The math calculation in the Cox bill is fundamentally wrong, somewhat subject to interpretation, but as it stands - certain amounts are taken out of the numerator but not similarly removed from the denominator.

MT is correct.

It is understandable how some fans have bought into the stories told by the accountants at JMU. We often believe what we want to believe. We need to stay grounded in facts to make successful decisions.

The following audit reports may be instructive.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/OldD...AA2020.pdf

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2020.pdf

(08-18-2021 08:02 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Let me be more accurate. JMU's subsidized percent is higher than 58% and lower than 79.85%. That's the figure quoted by Bourne regarding the Cox bill that you were going to trot out as a "very reliable source" and the most recent USA Today subsidized percent published (it'll be 82.87% when the next one comes out). Bourne's figures are the most unreliable, it's not even a mathematically correct calculation of what percentage means and deeply skews the figure. USA Today does indeed pull their figures from NCAA reports but that doesn't mean that the NCAA reports are comparable from school to school and this is acknowledged in the AUP published by the NCAA. So you're going to argue that JMU is less subsidized than the highest in CUSA (FIU) because JMU includes their band and cheer squad expenses and a calculated amount that represents a percentage of school overhead. That would indeed lower your percentage subsidized if you removed those items, from 82.87% to 81.13%. The Cox law also allows debt obligations before a certain date but that's not applicable, that's just what the legislation says. Furthermore these items that are removed from the budget are only removed from the numerator of the percentage and not the denominator, so like I said not even mathematically correct in the definition of percentage. I suspect that there's a lot more fluff in JMU's figures inflating both your overall budget and the percentage subsidized but I have no way of knowing what's in those figures, maybe JMU really does spend a **** load on athletics administration. And I'm absolutely clueless about how FIU does their accounting to report to the NCAA. They have a crap ton of students and very little generated revenue so I imagine their subsidy is pretty high but their overall budget is also reported 15M less than JMU's so in a true side by side comparison JMU would have to cut A LOT of fluff that FIU doesn't have. Who knows but your true percentage of subsidy is IMO likely closer to the USA Today/NCAA number than the Cox/Bourne number for the reasons I've stated. Now Donny, go ahead and bring out your excellent resources and show us that JMU wouldn't be the most subsidized in CUSA and I'll pay that $100.

Wait. Is it 55%, 58%, 78%, 79.85%, 82.7%? I'm baffled how someone that is self proclaimed "well versed" is so confused over there own numbers and can't just provide one. Look, you are clearly invested in the numbers (given you want to calculate the impact of a $1.2M spirit group) so can opine on the percentage/subsidy impacts of the following?

Increased ticket revenue
Increased conference revenue sharing
Estimated donation increases (CARR said 90% increase if you want to go with the "experts" verse just those that are "well versed")
Higher advertising and licensing revenue

Run those down and then we can move to the expense side and all that tricky accounting and mathematics you point.

Or, we can spend 30 seconds on google. We can see that ODU went from ~73% (random DNR news article from 2013) down to 61% (2019 USA Today) with their transition from CAA to CUSA. If JMU mirrored the same percentage decline, JMU is ~67%. Surely that is a high enough cushion to be able to comfortably state that JMU's ~67% would be lower than FIUs 77%. Well actually, you know, you probably don't think JMU could replicate ODUs move, so lets just say that JMU is only half as good as ODU. If JMU cuts 50% of ODU's cut (7% decline versus 14%), JMU's reliance is still at ~74%. Help me on this calculation though, is 74% is lower than 77%?

