(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Do you think it's a coincidence that each of those three grew their, ahem, budgets to match the leagues they were in since the middle 1990s. Do you think it's a coincidence that all three had huge subsidies? Do you think it's a coincidence that all these, ahem, investments coincide with massive enrollment growth strategies that happen to grow athletic budgets directly through transfer of fees?

UCF's enrollment was a little more than 20,000 in the early 1990s. It's athletic budget was around $7 million at that time. It was around $14 million when they were ASun/MAC. Interesting how it grew as enrollment grew and that it's current *budget* of $70 million aligns with 70,000+ student body, and that student body size grew proportionally and to match the timeline of athletics expansion over the last two decades. Coincidence?

Look, of course, the most successful AAC schools have been "committed." They were committed in C-USA or wherever else there were, relative to those league's resources and assets, prior to being in the AAC.

Anyone joining the AAC will inherently grow their, ahem, budget to match where they are and the resources available. Some of them will even do it by opening the enrollment gates, which just happens to boost athletics in big ways without asking for an additional penny.

(09-16-2021 10:03 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Do you think it's a coincidence that each of those three grew their, ahem, budgets to match the leagues they were in since the middle 1990s. Do you think it's a coincidence that all three had huge subsidies? Do you think it's a coincidence that all these, ahem, investments coincide with massive enrollment growth strategies that happen to grow athletic budgets directly through transfer of fees?

UCF's enrollment was a little more than 20,000 in the early 1990s. It's athletic budget was around $7 million at that time. It was around $14 million when they were ASun/MAC. Interesting how it grew as enrollment grew and that it's current *budget* of $70 million aligns with 70,000+ student body, and that student body size grew proportionally and to match the timeline of athletics expansion over the last two decades. Coincidence?

Look, of course, the most successful AAC schools have been "committed." They were committed in C-USA or wherever else there were, relative to those league's resources and assets, prior to being in the AAC.

Anyone joining the AAC will inherently grow their, ahem, budget to match where they are and the resources available. Some of them will even do it by opening the enrollment gates, which just happens to boost athletics in big ways without asking for an additional penny.

So do you think, ahem, because all these things led to higher budget numbers that budget size, ahem, is probably a good indicator of which teams go to the next level?

In all seriousness, there were more than 3 teams in the AAC. These 3 did all the things above, and I think budget is the single kpi you can point to in order to guess who would get picked up.

PS: Guess who the two biggest budgets in the Big 12 are?

No, it is not a good indicator. Athletic budgets are Enron-level shell games. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung in Texas than what the EADA reports reflect.

You could pick literally any team not in the AAC and they will adjust their *budgets* accordingly without significant effort. Just like every team in the AAC did when they arrived. Just like every team that came from Sun Belt to C-USA did. Just like FCS teams do when they move up. It isn't that heavy of a lift.

(09-16-2021 11:00 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  No, it is not a good indicator. Athletic budgets are Enron-level shell games. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung in Texas than what the EADA reports reflect.

You could pick literally any team not in the AAC and they will adjust their *budgets* accordingly without significant effort. Just like every team in the AAC did when they arrived. Just like every team that came from Sun Belt to C-USA did. Just like FCS teams do when they move up. It isn't that heavy of a lift.

That's a good point. Though the reported attendance at college football games might be just as large a pile of cow dung as the reported budgets.

(09-16-2021 11:00 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  No, it is not a good indicator. Athletic budgets are Enron-level shell games. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung in Texas than what the EADA reports reflect.

You could pick literally any team not in the AAC and they will adjust their *budgets* accordingly without significant effort. Just like every team in the AAC did when they arrived. Just like every team that came from Sun Belt to C-USA did. Just like FCS teams do when they move up. It isn't that heavy of a lift.

Yes, but after Texas, OU, Houston, Cincinnati, and UCF got into their conferences and adjusted their budgets, they were the top budgets in those conferences.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. If we were talking about whether you could use annual rainfall to determine which cities sell the most umbrellas.

You'd say something like "well it's all very confusing because people can call all sorts of things rain, no one really audits that, frogs will fall out of the sky and they'll count the volume of frogs as rain".

Then I'd respond that I just looked it up and, yes, the five cities with the highest rainfall numbers sold the most umbrellas.

