Saw on another board where someone linked to this site. Has a lot of good finance info, at a school level and all rolled up to conf level. Thought I'd share.

http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission...he_money-0

"Game Expenses and Travel" just 13% for total expenses for conference. Compared to 11% for MAC and SBC. Those who think a regional alignment would save a lot of money, doesn't appear so. Maybe $1M for a school.

Reducing travel cost is only part of what could be gained from realignment. Reducing games the fans don't care about and increasing games that would be considered rivalry games would be a bigger desire. Getting more ticket sales in money sports could generate more money than what could be saved in travel.

(02-13-2019 12:43 PM)va-eagle Wrote:  Saw on another board where someone linked to this site. Has a lot of good finance info, at a school level and all rolled up to conf level. Thought I'd share.

http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission...he_money-0

"Game Expenses and Travel" just 13% for total expenses for conference. Compared to 11% for MAC and SBC. Those who think a regional alignment would save a lot of money, doesn't appear so. Maybe $1M for a school.

Compared tickets sold and CUSA easily makes up that difference

2017
$25,529,862 CUSA (13 schools)...Rice is not included
$15,465,804 SBC (12 schools)

2016 (NOT going back to check for # of schools but Im sure the # is different than 2017)
$27,589,502
$12,896,691

NCAA/CONFERENCE DISTRIBUTIONS, TV AGREEMENTS, AND BOWL REVENUE
Revenue received from the NCAA (including championships) and athletics conferences, media rights, and post-season football bowl games.

2017
$46,388,661 CUSA (13 schools)
$36,938,393 SBC (12 schools)

2016 (NOT going back to check for # of schools but Im sure the # is different than 2017)
$50,937,073
$25,240,950

I know, nobody wants to be associated with anything to do with the Sunbelt Conference. Might as well kill all athletics if you have to play the likes of ULM, ULL, Appie St. and such. Thank God for CUSA., getting stronger every year.

What is most telling is the fact that 60% of all revenue comes from institutional government payments or student fees.

(02-13-2019 01:32 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  Reducing travel cost is only part of what could be gained from realignment. Reducing games the fans don't care about and increasing games that would be considered rivalry games would be a bigger desire. Getting more ticket sales in money sports could generate more money than what could be saved in travel.

This was/is my thinking as well to a degree. IMO, i feel like USM would put more butts in seats at places like ULL, South Alabama, Troy and say Georgia St than we would going to UTEP, ODU, UTSA and Charlotte. And on the flip side the return games would put more butts in our seats than those same further away teams. I don't mean disrespect to those teams (UTEP, UTSA, ODU, Charlotte) as you could easily say App St and Coastal Carolina would probably travel better to ODU, Charlotte and Marshall than USM would.

(02-13-2019 02:13 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  What is most telling is the fact that 60% of all revenue comes from institutional government payments or student fees.

I dont know why student fees are looked at as a negative? Most are only a couple/three hundred a year. It's the one source (know source..win or lose) that is in the bank the first day of the school year.

We can look at schools like FIU getting a large % of their funds from student fees. But the fees are a lot lower than for example at Western, Marshall, Middle, UAB,...most CUSA schools.

Student fees are not just for fb, bb

part of the fees goes toward the updating and building stadium, arena, soccer fields softball fields and intramurals sports. Not everyone will used those bit the same can be said for clubs and classes that your tuition is used for

(02-13-2019 02:29 PM)usm99 Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 01:32 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  Reducing travel cost is only part of what could be gained from realignment. Reducing games the fans don't care about and increasing games that would be considered rivalry games would be a bigger desire. Getting more ticket sales in money sports could generate more money than what could be saved in travel.

This was/is my thinking as well to a degree. IMO, i feel like USM would put more butts in seats at places like ULL, South Alabama, Troy and say Georgia St than we would going to UTEP, ODU, UTSA and Charlotte. And on the flip side the return games would put more butts in our seats than those same further away teams. I don't mean disrespect to those teams (UTEP, UTSA, ODU, Charlotte) as you could easily say App St and Coastal Carolina would probably travel better to ODU, Charlotte and Marshall than USM would.

