(07-07-2017 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on my observation, I am pretty certain that schools are fairly uniform in adding capital expenditures with the payment mechanism being the determinant in whether it shows up in a single year or over 10 years.

AState reported the press box construction in a single year because the money all arrived up front. The indoor practice facility was built with bond debt so expense and revenue to pay are laid out over 10 years.

And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on my observation, I am pretty certain that schools are fairly uniform in adding capital expenditures with the payment mechanism being the determinant in whether it shows up in a single year or over 10 years.

AState reported the press box construction in a single year because the money all arrived up front. The indoor practice facility was built with bond debt so expense and revenue to pay are laid out over 10 years.

And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

I was wondering about that. We are spending a hefty bit and receiving a hefty bit for this stadium project. I doubt it shows up in the athletic budget numbers.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

Which is why using whole budgetary figures is never going to be helpful in a comparison discussion, because you can never force two schools and athletic departments to account of all types of line items in exactly the same way.

I like to use football coaching salaries (regardless if just head coach, or including staff) as a good proxy statistic to understand how much a university wants to financially support its program.

(07-07-2017 12:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Never ceases to amaze me how people want to pretend that college athletic departments should be treated like for-profit businesses, simply because it isn't a part of the core education mission.

Neither are the IT operations, which cost major universities tens of millions per year, perhaps if not more than that.

If presidents and their boards WANTED athletics to operate in the black, they would operate in the black.

If athletics were a profit center for universities they wouldn't run in the red for a century, the school would put their money elsewhere.

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on my observation, I am pretty certain that schools are fairly uniform in adding capital expenditures with the payment mechanism being the determinant in whether it shows up in a single year or over 10 years.

AState reported the press box construction in a single year because the money all arrived up front. The indoor practice facility was built with bond debt so expense and revenue to pay are laid out over 10 years.

And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

Houston borrow money?
$128 million over say 20 years isn't going to pop off the page. That's about $7.5 million a year.

(07-07-2017 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If presidents and their boards WANTED athletics to operate in the black, they would operate in the black.

If athletics were a profit center for universities they wouldn't run in the red for a century, the school would put their money elsewhere.

Of course they would. They'd simply transfer enough money from the school's general fund until the balance sheet for just the athletics dept looked good enough. And that is just fine.

Any school should be allowed to spend as much tuition money as it wants on athletics. Forget fees, cancel them all. Just raise tuition.


Students demand athletics, even though it does nothing for learning, just like students demand high speed internet connections throughout campus, even though technically that does nothing for learning (mainly used to stream video and play games).

Students don't just want a classroom and a textbook, they want a whole experience for their four years of money.

(07-07-2017 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If presidents and their boards WANTED athletics to operate in the black, they would operate in the black.

If athletics were a profit center for universities they wouldn't run in the red for a century, the school would put their money elsewhere.

Of course they would. They'd simply transfer enough money from the school's general fund until the balance sheet for just the athletics dept looked good enough. And that is just fine.

Any school should be allowed to spend as much tuition money as it wants on athletics. Forget fees, cancel them all. Just raise tuition.


Students demand athletics, even though it does nothing for learning, just like students demand high speed internet connections throughout campus, even though technically that does nothing for learning (mainly used to stream video and play games).

Students don't just want a classroom and a textbook, they want a whole experience for their four years of money.

No

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on my observation, I am pretty certain that schools are fairly uniform in adding capital expenditures with the payment mechanism being the determinant in whether it shows up in a single year or over 10 years.

AState reported the press box construction in a single year because the money all arrived up front. The indoor practice facility was built with bond debt so expense and revenue to pay are laid out over 10 years.

And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

what is amazing is that people that claim to have a college education do not understand the difference between an expense and revenue

and even more so from a (fake) "tier "won"" school not understanding that when you raise "$65 million" for a project that does not mean the money all comes in one single year for that project

the only way an EXPENSE ever reflects in revenues is when you find the money to pay the yearly cost of that expense

so if you borrow a ton of money for a stajium that does not all show up in one year for REVENUE unless it is PAID FOR THAT YEAR

so if you pay $30 million of that project with REVENUE for that year then you will have to have found the REVENUE THAT YEAR be it donations THAT YEAR, ticket sales THAT YEAR or an institutional transfer THAT YEAR ect THAT YEAR

if you bond it out and pay it over 50 years then the cost of that will be reflected in REVENUES for 50 years or so as you find the REVENUE needed to PAY off those bonds yearly

it is like Cal they spent over $400 million and right now they are paying INTEREST ONLY for something like 20 years before the payments on the ACTUAL BORROWED MONEY AND INTEREST kick in and somewhere along the way they will need the REVENUE for paying that no matter the source

the years it comes in will reflect that REVENUE and the years it is spend will reflect that EXPENSE

you are simply being thick and pretending that dem coogs doh are doing much better than the numbers reflect because you have taken on a lot of DEBT and you want credit for that DEBT WITHOUT THE ACTUAL REVENUES coming in

you have $93+ million in DEBT and your yearly EXPENSES reflect that as do your DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS and your donations reflect the money coming in YEARLY

if you got a large donation in a single year that would be reflected, but what you have gotten is PLEDGES for that money that will be paid out over a extended period of time and reflected in REVENUES as they are actually paid

it is no different than a capital campaign that raises $500 million, but $200 million of that is life trust that do not pay until the death of the person making the pledge