(08-18-2021 09:03 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 08:02 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Let me be more accurate. JMU's subsidized percent is higher than 58% and lower than 79.85%. That's the figure quoted by Bourne regarding the Cox bill that you were going to trot out as a "very reliable source" and the most recent USA Today subsidized percent published (it'll be 82.87% when the next one comes out). Bourne's figures are the most unreliable, it's not even a mathematically correct calculation of what percentage means and deeply skews the figure. USA Today does indeed pull their figures from NCAA reports but that doesn't mean that the NCAA reports are comparable from school to school and this is acknowledged in the AUP published by the NCAA. So you're going to argue that JMU is less subsidized than the highest in CUSA (FIU) because JMU includes their band and cheer squad expenses and a calculated amount that represents a percentage of school overhead. That would indeed lower your percentage subsidized if you removed those items, from 82.87% to 81.13%. The Cox law also allows debt obligations before a certain date but that's not applicable, that's just what the legislation says. Furthermore these items that are removed from the budget are only removed from the numerator of the percentage and not the denominator, so like I said not even mathematically correct in the definition of percentage. I suspect that there's a lot more fluff in JMU's figures inflating both your overall budget and the percentage subsidized but I have no way of knowing what's in those figures, maybe JMU really does spend a **** load on athletics administration. And I'm absolutely clueless about how FIU does their accounting to report to the NCAA. They have a crap ton of students and very little generated revenue so I imagine their subsidy is pretty high but their overall budget is also reported 15M less than JMU's so in a true side by side comparison JMU would have to cut A LOT of fluff that FIU doesn't have. Who knows but your true percentage of subsidy is IMO likely closer to the USA Today/NCAA number than the Cox/Bourne number for the reasons I've stated. Now Donny, go ahead and bring out your excellent resources and show us that JMU wouldn't be the most subsidized in CUSA and I'll pay that $100.

Wait. Is it 55%, 58%, 78%, 79.85%, 82.7%? I'm baffled how someone that is self proclaimed "well versed" is so confused over there own numbers and can't just provide one. Look, you are clearly invested in the numbers (given you want to calculate the impact of a $1.2M spirit group) so can opine on the percentage/subsidy impacts of the following?

Increased ticket revenue
Increased conference revenue sharing
Estimated donation increases (CARR said 90% increase if you want to go with the "experts" verse just those that are "well versed")
Higher advertising and licensing revenue

Run those down and then we can move to the expense side and all that tricky accounting and mathematics you point.

Or, we can spend 30 seconds on google. We can see that ODU went from ~73% (random DNR news article from 2013) down to 61% (2019 USA Today) with their transition from CAA to CUSA. If JMU mirrored the same percentage decline, JMU is ~67%. Surely that is a high enough cushion to be able to comfortably state that JMU's ~67% would be lower than FIUs 77%. Well actually, you know, you probably don't think JMU could replicate ODUs move, so lets just say that JMU is only half as good as ODU. If JMU cuts 50% of ODU's cut (7% decline versus 14%), JMU's reliance is still at ~74%. Help me on this calculation though, is 74% is lower than 77%?

Fuckin' A. Is this what a JMU education gets you? I'm going to assume you were a humanities major or something.

OK, tell you what. You move up and join CUSA and in 8-9 years we'll take a look and still won't know because THE NUMBERS AREN'T COMPARABLE. There is no GAAP in athletic reporting, it's the wild west of the accounting world. Sorry, your claims are as meritless as herdfans just trying to prop up the opposite side of the argument. We can make generalities like "Both JMU and FIU are heavily subsidized" but can't say which is more with ANY degree of confidence.

please, for the love of all that's holy, take this pissing match to a private message... I guarantee that no one is interested other than you two.

(08-18-2021 10:13 AM)boozeNammo Wrote:  please, for the love of all that's holy, take this pissing match to a private message... I guarantee that no one is interested other than you two.

There is more educational value underlying our pissing match than anything you have brought to the discussion. I mean herdfan129 is still trying to catch up, but the level of specifics within my pissing match with Mturn is honestly too good for a "rumor" thread. If you get so triggered by some trolling amongst fans working its way into a valid discussion, perhaps a sports message board, and certainly a thread that has brought trolls from at least 4 other schools, isn't the best place for you.

Booze - there is a reason that posters from multiple other schools have been coming to this thread for 13 years. This thread has had to be cut up due to server memory constraints...

It's a slow motion train wreck and the best entertainment on the csnbbs boards.

(08-18-2021 09:49 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Fuckin' A. Is this what a JMU education gets you? I'm going to assume you were a humanities major or something.

OK, tell you what. You move up and join CUSA and in 8-9 years we'll take a look and still won't know because THE NUMBERS AREN'T COMPARABLE. There is no GAAP in athletic reporting, it's the wild west of the accounting world. Sorry, your claims are as meritless as herdfans just trying to prop up the opposite side of the argument. We can make generalities like "Both JMU and FIU are heavily subsidized" but can't say which is more with ANY degree of confidence.