Yeh, most people see CCU as a recent move up and given little respect and UNCC as not having a history of football, but UNCC and CCU will/have put a good amount of butts in the seats at Kidd Brewer. It's not always about reducing travel costs, I think you'd be very hard pressed finding an App fan wanting to give up the Ark State games for say ODU (no offense, we should play y'all every few years in OOC anyway).

(02-13-2019 02:29 PM)usm99 Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 01:32 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  Reducing travel cost is only part of what could be gained from realignment. Reducing games the fans don't care about and increasing games that would be considered rivalry games would be a bigger desire. Getting more ticket sales in money sports could generate more money than what could be saved in travel.

This was/is my thinking as well to a degree. IMO, i feel like USM would put more butts in seats at places like ULL, South Alabama, Troy and say Georgia St than we would going to UTEP, ODU, UTSA and Charlotte. And on the flip side the return games would put more butts in our seats than those same further away teams. I don't mean disrespect to those teams (UTEP, UTSA, ODU, Charlotte) as you could easily say App St and Coastal Carolina would probably travel better to ODU, Charlotte and Marshall than USM would.

Well we can compare those...

2018
USM VS Jackson State 29,174
ULM which is a lot closer than ULL 19,579
USM vs Tech 19,142

USM vs UTSA 21,259
USM vs Marshall 20,375
USM vs Rice 20,159

2017
USM VS Southern 24,337
USM VS UK 22,761
USM vs UNT 21,907
USM VS UTEP 21,970
USM VS UAB 19,101
USM VS UNCC 20,189

2016
usm VS Savannah State 29,509
USM VS Troy 27,905

USM VS RICE 28,325
USM VS MARSHALL 31,275
USM VS UNCC 28,347
USM VS TECH 26,164

reality does not match your thinking

(02-13-2019 02:34 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 02:13 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  What is most telling is the fact that 60% of all revenue comes from institutional government payments or student fees.

I dont know why student fees are looked at as a negative? Most are only a couple/three hundred a year. It's the one source (know source..win or lose) that is in the bank the first day of the school year.

We can look at schools like FIU getting a large % of their funds from student fees. But the fees are a lot lower than for example at Western, Marshall, Middle, UAB,...most CUSA schools.

Student fees are not just for fb, bb

part of the fees goes toward the updating and building stadium, arena, soccer fields softball fields and intramurals sports. Not everyone will used those bit the same can be said for clubs and classes that your tuition is used for

At ODU, student fees for athletics are $48.20/credit. Most students take 30 credits per year, so that comes to $1446 per year.

Virginia passed a law in 2015 that caps the percentage of athletics expenses that can be paid by student fees. For ODU, that means we have 10 years to get our percentage down to 55%.


As for the bolded statement above, I'm obviously pro-sports, but the problem is that higher education is already highly priced, so why force students who will not attend athletic events to subsidize the football team? Athletics and the support thereof is not part of every student's experience, but they all have to pay for it.

(02-13-2019 03:32 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 02:34 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 02:13 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  What is most telling is the fact that 60% of all revenue comes from institutional government payments or student fees.

I dont know why student fees are looked at as a negative? Most are only a couple/three hundred a year. It's the one source (know source..win or lose) that is in the bank the first day of the school year.

We can look at schools like FIU getting a large % of their funds from student fees. But the fees are a lot lower than for example at Western, Marshall, Middle, UAB,...most CUSA schools.

Student fees are not just for fb, bb

part of the fees goes toward the updating and building stadium, arena, soccer fields softball fields and intramurals sports. Not everyone will used those bit the same can be said for clubs and classes that your tuition is used for

At ODU, student fees for athletics are $48.20/credit. Most students take 30 credits per year, so that comes to $1446 per year.

