(07-29-2013 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  WTF? First you falsely claim I quoted numbers out of context, then fail to realize that ODU can indeed TRY to make more money from ticket sales and booster donations?

Now Quo. You know that many on this board think that their way of getting revenue is the only way, and everyone else is using cheap tricks. Those who make their money from football, look down on those who make most of their money from basketball. Those who make most of thei rmoney from basketball but also make football money, look down on those who don't have a football program at all. And those who make their money with creative revenue streams, are looked down upon by those with traditional revenue streams, because it makes them look bad.

#circleofthedollar.

What is creative about charging your students out the ass to pay for athletics? We choose to actually spare our students from this financial burden here at East Carolina. Sorry.

(07-29-2013 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:27 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 01:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I get that you are in the black. But that's without a stipend.

Look, the bottom line is that the only serious objection to a stipend is financial, so if a school voted against a stipend, it was almost surely for financial reasons.

If you get that they are in the black by 2 million bucks, then their is your answer to a $500,000 problem. And that doesn't even take into account the potential revenues from upcoming football stadium expansion.

Most universities are bottomless pits as far as money is concerned. That profit was spend on something as soon as it was realized. Whatever amount a stipend costs, it could very well be money that your school has dedicated for other things.

Again, the only rational objection to the stipend is financial, so ...

There are schools whose athletic departments are in the red that have agreed to pay the stipend. What possible rationale could you have to say that a school that solidly in the black; can't afford to pay the stipend? Your statement is nonsensical from the standpoint that even if they stipend were paid; ECU would still be $1.5 million in the black. Your whole point is phony baloney.

No it is not, because maybe ECU has the need to be $2m in the black in order to achieve other objectives. Profits do not just sit in a shoe box under a mattress. They are reinvested in other projects. ECU may need the whole $2m for something else.

Phony baloney argument.

It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

(07-29-2013 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

Why can't we choose to charge students more for athletics? It happens every year in tuition.

(07-29-2013 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

So are you saying that Wake Forest, Rutgers, Army (Military Academy), Cornell, Harvard, Rice, Illinois State, Marquette, UNC-Charlotte and University of Illinois at Chicago couldn't do it? Because those schools voted against it too.

That is why his argument is phony baloney.

(07-29-2013 02:40 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

Why can't we choose to charge students more for athletics? It happens every year in tuition.

I saw online that ECU was asking for a 15 dollar increase per year from $601 a year. Not sure if that went thru

ECU athletic fee

(07-29-2013 02:40 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

Why can't we choose to charge students more for athletics? It happens every year in tuition.

Because I have yet to see any school turn down money they can have except for Notre Dame and Texas. Thus a school whos AD was constantly complaining about being left behind in the revenue arms race, in his quest o leave CUSA for the Big East, if they had the ability to charge more for student fees (this meaning not just the athletic dept, but the school allowing them to do so), they would have already done so. Illinois does not have money problems, and Rice does not either.

(07-29-2013 02:40 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

So are you saying that Wake Forest, Rutgers, Army (Military Academy), Cornell, Harvard, Rice, Illinois State and University of Illinois at Chicago couldn't do it? Because those schools voted against it too.

See above. If you are talking about voting against student fees, whcih was what I was talking about, I am saying that because ECU has constantly made complaints about competing with lesser resources, if they had the ability to do so, they would. Army, Cornell, and Harvard don't even have athletic scholarships, so their inclusion here is irrelevant. Rutgers does charge a student athletic fee of $328 per year, which gets them over $10 million per year. Wake Forest is private so it's hard ot say, but their tuition does include student fees for athletics. I don't know anything about Ill St, but they are 1AA.

(07-29-2013 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:27 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 01:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I get that you are in the black. But that's without a stipend.

Look, the bottom line is that the only serious objection to a stipend is financial, so if a school voted against a stipend, it was almost surely for financial reasons.

If you get that they are in the black by 2 million bucks, then their is your answer to a $500,000 problem. And that doesn't even take into account the potential revenues from upcoming football stadium expansion.

Most universities are bottomless pits as far as money is concerned. That profit was spend on something as soon as it was realized. Whatever amount a stipend costs, it could very well be money that your school has dedicated for other things.

Again, the only rational objection to the stipend is financial, so ...

There are schools whose athletic departments are in the red that have agreed to pay the stipend. What possible rationale could you have to say that a school that solidly in the black; can't afford to pay the stipend? Your statement is nonsensical from the standpoint that even if they stipend were paid; ECU would still be $1.5 million in the black. Your whole point is phony baloney.

