It's also worth pointing out that USM doesn't charge the hell out of student tuition with athletic fees and what not like many schools do.

Doesn't like half of FAU and ODU's budget come from student fees or something like that? I'm kinda out of the loop on everyone's budget #'s and how much comes from student fees.

A lot of ODU’s budget is subsidized. Not sure about FAU.

(01-12-2019 08:57 AM)TTT Wrote:  It's also worth pointing out that USM doesn't charge the hell out of student tuition with athletic fees and what not like many schools do.

Doesn't like half of FAU and ODU's budget come from student fees or something like that? I'm kinda out of the loop on everyone's budget #'s and how much comes from student fees.

FAU is not heavily funded by student fees we are somewhere in the middle of CUSA. Our fees are comparitive with other top G5 schools.

ODU, FIU, and Charlotte are heavily funded by student fees.

Percent Subsidized by each school in CUSA. Starting with the most subsidized according to the 2016-17 report by USA Today Sports posted earlier.


1. FIU- 71.96%
2. FAU- 69.41%
3. Charlotte- 67.78%
4. North Texas- 66.56%
5. MTSU- 65.74%
6. UAB- 62.43%
7. ODU- 62.08%

8. UTSA- 60.43%
9. UTEP- 58.17%
10. WKU- 55.37%

11. Marshall- 48.98%
12. La Tech- 43.23%
13. So Miss- 36.83%


Rice- Private school not listed.

(01-12-2019 12:28 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 08:57 AM)TTT Wrote:  It's also worth pointing out that USM doesn't charge the hell out of student tuition with athletic fees and what not like many schools do.

Doesn't like half of FAU and ODU's budget come from student fees or something like that? I'm kinda out of the loop on everyone's budget #'s and how much comes from student fees.

FAU is not heavily funded by student fees we are somewhere in the middle of CUSA. Our fees are comparitive with other top G5 schools.

ODU, FIU, and Charlotte are heavily funded by student fees.

In 2016-17 FAU was the second most subsidized program in the conference at over 69% and trailing only behind FIU.

For comparison here is the Sun Belt.....


1. Coastal- 83.82%
2. Ga St- 74.18%
3. Troy- 72.46%
4. Texas St- 72.28%
5. USA- 67.33%

6. App St- 60.63%
7. Ga So- 57.96%
8. Louisiana- 45.19%
9. ULM- 44.71%

10. Ark St- 31.99%

(01-12-2019 01:55 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 12:28 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 08:57 AM)TTT Wrote:  It's also worth pointing out that USM doesn't charge the hell out of student tuition with athletic fees and what not like many schools do.

Doesn't like half of FAU and ODU's budget come from student fees or something like that? I'm kinda out of the loop on everyone's budget #'s and how much comes from student fees.

FAU is not heavily funded by student fees we are somewhere in the middle of CUSA. Our fees are comparitive with other top G5 schools.

ODU, FIU, and Charlotte are heavily funded by student fees.

In 2016-17 FAU was the second most subsidized program in the conference at over 69% and trailing only behind FIU.

University subsidizing doesn’t only include student fees. It also includes unrestricted contributions, endowments, etc. Like I said FAU is not heavily funded by STUDENT FEES.

ODU leads with $28.7m in student fees vs FAU at $12.7m in student fees. Also, keep in mind that FAU’s tuition is still less than Marshall’s so we can easily increase our fees without draining our student body. We also have 32,000 students vs Marshall’s 16,000, so are flat fee is actually comparable we just have twice as many students to collect from.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I'll put together a list based on nothing but student fees when I get some time in the next day or so.

Just looking, La Tech, Marshall, and So Miss are towards the least amount of student fees. In fact, La Tech doesn't use any student fees which is pretty impressive.

(01-12-2019 08:08 AM)balanced_view Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 09:45 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Almost 6 times the TV contract payout is not chump change at USM.

Most of our athletic programs are operating on $30 to $40 million budgets (and they are growing every year). The million the NCAA is paying out to us is loose change to them. If that million bucks is going to make or break USM's athletic department, then C-USA has bigger problems then I thought.

your 30 to 40 million budgets are cost to your schools, thats what your spending not how much you earning. if you spend increasingly more each year like you said, without increasing revenue, it can and will break a school. I agree with the USM poster, all revenue is significant for school like us that are not getting 20 plus million from tv contracts. so i also would not consider the CFP money chump change no matter what place a conference finishes.

Budgets are growing, but so are revenue streams. Although, I would argue, athletes, recruits, and fans don't really care how much revenue our athletic departments are collecting. I believe they do care about how much they are spending on things like stipends, facilities, equipment, apparel, amenities, and travel. Our AD's are paid well to make sure the budgets are sustainable. So in the grand scheme of things, I still think the $1 million the NCAA is paying out is small potatoes. In most cases it only represents around 2.5% to 3.5% of many athletic budgets in C-USA.

clt says markets do matter.

(01-12-2019 03:35 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'll put together a list based on nothing but student fees when I get some time in the next day or so.

Just looking, La Tech, Marshall, and So Miss are towards the least amount of student fees. In fact, La Tech doesn't use any student fees which is pretty impressive.

LA Tech’s budget is also lower than some SBC schools which is not impressive. Budgets can be an indicator of the future, when belts school pass you in facilities, coaching, and eventually recruiting your budgets will look less “impressive”. LA Tech, USM, and Marshall do a great job with a reduced budget but you could be doing a better job with a bigger budget (see UCF for an example). We need a high budget/performance school to increase our conference brand recognition.

Mississippi State Law (or, as we call it, OP/MSUcks law ) demands all state supported universities to be in "the black" every year. Easy for our two SEC "sisters" since Bama, Georgia, LSU et al sends them a $40 meelion check every year.