Virginia passed a law in 2015 that caps the percentage of athletics expenses that can be paid by student fees. For ODU, that means we have 10 years to get our percentage down to 55%.


As for the bolded statement above, I'm obviously pro-sports, but the problem is that higher education is already highly priced, so why force students who will not attend athletic events to subsidize the football team? Athletics and the support thereof is not part of every student's experience, but they all have to pay for it.

What makes you think all of that money goes to fb? At Western it's also used to pay off bonds used for the upgrade on diddle. Which isn't just basketball.

You dont think part of the tuition at ODU is going to fund clubs and other activities that most students dont take part in? Western had 20,377 student for 2017 that paid $6,408,037 in fees...$314.00 each.

I would bet anything each one of those paid more than $314 each to Western for actives that they did not take part in. So you can say the same thing for those courses that are funded by their tuition that they take no part in.

(02-13-2019 02:42 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 02:29 PM)usm99 Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 01:32 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  Reducing travel cost is only part of what could be gained from realignment. Reducing games the fans don't care about and increasing games that would be considered rivalry games would be a bigger desire. Getting more ticket sales in money sports could generate more money than what could be saved in travel.

This was/is my thinking as well to a degree. IMO, i feel like USM would put more butts in seats at places like ULL, South Alabama, Troy and say Georgia St than we would going to UTEP, ODU, UTSA and Charlotte. And on the flip side the return games would put more butts in our seats than those same further away teams. I don't mean disrespect to those teams (UTEP, UTSA, ODU, Charlotte) as you could easily say App St and Coastal Carolina would probably travel better to ODU, Charlotte and Marshall than USM would.

Yeh, most people see CCU as a recent move up and given little respect and UNCC as not having a history of football, but UNCC and CCU will/have put a good amount of butts in the seats at Kidd Brewer. It's not always about reducing travel costs, I think you'd be very hard pressed finding an App fan wanting to give up the Ark State games for say ODU (no offense, we should play y'all every few years in OOC anyway).

This is more focused toward football...

MAC attendance is terrible, but partly due to them playing weekday games during 1 month. Even on their Saturday games, they don't do well.

Sometimes you'll get better turnout if you play a regional team once every 3 years. If they are on your schedule every year, doesn't mean as much. I'll use WKU and MTSU as an example. Very close, but not great attendance for their game. If they were not in same conf and played once every 3 years, I bet the attendance would be top for that season.

USM doesn't need to be in a conf with ULL, USA and Troy, but USM should be playing 1 of those 3 teams every season. Throw in Tulane and Memphis, and USM should be playing 2 of those 5 teams every season. That's just my opinion.

Totally agree with your assessment, WKUYG. In the case of Florida state schools, tuition and fees (which equals total costs per year for non-dorm resident) is still one of the nations lowest at about $6,550 a year based 30 credit hours. So students get a very good education, great activities, and free access to athletic events for a (relatively speaking) very good price of tuition and fees.

I'm not against the fees. I'm just making the case on the other side.

Tuition rates are charged per credit hour. In theory, you are paying for your education. If I don't want to participate in athletics or clubs or any other extracurriculars, why should I be paying for them? I'm here to get an education. That's it. Let the students who are participating pay their fees to run their programs of interest. Don't charge me an extra $1500 per year for things in which I have no interest.

Also, for ODU, the $48.20/credit hour is only for athletics. In total, students are charged $117.69/credit hour in "student activity fees." https://www.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offi...s-2019.pdf

(02-13-2019 05:12 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  I'm not against the fees. I'm just making the case on the other side.

Tuition rates are charged per credit hour. In theory, you are paying for your education. If I don't want to participate in athletics or clubs or any other extracurriculars, why should I be paying for them? I'm here to get an education. That's it. Let the students who are participating pay their fees to run their programs of interest. Don't charge me an extra $1500 per year for things in which I have no interest.