To which you'd respond, "yeah rainfall is a terrible indicator of umbrella sales. So much mystery, deception, wow".

(09-16-2021 10:03 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Do you think it's a coincidence that each of those three grew their, ahem, budgets to match the leagues they were in since the middle 1990s. Do you think it's a coincidence that all three had huge subsidies? Do you think it's a coincidence that all these, ahem, investments coincide with massive enrollment growth strategies that happen to grow athletic budgets directly through transfer of fees?

UCF's enrollment was a little more than 20,000 in the early 1990s. It's athletic budget was around $7 million at that time. It was around $14 million when they were ASun/MAC. Interesting how it grew as enrollment grew and that it's current *budget* of $70 million aligns with 70,000+ student body, and that student body size grew proportionally and to match the timeline of athletics expansion over the last two decades. Coincidence?

Look, of course, the most successful AAC schools have been "committed." They were committed in C-USA or wherever else there were, relative to those league's resources and assets, prior to being in the AAC.

Anyone joining the AAC will inherently grow their, ahem, budget to match where they are and the resources available. Some of them will even do it by opening the enrollment gates, which just happens to boost athletics in big ways without asking for an additional penny.

all true !

but it's interesting to read these comments about UCF, which is absolutely why they are where they are, yet people (in particular a couple Marshall fans) will look at JMU's "ancient" history of the 80s and 90s and not realize we were a 10,000 student school then and now are at 22,000+ and still growing.

not a coincidence for us either that our programs and facilities have grown so much.

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Yeah....winning and actual performance had NOTHING to do with it

(09-16-2021 11:36 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Yeah....winning and actual performance had NOTHING to do with it

Being a state school, I’d like to see where UMass falls in your football/basketball budget list on the OP. Do you have that data?

No one cares how much you spend on soccer, volleyball, diving etc. I say this as someone who loves Marshall soccer and we just won the national championship.

All budget talk is just silly to be honest. But if you want to speak to any budget numbers then focus completely on football and basketball. Once again, these numbers are greatly skewed by the cost of a scholarship, specifically for football because there are so many players. The cost of a "scholarship" at Rice is a lot more than Marshall. So right off the bat, their "budget" is much higher than Marshall or App St etc.

Either way, Liberty is the only one who has a football budget much higher than everyone else.


Football Budgets

Liberty- $15,298,764
Rice- $13,729,316
ODU- $12,279,870
FAU- $12,202,880
UAB- $12,179,203

Louisiana- $11,907,780
North Texas- $10,748,868
Charlotte- $10,614,336
UMASS- $10,196,067
Marshall- $10,175,813
UTSA- $10,150,720

App St- $9,188,013
Buffalo- $8,923,004
Ga St- $8,688,303
La Tech- $8,046,418
So Miss- $7,761,592



Basketball Budgets

UMASS- $4,302,474
UAB- $3,705,028
Charlotte- $3,685,899
Liberty- $3,528,543
ODU- $3,520,745
Rice- $3,277,980
North Texas- $3,029,265

Marshall- $2,993,795
Ga St- $2,628,401
Louisiana- $2,553,140
Buffalo- $2,516,763
La Tech- $2,506,012
UTSA- $2,398,192
FAU- $2,337,677

App St- $1,978,717
So Miss- $1,794,381

(09-16-2021 11:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:36 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Yeah....winning and actual performance had NOTHING to do with it

Being a state school, I’d like to see where UMass falls in your football/basketball budget list on the OP. Do you have that data?

Just added UMASS data to the previous post.

(09-16-2021 11:36 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Yeah....winning and actual performance had NOTHING to do with it

The spending directly correlates to the winning.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(09-16-2021 11:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:36 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Yeah....winning and actual performance had NOTHING to do with it

Being a state school, I’d like to see where UMass falls in your football/basketball budget list on the OP. Do you have that data?

$50 million. They sponsor hockey which is expensive and they sponsor 19 sports. According to EADA UMass has a $10.5 million football budget and $4.5 million basketball budget. Other than hockey which is in a high level conference UMass operates its teams on the cheap.

Thanks.

(09-16-2021 11:47 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  No one cares how much you spend on soccer, volleyball, diving etc. I say this as someone who loves Marshall soccer and we just won the national championship.