Your argument has gone so far down the rabbit hole that you are having to lean on the degree of similarities need to satisity your own definition of "comparable." Living with your extreme degree of certainty required must be exhausting.

As an opposing approach on life, I can operate with a level of reasonableness on the amounts. I don't need to argue about what is exactly needed to satisfy the specifics of "comparable" or "similar" or "same." I operate in the reality that certainties are nearly nonexistent and that it is unlikely a single line item on ODU, or JMU's, audits are exact to begin with. All that to just reiterate what I already said "I never cared about your bet" as it is based on a stupid premise.

I'll leave it at this. The USA Today database (and its underlying data) is widely sourced by ADs, journalists, university presidents, and perhaps with the lowest degree of credibility required, politicians. It is widely considered the best readily available information and if you cannot use it to drive a discussion, there is no point in having the discussion.

(08-18-2021 10:49 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 10:13 AM)boozeNammo Wrote:  please, for the love of all that's holy, take this pissing match to a private message... I guarantee that no one is interested other than you two.

There is more educational value underlying our pissing match than anything you have brought to the discussion. I mean herdfan129 is still trying to catch up, but the level of specifics within my pissing match with Mturn is honestly too good for a "rumor" thread. If you get so triggered by some trolling amongst fans working its way into a valid discussion, perhaps a sports message board, and certainly a thread that has brought trolls from at least 4 other schools, isn't the best place for you.

I would tend to agree with Booze n Ammo. As anyone who knows anything about accounting would know, it is alchemy as much as a science. You can take the same financial figures and spin it to show whatever story you want to tell. Accountants routinely take turd sandwiches and make them look like filet mignon, especially in government/institution reporting. It is all about whatever story you want to tell.

I think we can all agree Charlie King is a professional at this and knows what he is doing. There is a story he wants to tell with the figures, and while I'm not sure what it is, whether it is to make us look incapable of going FBS right now, or if he is trying to get more donations, who knows, but what I do know that if we decided to make the leap with a few changes of line items and shifting things around we'll 'magically' meet all the Cox requirements. I'm sure we'd find a way to meet the Cox requirements even if student fees had to go up overall they just wouldn't be going up in the athletic spending portion.

I don't worry about the Cox bill. It has almost zero impact on our ability to go FBS or not, it is just a reporting requirement.

A business owner is looking to hire a new accountant and has narrowed the field to 3 candidates. He invites all three in for a final interview. The first candidate arrives. The owner hands over a set of financial statements and asks 1 question. Do you see a profit or a loss on these financials? Candidate 1 studies the statements for a bit and says proudly "I see a profit". He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 2 enters and is presented the same financial statements and asked the same question, "Do you see a profit or a loss?". After careful scrutiny Candidate 2 says "I see a loss." He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 3 enters, is presented the same financials and asked the same question "Do you see a profit or a loss? Candidate 3 immediately stands up, goes to the window, pulls down the shades and turns to the owner and asks "What do you want to see?" Owner's immediate response: "When can you start!"

(08-18-2021 11:12 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 10:49 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 10:13 AM)boozeNammo Wrote:  please, for the love of all that's holy, take this pissing match to a private message... I guarantee that no one is interested other than you two.

There is more educational value underlying our pissing match than anything you have brought to the discussion. I mean herdfan129 is still trying to catch up, but the level of specifics within my pissing match with Mturn is honestly too good for a "rumor" thread. If you get so triggered by some trolling amongst fans working its way into a valid discussion, perhaps a sports message board, and certainly a thread that has brought trolls from at least 4 other schools, isn't the best place for you.

I would tend to agree with Booze n Ammo. As anyone who knows anything about accounting would know, it is alchemy as much as a science. You can take the same financial figures and spin it to show whatever story you want to tell. Accountants routinely take turd sandwiches and make them look like filet mignon, especially in government/institution reporting. It is all about whatever story you want to tell.

I think we can all agree Charlie King is a professional at this and knows what he is doing. There is a story he wants to tell with the figures, and while I'm not sure what it is, whether it is to make us look incapable of going FBS right now, or if he is trying to get more donations, who knows, but what I do know that if we decided to make the leap with a few changes of line items and shifting things around we'll 'magically' meet all the Cox requirements. I'm sure we'd find a way to meet the Cox requirements even if student fees had to go up overall they just wouldn't be going up in the athletic spending portion.