Also, for ODU, the $48.20/credit hour is only for athletics. In total, students are charged $117.69/credit hour in "student activity fees." https://www.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offi...s-2019.pdf

Again part of your tuition is going for special classes that are not fully funded by the number of people taking them. So why shouldn't ODU drop those also if you have no interest in taking one or the other 95% of student not taking those type classes? Even if a there's not a dollar amount that you know about...its in there.

But again I doubt if most CUSA school are like ODU. I think most are in the 200-400 dollars

(02-13-2019 05:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 05:12 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  I'm not against the fees. I'm just making the case on the other side.

Tuition rates are charged per credit hour. In theory, you are paying for your education. If I don't want to participate in athletics or clubs or any other extracurriculars, why should I be paying for them? I'm here to get an education. That's it. Let the students who are participating pay their fees to run their programs of interest. Don't charge me an extra $1500 per year for things in which I have no interest.

Also, for ODU, the $48.20/credit hour is only for athletics. In total, students are charged $117.69/credit hour in "student activity fees." https://www.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offi...s-2019.pdf

Again part of your tuition is going for special classes that are not fully funded by the number of people taking them. So why shouldn't ODU drop those also if you have no interest in taking one or the other 95% of student not taking those type classes? Even if a there's not a dollar amount that you know about...its in there.

But again I doubt if most CUSA school are like ODU. I think most are in the 200-400 dollars

To be fair to ODU, the fees are high because no government money in Virginia is allowed to be spent on athletics. You’ll notice the “government/institutional support” at WKU is over $12 million. At ODU, it’s $0.

As for your point about “special classes,” the argument could be that perhaps students should only pay for the actual cost of their class, with differential tuition for professors’ salaries, lab equipment, etc.

(02-13-2019 05:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 05:12 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  I'm not against the fees. I'm just making the case on the other side.

Tuition rates are charged per credit hour. In theory, you are paying for your education. If I don't want to participate in athletics or clubs or any other extracurriculars, why should I be paying for them? I'm here to get an education. That's it. Let the students who are participating pay their fees to run their programs of interest. Don't charge me an extra $1500 per year for things in which I have no interest.

Also, for ODU, the $48.20/credit hour is only for athletics. In total, students are charged $117.69/credit hour in "student activity fees." https://www.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offi...s-2019.pdf

Again part of your tuition is going for special classes that are not fully funded by the number of people taking them. So why shouldn't ODU drop those also if you have no interest in taking one or the other 95% of student not taking those type classes? Even if a there's not a dollar amount that you know about...its in there.

But again I doubt if most CUSA school are like ODU. I think most are in the 200-400 dollars

Most CUSA schools also draw on other institutional funds as well so some of you tuition dollars and/or possibly tax dollars are going towards athletics as well. And ODU’s as all VA school’s athletic budget is inflated a bit by legislative accounting guidelines. Or if you want to look at it the other way, other schools are not including institutional spending for athletics in thier athletic budgets. The gap is not as big as it seems though.

clt asks how the elite schools in CUSA have over 425 athletes?

(02-13-2019 02:34 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 02:13 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  What is most telling is the fact that 60% of all revenue comes from institutional government payments or student fees.

I dont know why student fees are looked at as a negative? Most are only a couple/three hundred a year. It's the one source (know source..win or lose) that is in the bank the first day of the school year.

We can look at schools like FIU getting a large % of their funds from student fees. But the fees are a lot lower than for example at Western, Marshall, Middle, UAB,...most CUSA schools.

Student fees are not just for fb, bb

part of the fees goes toward the updating and building stadium, arena, soccer fields softball fields and intramurals sports. Not everyone will used those bit the same can be said for clubs and classes that your tuition is used for

the money gained from students fees to spend on athletics is great for a school. so, i think student fees are only viewed negatively when someone uses budgets to explain why their school will become a successful/improving athletic program, but a very high percentage of that budgets comes from student fees. we all know those fees only tell us that a student body is growing /large, and those fees cant show the willingness of fans to invest in the athletic program. so then the backlash about students fees begins.