the highest paid state employees in nearly every state in the country, I think people would question it in the same way football and basketball programs are being questioned.

(01-25-2018 04:35 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 11:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One more thing I find interesting--most of the cost of the athletic department is scholarships. My guess ithe charged amount of the scholarship and its actual cost to the school are not the same (Im virtually certain it actually costs the school less than they charge that athletic department). Additionally, I think Its interesting that we dont attack or expect any other program in a school that awards scholarships to make money. How much money does the school band make? Hell, how much money does the school make on academic scholarships handed out? The fact is---they lose money on those programs. They are give aways.

Agreed with you on everything up to this point. My guess is the reason why high level athletics is in the spotlight is because its expenses have grown exponentially.

Alabama's legendary Coach Bear Bryant was paid a total compensation of $450,000 in his final year (1982) or ~$1.2M in 2018 dollars. Today Nick Saban is paid just north of ~$11M, or 10 times what their 6 time national championship winning coach made when adjusted for inflation.

To me this argument is not about whether a program can afford the expense or even whether the program generates value greater than the cost, rather it's about questioning in general the exponential increase in expenditure.

If band directors were the highest paid state employees in nearly every state in the country, I think people would question it in the same way football and basketball programs are being questioned.

Well, at state universities, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the state legislature from capping the maximum compensation in that position. I have to agree that its a little insane that the highest paid state employee in many states is a football coach (its that way in many town/city school districts as well).

(01-25-2018 11:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 03:37 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The argument put forward here is the G5 should not have football because its costing too much in student fees.

All revenue.....TV, Conference, Marketing, Tickets, Guarantees is either directly or indirectly tied to football.

Without football the 8, 9, 10 million of revenue they are reporting would not exist and they would be worse off financially.

-Its not just total attendance its also ticket prices that go up in FBS.
-Marketing deals are worth more with FBS football than without football.
-Without FBS forget any shot at TV money.
-10-20 million dollar local economic impact of football on the economy is lost.

1) Not just the G5, FCS and yes, P5, if those schools still can't pay their bills without heavy subsidies.

2) "Local impact" is meaningless for this discussion, because the objection is to student fees. If the local economy really does benefit that way, and there are serious doubts it does, but even if, then that means the local government should kick in to support football, not the students. There's no reason for students to pay high fees so local restaurants and hotels can make more money.

3) I think we all agree that all revenues directly related to athletics have to be counted, such as TV deals, conference payouts, licensing/marketing deals, tickets, concessions, etc.

But what the data show is that for many schools, even with all that added in, football (and athletics generally) brings in far less than it costs, thus the student fees and transfers.

That’s because football is marketing to the university. Your marketing department is an expense item—not a profit center. Why would anyone pay $750,000 to sponsor a NASCAR for one race? All you get is a logo on the paint job of a car racing around the track for an couple of hours. How much money does that logo on the paint job make?

Like all functional area expenses, marketing is actually an investment - firms make a marketing investment in something like sponsoring a NASCAR racer because they expect that to translate into increased revenues that more than offset the costs of sponsorship. If it doesn't, then they won't do it again.

So like any investment, football has to be assessed in terms of its return.

Unfortunately, most schools simply seem to take it on faith that their football teams add more value than they cost. There's precious little evidence for that, save at the biggest-brand schools.

Notre Dame? No doubt it's true when they say that football built their library or their science lab. At LSU, i know that the athletics department is required to transfer at least $7.5 million each year to the university (meaning the actual academic side), and since the SECN kicked in that has risen to $10m. That's a positive ROI.

At G5 schools? Their science lab and library have less materials because money that could have better funded them has been transferred to fund football.

That was my point in the rest of the post above.

First, the entire athletic department costs the school about 1% of its operating budget. It would typically cost twice that much, but generated revenue cuts the cost by half (marketing is essentially subsidized by alumni, fans, and other outside entities).

Most companies spend about 10% of total revenue on advertising and marketing. Many spend far more than that. The athletic department at a school like UCF represents just 10% of the typical marketing budget for a business with 1.5 billion in revenue.

So, basically 90% of any goodwill and name recognition created by the marketing department is generated by the schools sports teams--which account for only 10% of the normal marketing budget. Plus, this doesnt even address its value as a amenity to the students.

There's no evidence that sports teams at UCF (or USF) generate any % of good will, much less 90%. You are just assuming they do.

USF and UCF were both large, growing schools before they got football in the late 1990s. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be where they are right now in terms of enrollment without it.

I'm glad USF has football, take great pride in it, wish we had it when i was there, but I can't defend the current funding mechanism.

I think a good solution for your issues Quo is to make seniors ineligible to vote in athletic fees and for incoming freshmen to have an option to waive athletic fees they normally wouldn't be expected to pay, excluding novelties like access to the fitness center, etc... that way the long term students have a bigger voice.