No it is not, because maybe ECU has the need to be $2m in the black in order to achieve other objectives. Profits do not just sit in a shoe box under a mattress. They are reinvested in other projects. ECU may need the whole $2m for something else.

We have spent around $100 million in the last decade on this project or that project so like every other school there is no real profit but only money that is buried right back into Athletics or Academic facilities. Once we finish the $17 million Basketball practice facility, ECU will turn its attention to whatever project comes next and there is always another project. We have approval for the expansion of Ficklen on the Southside to 60k seats with office, athletic space and more luxury boxes and that will be a major expense so ECU is not going to be sitting on any athletic profits any time soon.

Profit and losses in terms of athletics is most an exercise in reading a calendar. In reality most if nto all major athletic departments could easily be in the black. Maryland excluded.

good lord how has this turned into "Defending Your Life" for ECU?!?!?!?

(07-29-2013 02:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:40 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

Why can't we choose to charge students more for athletics? It happens every year in tuition.

Because I have yet to see any school turn down money they can have except for Notre Dame and Texas. Thus a school whos AD was constantly complaining about being left behind in the revenue arms race, in his quest o leave CUSA for the Big East, if they had the ability to charge more for student fees (this meaning not just the athletic dept, but the school allowing them to do so), they would have already done so. Illinois does not have money problems, and Rice does not either.

(07-29-2013 02:40 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is creative because if ECU could do it, they would. Just as other schools do. TIs what I said, those who do it one way, decry when someone else does it another way because they can't. Same as when ECU fans discount Memphis' revenue because they earn it primarily from basketball.

So are you saying that Wake Forest, Rutgers, Army (Military Academy), Cornell, Harvard, Rice, Illinois State and University of Illinois at Chicago couldn't do it? Because those schools voted against it too.

See above. If you are talking about voting against student fees, whcih was what I was talking about, I am saying that because ECU has constantly made complaints about competing with lesser resources, if they had the ability to do so, they would. Army, Cornell, and Harvard don't even have athletic scholarships, so their inclusion here is irrelevant. Rutgers does charge a student athletic fee of $328 per year, which gets them over $10 million per year. Wake Forest is private so it's hard ot say, but their tuition does include student fees for athletics. I don't know anything about Ill St, but they are 1AA.

Your comments are about student fees, which is only one source of revenues for the athletic department. ECU gets revenues from many other sources and they were in the black. So paying the fee is not an issue and would actually still leave them in the black. The other part that is not being discussed is that ECU is the second larges public institution in the State of North Carolina, behind only NC State. So they have the student body in which to raise the fees from.

That is why his argument is phony baloney.

Seriously, does anyone really believe that ECU can't pay $500K or whatever the final number is in stipends?......really?

(07-29-2013 02:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  good lord how has this turned into "Defending Your Life" for ECU?!?!?!?

Quo with another steaming pile of manure argument.

(07-29-2013 03:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Seriously, does anyone really believe that ECU can't pay $500K or whatever the final number is in stipends?......really?

I don't think they're serious. I just enjoy the lively banter at troll attempts. Its more fun than just ignoring it.

(07-29-2013 03:00 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Your comments are about student fees, which is only one source of revenues for the athletic department. ECU gets revenues from many other sources and they were in the black.

Of course it is: that was my ONLY argument. I said people who get their money one way, look down upon people who get it some other way. That was what I said. Why would I be talking about anything else. I am not defending nor confronting his argument. So why do you keep telling me his argument is phony baloney?

(07-29-2013 03:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 03:00 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Your comments are about student fees, which is only one source of revenues for the athletic department. ECU gets revenues from many other sources and they were in the black.

Of course it is: that was my ONLY argument. I said people who get their money one way, look down upon people who get it some other way. That was what I said. Why would I be talking about anything else. I am not defending nor confronting his argument. So why do you keep telling me his argument is phony baloney?

His argument is phony baloney, because he is assuming things that he doesn't know. Even after a Bearcat fan and a Memphis Tiger fan chimed in to mention that just based on the number of tickets that ECU sales for football, that they can easily afford the fee; the guy still insisted on speculating on things, but not acutally presenting any real facts to prove his speculation. Even after ECU posters provided him with solid financial information, he still speculated on things. So his argument was phony baloney and not based upon any real facts within his actual knowledge.

BTW, I pointed out the other schools that voted down the stipend to you to show that some programs have reasons for not voting for it; and the reasons were not necessarily financial in nature. I understood you statement about the student fees, but the poster appeared to be speaking about other streams of income; not just student fees.

(07-29-2013 02:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:16 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:05 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Quo, way to quote numbers 100% out of any real context. ODU has a budget equal to ours. But, nearly 80% of it is from student fees, same for the others you listed.