I don't worry about the Cox bill. It has almost zero impact on our ability to go FBS or not, it is just a reporting requirement.

That's mostly BS. Especially since the figures are audited by the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts. You can't compare JMU's figures to others but year after year should be comparable within the same institution. According to Bourne you would have to add an additional 8.5M in athletic department revenues and keep student fees static to be compliant. That was 5 years ago and your budget has risen 11M in that time with student fees allocated to athletics accounting for around 10M. There's no telling what that means for Cox compliance issues but you would definitely need to significantly increase other income.

(08-18-2021 11:09 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 09:49 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Fuckin' A. Is this what a JMU education gets you? I'm going to assume you were a humanities major or something.

OK, tell you what. You move up and join CUSA and in 8-9 years we'll take a look and still won't know because THE NUMBERS AREN'T COMPARABLE. There is no GAAP in athletic reporting, it's the wild west of the accounting world. Sorry, your claims are as meritless as herdfans just trying to prop up the opposite side of the argument. We can make generalities like "Both JMU and FIU are heavily subsidized" but can't say which is more with ANY degree of confidence.

Your argument has gone so far down the rabbit hole that you are having to lean on the degree of similarities need to satisity your own definition of "comparable." Living with your extreme degree of certainty required must be exhausting.

As an opposing approach on life, I can operate with a level of reasonableness on the amounts. I don't need to argue about what is exactly needed to satisfy the specifics of "comparable" or "similar" or "same." I operate in the reality that certainties are nearly nonexistent and that it is unlikely a single line item on ODU, or JMU's, audits are exact to begin with. All that to just reiterate what I already said "I never cared about your bet" as it is based on a stupid premise.

I'll leave it at this. The USA Today database (and its underlying data) is widely sourced by ADs, journalists, university presidents, and perhaps with the lowest degree of credibility required, politicians. It is widely considered the best readily available information and if you cannot use it to drive a discussion, there is no point in having the discussion.

So a philosophy major waiting tables at Applebee's then.

My argument has been pretty steady in that there's no way of telling as the point of the NCAA reporting is not to make them comparable to each other. But since they are the best we have there's really no way either can prove their point. If you want to use those figures though go ahead but they clearly support herdfan's argument that JMU is higher subsidized than any school in CUSA. Strange tactic you've used there.


Don't take my word on it though.

NCAA AUP:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/fi...edures.pdf

"Data available for the agreed-upon procedures may vary among institutions as a
result of differences in athletics programs’ organizational structure, financial
resources and accounting and budgetary methods."

Quote from Bourne:

https://jmusports.com/news/2016/9/1/bour...tters.aspx

"The subject of the size of our budget begins with the transparent approach of JMU. As an institution, we report all activities and services related to athletics as part of our athletics operational costs. Many of our peers in Virginia and in the CAA do not report financial data in this way. For example, greater than $6 million of our budget is facility debt services, nearly $1 million is dedicated to spirit groups and nearly $3 million covers indirect costs paid by athletics to the institution for certain university services. That's $10 million of expenses included in the athletics budget at JMU that you will not find in the ledgers of many of our peers. For instance, at some conference institutions, operational costs of their facilities (lighting, heating, utilities, etc.) are designated to a different line within the university's facilities management budget even though the significant majority of the building's use is dedicated to athletics. Thus, that figure never appears in the athletics budget of those schools."

(08-18-2021 11:24 AM)AllForDukes Wrote:  A business owner is looking to hire a new accountant and has narrowed the field to 3 candidates. He invites all three in for a final interview. The first candidate arrives. The owner hands over a set of financial statements and asks 1 question. Do you see a profit or a loss on these financials? Candidate 1 studies the statements for a bit and says proudly "I see a profit". He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 2 enters and is presented the same financial statements and asked the same question, "Do you see a profit or a loss?". After careful scrutiny Candidate 2 says "I see a loss." He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 3 enters, is presented the same financials and asked the same question "Do you see a profit or a loss? Candidate 3 immediately stands up, goes to the window, pulls down the shades and turns to the owner and asks "What do you want to see?" Owner's immediate response: "When can you start!"