All budget talk is just silly to be honest. But if you want to speak to any budget numbers then focus completely on football and basketball. Once again, these numbers are greatly skewed by the cost of a scholarship, specifically for football because there are so many players. The cost of a "scholarship" at Rice is a lot more than Marshall. So right off the bat, their "budget" is much higher than Marshall or App St etc.

Either way, Liberty is the only one who has a football budget much higher than everyone else.


Football Budgets

Liberty- $15,298,764
Rice- $13,729,316
ODU- $12,279,870
FAU- $12,202,880
UAB- $12,179,203

Louisiana- $11,907,780
North Texas- $10,748,868
Charlotte- $10,614,336
UMASS- $10,196,067
Marshall- $10,175,813
UTSA- $10,150,720

App St- $9,188,013
Buffalo- $8,923,004
Ga St- $8,688,303
La Tech- $8,046,418
So Miss- $7,761,592



Basketball Budgets

UMASS- $4,302,474
UAB- $3,705,028
Charlotte- $3,685,899
Liberty- $3,528,543
ODU- $3,520,745
Rice- $3,277,980
North Texas- $3,029,265

Marshall- $2,993,795
Ga St- $2,628,401
Louisiana- $2,553,140
Buffalo- $2,516,763
La Tech- $2,506,012
UTSA- $2,398,192
FAU- $2,337,677

App St- $1,978,717
So Miss- $1,794,381

Wow, how is LA Tech winning anything?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(09-16-2021 11:47 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  No one cares how much you spend on soccer, volleyball, diving etc. I say this as someone who loves Marshall soccer and we just won the national championship.

All budget talk is just silly to be honest. But if you want to speak to any budget numbers then focus completely on football and basketball. Once again, these numbers are greatly skewed by the cost of a scholarship, specifically for football because there are so many players. The cost of a "scholarship" at Rice is a lot more than Marshall. So right off the bat, their "budget" is much higher than Marshall or App St etc.

Either way, Liberty is the only one who has a football budget much higher than everyone else.


Football Budgets

Liberty- $15,298,764
Rice- $13,729,316
ODU- $12,279,870
FAU- $12,202,880
UAB- $12,179,203

Louisiana- $11,907,780
North Texas- $10,748,868
Charlotte- $10,614,336
UMASS- $10,196,067
Marshall- $10,175,813
UTSA- $10,150,720

App St- $9,188,013
Buffalo- $8,923,004
Ga St- $8,688,303
La Tech- $8,046,418
So Miss- $7,761,592



Basketball Budgets

UMASS- $4,302,474
UAB- $3,705,028
Charlotte- $3,685,899
Liberty- $3,528,543
ODU- $3,520,745
Rice- $3,277,980
North Texas- $3,029,265

Marshall- $2,993,795
Ga St- $2,628,401
Louisiana- $2,553,140
Buffalo- $2,516,763
La Tech- $2,506,012
UTSA- $2,398,192
FAU- $2,337,677

App St- $1,978,717
So Miss- $1,794,381

Curious where the AAC and MWC fall on this. If largest total budgets correlated exactly to who was picked, I'm wondering if football and or basketball fall along the same lines. i.e. we can prove out whether in fact the SEC and Big 12 cared about how much was spent on soccer and volleyball.

(09-16-2021 11:50 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:36 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Yeah....winning and actual performance had NOTHING to do with it

Being a state school, I’d like to see where UMass falls in your football/basketball budget list on the OP. Do you have that data?

Just added UMASS data to the previous post.

since herdfan has a bias against JMU i'll add ours:


Football - $11,319,596
Men's Hoops - $3,637,194
Women's Hoops - $2,565,200

(09-16-2021 11:20 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:00 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  No, it is not a good indicator. Athletic budgets are Enron-level shell games. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung in Texas than what the EADA reports reflect.

You could pick literally any team not in the AAC and they will adjust their *budgets* accordingly without significant effort. Just like every team in the AAC did when they arrived. Just like every team that came from Sun Belt to C-USA did. Just like FCS teams do when they move up. It isn't that heavy of a lift.