(01-25-2018 11:46 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I disagree, impact is all that matters, universities need towns around them

Universities are supposed to have a mission to advance the interest of their communities and states.

There are going to be some programs who cry uncle, move down or drop football all together. However, the average G5 program is getting enough of a revenue bump to afford a 1 million dollar coach these days. The fact that these programs are making 3, 4, 5 million more in revenue than what they were 10 years ago is very real.

I don't think you'll see salaries in the G5 go up too much more because after that it begins to cut into revenues too much. The only programs that will chase 10 million are the very elite.

(01-25-2018 04:47 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  yo Tom
your missing employs at stadium, pay ckeck & taxes
Temple also makes payments to Linc, which would include EAGLES [superbowl] games & 20 other events
media [TV, radio, print] all have employes
the list is endless

How about money BB coaches raise for cancer research.

Sure, there are temporary employees at the stadium. But understand that if, say, Temple University spent more money on academics, they could perhaps hire more full time employees. Or Philadelphia could benefit from having more people be able to afford to get a college degree at Temple and therefore contribute more to the economy in the future.

Great, so now, the Temple University students are now effectively subsidizing the Eagles...That would be insanity if true. My guess is that it really isn't. The amount that Temple probably spends on rent is probably done at a deep discount, and probably only represents an incremental cost of a stadium that would be there even if there was no football team at Temple.

Temple University's decision to ramp up student and taxpayer and institutional subsidies of G5 football has coincided with a massive reduction in professional media employment.

I'm sure that the 23 million or so Temple spends each year to subsidize Owls athletics does have some incremental impact on the Philadelphia economy. That being said, I'm not sure that the incremental amount is really significant or justified by the outlay.

(01-25-2018 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 11:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  1) Not just the G5, FCS and yes, P5, if those schools still can't pay their bills without heavy subsidies.

2) "Local impact" is meaningless for this discussion, because the objection is to student fees. If the local economy really does benefit that way, and there are serious doubts it does, but even if, then that means the local government should kick in to support football, not the students. There's no reason for students to pay high fees so local restaurants and hotels can make more money.

3) I think we all agree that all revenues directly related to athletics have to be counted, such as TV deals, conference payouts, licensing/marketing deals, tickets, concessions, etc.

But what the data show is that for many schools, even with all that added in, football (and athletics generally) brings in far less than it costs, thus the student fees and transfers.

That’s because football is marketing to the university. Your marketing department is an expense item—not a profit center. Why would anyone pay $750,000 to sponsor a NASCAR for one race? All you get is a logo on the paint job of a car racing around the track for an couple of hours. How much money does that logo on the paint job make?

Like all functional area expenses, marketing is actually an investment - firms make a marketing investment in something like sponsoring a NASCAR racer because they expect that to translate into increased revenues that more than offset the costs of sponsorship. If it doesn't, then they won't do it again.

So like any investment, football has to be assessed in terms of its return.

Unfortunately, most schools simply seem to take it on faith that their football teams add more value than they cost. There's precious little evidence for that, save at the biggest-brand schools.

Notre Dame? No doubt it's true when they say that football built their library or their science lab. At LSU, i know that the athletics department is required to transfer at least $7.5 million each year to the university (meaning the actual academic side), and since the SECN kicked in that has risen to $10m. That's a positive ROI.

At G5 schools? Their science lab and library have less materials because money that could have better funded them has been transferred to fund football.

That was my point in the rest of the post above.

First, the entire athletic department costs the school about 1% of its operating budget. It would typically cost twice that much, but generated revenue cuts the cost by half (marketing is essentially subsidized by alumni, fans, and other outside entities).

Most companies spend about 10% of total revenue on advertising and marketing. Many spend far more than that. The athletic department at a school like UCF represents just 10% of the typical marketing budget for a business with 1.5 billion in revenue.

So, basically 90% of any goodwill and name recognition created by the marketing department is generated by the schools sports teams--which account for only 10% of the normal marketing budget. Plus, this doesnt even address its value as a amenity to the students.

There's no evidence that sports teams at UCF (or USF) generate any % of good will, much less 90%. You are just assuming they do.

USF and UCF were both large, growing schools before they got football in the late 1990s. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be where they are right now in terms of enrollment without it.

I'm glad USF has football, take great pride in it, wish we had it when i was there, but I can't defend the current funding mechanism.

Its not much of an assumption. How many times do you hear a schools name when it isnt connected to sports? How many people look at the latest Carnegie list vs how many people catch a game on TV or a score during the evening news broadcast. Much more likely to hear a school name connected to its sports team than due to any other reason.

Oh, and UCF had an enrollment of 20,387 in fall of 1990. Their 2017 fall enrollment is 66,183. Interesting the rate of growth accelerated in the late 1990's--about the time they jumped to FBS. That said, they had been a successful FCS program prior to that (it was 1AA back then).

https://ikm.ucf.edu/historical-enrollment/