Don't accuse me of quoting numbers out of context when my quote was perfectly fair. The numbers are what they are. Student fees are one way of funding athletics, ticket sales are another, both are sources of revenue.

If ECU wants to have a bigger budget than Old Dominion or Delaware, then go ahead and try to raise your student fees to their level and we'll see if you can, just as ODU can try to raise ticket sales and booster contributions to ECU levels and we'll see if they can too. But as of now, you guys are on the same level and any attempt to say otherwise is pure spin.

ODU make as much as ECU on ticket sakes......don't make me laugh. 8 million in football alone. ODU sells out their stadium, they'd have to add 30,000 seats. And, our football ticket sales equals their entire revenue outside student fees.

Learn more about a subject before posting. It would cost a total of 500,000 to pay the stipend to all our athletes on schalorship male and female. We're 2 million in the plus, you do the math.

WTF? First you falsely claim I quoted numbers out of context, then fail to realize that ODU can indeed TRY to make more money from ticket sales and booster donations?

Bottom line: ECU and ODU have about the same athletic revenues and budgets. Wake me up when you put some distance between yourselves and them. Until then, this is all just Pirates-bluster. Hot air.

And ditto for the stipend. When you vote for it, then I'll believe YOU believe you can afford it.

Do you not know how scholarships are paid for??????? They are paid by the athletic booster clubs, ECU's is known as the Pirate Club, they raised 6.8 million in 2011. ODU raised just 3.39 million to pay the scholarship bill. 6.8 is greater than 3.39. Plus, they are going to have the added cost of covering the full 85 scholarships for football after this year.

Also, one schools report on revenue does equal another. ECU does not include capital project for athletic facilities. If we did, since 1998 we spent 150 million on athletic facilities, all money raised separate from and report separate from the athletic budget. That averages out to addition 10 million dollars of revenue and expenses a year for the past 15. Plus, we have another 50 million on the books, 17 million for the practice facility being built right now and the planned expansion to DFS.

Also, that planned expansion, that is to include 16 suits, and a 2-3k seat club level by themselves would add another 4 million in revenue to the budget and a projected 4 million to Pirate Club. Also, with the project growth in enrollment another 2 million in students fees is expected.

So tell me again how we can't paid or come up with the 500k for the stipend and that is the only reason we voted no.

(07-29-2013 04:21 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 03:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 03:00 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Your comments are about student fees, which is only one source of revenues for the athletic department. ECU gets revenues from many other sources and they were in the black.

Of course it is: that was my ONLY argument. I said people who get their money one way, look down upon people who get it some other way. That was what I said. Why would I be talking about anything else. I am not defending nor confronting his argument. So why do you keep telling me his argument is phony baloney?

His argument is phony baloney, because he is assuming things that he doesn't know. Even after a Bearcat fan and a Memphis Tiger fan chimed in to mention that just based on the number of tickets that ECU sales for football, that they can easily afford the fee; the guy still insisted on speculating on things, but not acutally presenting any real facts to prove his speculation. Even after ECU posters provided him with solid financial information, he still speculated on things. So his argument was phony baloney and not based upon any real facts within his actual knowledge.

BTW, I pointed out the other schools that voted down the stipend to you to show that some programs have reasons for not voting for it; and the reasons were not necessarily financial in nature. I understood you statement about the student fees, but the poster appeared to be speaking about other streams of income; not just student fees.

To add, he also said that the only reason to vote no was that a school could not afford it. Well, I guess reading isn't a strong suit for him,

Wake Forest University
Wake Forest University would like to submit an override vote for Proposal 2011-96. Since the proposal stipulates that only student-athletes receiving the equivalent of a full grant-in-aid would have access to the additional $2000, the primary beneficiaries of this legislation would undoubtedly be male student-athletes. As such, we feel that this proposal, if implemented, would run counter to the membership's efforts to comply with the federal statues under Title IX.

(07-29-2013 03:01 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  good lord how has this turned into "Defending Your Life" for ECU?!?!?!?

Quo with another steaming pile of manure argument.

No, absurdly sensitive ECU fans unwilling to admit that you're in the same category as Old Dominion and Delaware.

As Adcorbett said, school's don't turn down money. When you guys boost your revenues and change your vote, your claims about having all this earning potential and being able to afford stipends will ring true. But as of now, it's just Pirates blarney.

(07-29-2013 04:37 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  So tell me again how we can't paid or come up with the 500k for the stipend and that is the only reason we voted no.

What other reason makes sense, other than that you don't think you can afford it?