Yes, but after Texas, OU, Houston, Cincinnati, and UCF got into their conferences and adjusted their budgets, they were the top budgets in those conferences.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. If we were talking about whether you could use annual rainfall to determine which cities sell the most umbrellas.

You'd say something like "well it's all very confusing because people can call all sorts of things rain, no one really audits that, frogs will fall out of the sky and they'll count the volume of frogs as rain".

Then I'd respond that I just looked it up and, yes, the five cities with the highest rainfall numbers sold the most umbrellas.

To which you'd respond, "yeah rainfall is a terrible indicator of umbrella sales. So much mystery, deception, wow".

Revenues is a bit of a shell game. Expenditures not so much. Especially with the standardized EADA reports. Maybe basketball vs. football vs. volleyball isn't very consistent, but its still athletics. There are some things that are done differently, but its mostly at the margins.

UCF, Houston and UH got picked because they have been the most successful G5s (along with Boise State) over the last 15 years. They started all this winning without the big budgets they have today. They grew to where they are and they did make investments particularly by building or upgrading facilities. They also inherently grew them with the 6 factors I mentioned. It wasn't all fundraising and tickets. They got a big bump just by changing conferences and opening the enrollment up to growth. That commitment isn't measured by their "athletic budget" per se, and it's never as simple as School X spends Y.

If it was all about budgets, Texas would have about 10 more national championships, East Carolina and USF wouldn't be underperforming relative to their expectations, private schools would dominate just because they count pricey scholarships as expenses and then count as revenue the university transfers to cover them, and USC wouldn't have just fired their coach again.

(09-16-2021 01:00 PM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  UCF, Houston and UH got picked because they have been the most successful G5s (along with Boise State) over the last 15 years. They started all this winning without the big budgets they have today. They grew to where they are and they did make investments particularly by building or upgrading facilities. They also inherently grew them with the 6 factors I mentioned. It wasn't all fundraising and tickets. They got a big bump just by changing conferences and opening the enrollment up to growth. That commitment isn't measured by their "athletic budget" per se, and it's never as simple as School X spends Y.

If it was all about budgets, Texas would have about 10 more national championships, East Carolina and USF wouldn't be underperforming relative to their expectations, private schools would dominate just because they count pricey scholarships as expenses and then count as revenue the university transfers to cover them, and USC wouldn't have just fired their coach again.

I didn't say anything about how budgets related to national championships or whether a coach will be fired. I was saying that budget amounts (relative to the rest of a team's conference) directly correlated to whether they were picked up by the next conference up a few years later.

That's all. Nothing else.

(09-16-2021 11:52 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 11:36 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 09:11 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  Budgets are an incredibly overrated metric and they often DO NOT accurately reflect institutional commitment. There isn't a bigger pile of cow dung than the EADA reports used to fuel these discussions.

*Budgets* (cough, cough) grow larger for many reasons, including 6 easily noted:

1) A difference in media rights, right off the top, is a big one.
2) The impact of being in a multi-bid league.
3) The *costs* (cough, cough, ahem) of "scholarships (wink, wink).
4) Larger student bodies, resulting in more student fees.
5) Debt carried.
6) Scheduling leverage.

So many programs today are drawing well more than 50 percent of operating budget from university sources, while counting the transfer of said funds as "revenue." You can make the numbers look however you want. If you want to say you have a $50 million budget, you can do so pretty easily. If you want to look like you're towing the line and being the kings of frugality, you can do that too. In the G5, it pretty much comes down to the 6 listed above.

The AAC budgets are larger primarily for these six reasons, with the underrated one being No. 6 that impacts the others. AAC teams, by virtue of higher power ratings and specifically a better media deal, have been able to get more appealing games onto their campuses that other leagues struggle to get. This filters then into everything.

Any team coming into the American, even a weakened one, will be able to grow their "budget."

Two things on this:

1) The list above is based on expenditures. Maybe they are saying that they pay out more than they do to athletics, but I doubt it.
2) So you think it's a coincidence that the top 3 teams in terms of spending in the G5 moved up?

Yeah....winning and actual performance had NOTHING to do with it

The spending directly correlates to the winning.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Yeah. Sure it did. Rice football budget is $2 million more than ECU, but you can't honestly believe they spend more in actual football related expenses compared to ECU. The difference is most likely the cost of 85 scholarships.