Most college programs are operating in "the red" however, and have their arrears paid basically by welfare:
http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...ubsidy-gap
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...l-minority
/www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/cougars/article/University-of-Houston-faces-a-widening-money-gap-12997349.php

(01-12-2019 03:49 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:35 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'll put together a list based on nothing but student fees when I get some time in the next day or so.

Just looking, La Tech, Marshall, and So Miss are towards the least amount of student fees. In fact, La Tech doesn't use any student fees which is pretty impressive.

LA Tech’s budget is also lower than some SBC schools which is not impressive. Budgets can be an indicator of the future, when belts school pass you in facilities, coaching, and eventually recruiting your budgets will look less “impressive”. LA Tech, USM, and Marshall do a great job with a reduced budget but you could be doing a better job with a bigger budget (see UCF for an example). We need a high budget/performance school to increase our conference brand recognition.

La Tech, So Miss, Marshall, Ark St, Louisiana, and ULM, are the only ones doing ok with real budgets. Sooner or later the government is going to step in to either stop or at least cap the percentage of subsidized athletic budgets. They should have stepped in a long time ago. No athletic department at a public university should be over 50-60% subsidized.

(01-12-2019 04:51 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:49 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:35 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'll put together a list based on nothing but student fees when I get some time in the next day or so.

Just looking, La Tech, Marshall, and So Miss are towards the least amount of student fees. In fact, La Tech doesn't use any student fees which is pretty impressive.

LA Tech’s budget is also lower than some SBC schools which is not impressive. Budgets can be an indicator of the future, when belts school pass you in facilities, coaching, and eventually recruiting your budgets will look less “impressive”. LA Tech, USM, and Marshall do a great job with a reduced budget but you could be doing a better job with a bigger budget (see UCF for an example). We need a high budget/performance school to increase our conference brand recognition.

La Tech, So Miss, Marshall, Ark St, Louisiana, and ULM, are the only ones doing ok with real budgets. Sooner or later the government is going to step in to either stop or at least cap the percentage of subsidized athletic budgets. They should have stepped in a long time ago. No athletic department at a public university should be over 50-60% subsidized.

1. The federal government won’t step in and stop anything. This is a state issue and Florida is doing just fine with its economy.

2. You were saying we are subsidized by students and now its the government?

3. A large portion of our funding actually comes from our academic and athletic excellence fund, which is a joint venture between the College of Business, College of Medicine, and Athletics department. This money is separate from the contributions given directly to the AD.

https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings
Maybe we should be getting more money from the state since they’re doing so well.

(01-12-2019 03:48 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says markets do matter.

Some are confused between market share and location.

(01-12-2019 03:48 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says markets do matter.

clt's cousin says: Not IF you're grandfathered in, ala Oxpatch and Starkvegas!

(01-11-2019 09:43 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  Their recruiting and budgets do not match up to the top or middle of CUSA.

I like to be fact-based when making assertions so I checked the latest available numbers. Here are the budgets of the Top 7 of each conference, in millions.

ODU 46.2 Ark State 39.5
Char 37.9 Tex State 38.4
FAU 34.5 App State 35.0
MTSU 34.0 Coastal 33.7
N Tex 32.2 USA 30.7
UTEP 31.7 Ga State 30.2
WKU 30.4 Troy 29.9

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

To suggest there's some significant difference in the athletic budgets of the top schools of the two leagues is stretching it a bit.

As for recruiting, dunno. Perhaps I'll muster the energy one day soon to look at that as well.

(01-12-2019 05:30 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:48 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says markets do matter.

Some are confused between market share and location.

clt didn’t realize that appy was in the CUSA, congrats on a big step up.

(01-12-2019 03:49 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:35 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I'll put together a list based on nothing but student fees when I get some time in the next day or so.

Just looking, La Tech, Marshall, and So Miss are towards the least amount of student fees. In fact, La Tech doesn't use any student fees which is pretty impressive.

LA Tech’s budget is also lower than some SBC schools which is not impressive. Budgets can be an indicator of the future, when belts school pass you in facilities, coaching, and eventually recruiting your budgets will look less “impressive”. LA Tech, USM, and Marshall do a great job with a reduced budget but you could be doing a better job with a bigger budget (see UCF for an example). We need a high budget/performance school to increase our conference brand recognition.

Dude, FAU's budget is almost 70% subsidized by the tax payer. Louisana Tech's sits at 43%.

When a state budget hits a rough spot, and they almost always do, if lawmakers come looking for money at the expense of public university athletic budgets, they're not going to go after the budgets of the P5's because most of them are grads of the P5's and besides, those budgets are usually funded at 5% or less with public funds, some with ZERO.

FAU needs to get its budget exposure fixed.

(01-12-2019 05:42 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 09:43 PM)Seminowl Wrote:  Their recruiting and budgets do not match up to the top or middle of CUSA.

I like to be fact-based when making assertions so I checked the latest available numbers. Here are the budgets of the Top 7 of each conference, in millions.

ODU 46.2 Ark State 39.5
Char 37.9 Tex State 38.4
FAU 34.5 App State 35.0
MTSU 34.0 Coastal 33.7
N Tex 32.2 USA 30.7
UTEP 31.7 Ga State 30.2
WKU 30.4 Troy 29.9

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

To suggest there's some significant difference in the athletic budgets of the top schools of the two leagues is stretching it a bit.

As for recruiting, dunno. Perhaps I'll muster the energy one day soon to look at that as well.

Per 247
2018 CUSA top recruiting class score 173.58, top avg class 83.04
2018 SBC tip recruiting class score 148.03, top avg class 81.14 (7 CUSA schools had higher scores than the best SBC team)