Y'all the ones that show up at your CPA's office with the doe-eye'd look when he tells you that you don't know what you're talking about.

(08-18-2021 11:46 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 11:24 AM)AllForDukes Wrote:  A business owner is looking to hire a new accountant and has narrowed the field to 3 candidates. He invites all three in for a final interview. The first candidate arrives. The owner hands over a set of financial statements and asks 1 question. Do you see a profit or a loss on these financials? Candidate 1 studies the statements for a bit and says proudly "I see a profit". He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 2 enters and is presented the same financial statements and asked the same question, "Do you see a profit or a loss?". After careful scrutiny Candidate 2 says "I see a loss." He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 3 enters, is presented the same financials and asked the same question "Do you see a profit or a loss? Candidate 3 immediately stands up, goes to the window, pulls down the shades and turns to the owner and asks "What do you want to see?" Owner's immediate response: "When can you start!"

Y'all the ones that show up at your CPA's office with the doe-eye'd look when he tells you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Dude, you're way to invested in a conversation that really doesn't involve you when you can't even appreciate a good joke. Have a good day. Peace out.

(08-18-2021 12:46 PM)AllForDukes Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 11:46 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 11:24 AM)AllForDukes Wrote:  A business owner is looking to hire a new accountant and has narrowed the field to 3 candidates. He invites all three in for a final interview. The first candidate arrives. The owner hands over a set of financial statements and asks 1 question. Do you see a profit or a loss on these financials? Candidate 1 studies the statements for a bit and says proudly "I see a profit". He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 2 enters and is presented the same financial statements and asked the same question, "Do you see a profit or a loss?". After careful scrutiny Candidate 2 says "I see a loss." He is thanked and sent on his way. Candidate 3 enters, is presented the same financials and asked the same question "Do you see a profit or a loss? Candidate 3 immediately stands up, goes to the window, pulls down the shades and turns to the owner and asks "What do you want to see?" Owner's immediate response: "When can you start!"

Y'all the ones that show up at your CPA's office with the doe-eye'd look when he tells you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Dude, you're way to invested in a conversation that really doesn't involve you when you can't even appreciate a good joke. Have a good day. Peace out.

I'm just hoping that some of these opinions about accounting aren't reflective of JMU's school of business and you guys are all English majors. It wasn't a good joke.

(08-18-2021 09:49 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  There is no GAAP in athletic reporting, it's the wild west of the accounting world. Sorry, your claims are as meritless as herdfans just trying to prop up the opposite side of the argument.

Ok so can we stop filling the thread with a useless debate over it and can Marshall fans stop coming in here and bringing it up?

Some of us enjoy the perspective from other schools... our bubble is thick and purple and coated with Alger

Is this news?

https://www.carrsportsconsulting.com/karl-benson/

(08-18-2021 10:49 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 10:13 AM)boozeNammo Wrote:  please, for the love of all that's holy, take this pissing match to a private message... I guarantee that no one is interested other than you two.

There is more educational value underlying our pissing match than anything you have brought to the discussion. I mean herdfan129 is still trying to catch up, but the level of specifics within my pissing match with Mturn is honestly too good for a "rumor" thread. If you get so triggered by some trolling amongst fans working its way into a valid discussion, perhaps a sports message board, and certainly a thread that has brought trolls from at least 4 other schools, isn't the best place for you.

Whatever. Your millennial'esq cancel culture vibe reflects poorly on several levels... and the term 'value' in relation to this diatribe is supremely subjective and one I wouldn't assign to this thread. If you really want to get rid of trolls, simply ignore them. I'll walk away from reading any more of it.

I like the perspective of other schools when it's actual relevant rumors and discussion about realignment and where JMU might or might not fit in. Not when it's some troll like HerdZoned just here to insult JMU or when it's five pages of debate over something that's pointless to debate and that's already been beaten to death.

But yeah, Benson being with Carr was brought up along with that Mettlen article about how he sees JMU when it comes to realignment. Especially as a reason to take his words with a grain of salt since he could just be saying what his current audience wants to hear.

yeah, the grain of salt is what I missed - Benson's word are kinda smokey with all that in mind - or he's just doing some smart business development for his new boss :)