when the Butlers gave $50 million to the UT School of Music (Butler School of Music now) they did not just cut a check for $50 million so while UT reports that as part of the campaign donations they do not have that on the audited books until the annual money comes in

and in the case of the Butlers they offered to pay it off to UT in one chunk if UT would change the School of Music to a College of Music

just like stAtefan explained they had a bank and a bank owner take a long term pledge (that would have been reflected yearly as the money came in) and pay it out in one chunk and that was reflected in a single years numbers and now will no longer show up yearly because the money has been collected


we all get it dem coogs doh spent money, but what you do not get is that DEBT is NOT REVENUE and REVENUE is not promised money that has not been actually collected and it will not show up until it is collected and when you have more expenses than you have revenues you take money from academics to pay that off......and that is not ADDITIONAL REVENUES that is simply revenues reflected as an institutional transfer from academics to athletics and because you have a large amount of DEBT SPENDING there is not some hidden revenues related to that which some schools show and others do not

(07-07-2017 02:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on my observation, I am pretty certain that schools are fairly uniform in adding capital expenditures with the payment mechanism being the determinant in whether it shows up in a single year or over 10 years.

AState reported the press box construction in a single year because the money all arrived up front. The indoor practice facility was built with bond debt so expense and revenue to pay are laid out over 10 years.

And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

what is amazing is that people that claim to have a college education do not understand the difference between an expense and revenue

and even more so from a (fake) "tier "won"" school not understanding that when you raise "$65 million" for a project that does not mean the money all comes in one single year for that project

the only way an EXPENSE ever reflects in revenues is when you find the money to pay the yearly cost of that expense

so if you borrow a ton of money for a stajium that does not all show up in one year for REVENUE unless it is PAID FOR THAT YEAR

so if you pay $30 million of that project with REVENUE for that year then you will have to have found the REVENUE THAT YEAR be it donations THAT YEAR, ticket sales THAT YEAR or an institutional transfer THAT YEAR ect THAT YEAR

if you bond it out and pay it over 50 years then the cost of that will be reflected in REVENUES for 50 years or so as you find the REVENUE needed to PAY off those bonds yearly

it is like Cal they spent over $400 million and right now they are paying INTEREST ONLY for something like 20 years before the payments on the ACTUAL BORROWED MONEY AND INTEREST kick in and somewhere along the way they will need the REVENUE for paying that no matter the source

the years it comes in will reflect that REVENUE and the years it is spend will reflect that EXPENSE

you are simply being thick and pretending that dem coogs doh are doing much better than the numbers reflect because you have taken on a lot of DEBT and you want credit for that DEBT WITHOUT THE ACTUAL REVENUES coming in

you have $93+ million in DEBT and your yearly EXPENSES reflect that as do your DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS and your donations reflect the money coming in YEARLY

if you got a large donation in a single year that would be reflected, but what you have gotten is PLEDGES for that money that will be paid out over a extended period of time and reflected in REVENUES as they are actually paid

it is no different than a capital campaign that raises $500 million, but $200 million of that is life trust that do not pay until the death of the person making the pledge

when the Butlers gave $50 million to the UT School of Music (Butler School of Music now) they did not just cut a check for $50 million so while UT reports that as part of the campaign donations they do not have that on the audited books until the annual money comes in

and in the case of the Butlers they offered to pay it off to UT in one chunk if UT would change the School of Music to a College of Music

just like stAtefan explained they had a bank and a bank owner take a long term pledge (that would have been reflected yearly as the money came in) and pay it out in one chunk and that was reflected in a single years numbers and now will no longer show up yearly because the money has been collected


we all get it dem coogs doh spent money, but what you do not get is that DEBT is NOT REVENUE and REVENUE is not promised money that has not been actually collected and it will not show up until it is collected and when you have more expenses than you have revenues you take money from academics to pay that off......and that is not ADDITIONAL REVENUES that is simply revenues reflected as an institutional transfer from academics to athletics and because you have a large amount of DEBT SPENDING there is not some hidden revenues related to that which some schools show and others do not

That's the thing.

If T. Boone hands OkSt a check for $10 million to help with a $20 million facility, even if the money arrives on day one, if the Cowboys are financing the project over five years they aren't going to show that $10 million all in year one, they are going split it over five years as it is allocated to pay the debt.

(07-07-2017 02:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 02:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on my observation, I am pretty certain that schools are fairly uniform in adding capital expenditures with the payment mechanism being the determinant in whether it shows up in a single year or over 10 years.

AState reported the press box construction in a single year because the money all arrived up front. The indoor practice facility was built with bond debt so expense and revenue to pay are laid out over 10 years.

And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

what is amazing is that people that claim to have a college education do not understand the difference between an expense and revenue

and even more so from a (fake) "tier "won"" school not understanding that when you raise "$65 million" for a project that does not mean the money all comes in one single year for that project

the only way an EXPENSE ever reflects in revenues is when you find the money to pay the yearly cost of that expense

so if you borrow a ton of money for a stajium that does not all show up in one year for REVENUE unless it is PAID FOR THAT YEAR

so if you pay $30 million of that project with REVENUE for that year then you will have to have found the REVENUE THAT YEAR be it donations THAT YEAR, ticket sales THAT YEAR or an institutional transfer THAT YEAR ect THAT YEAR

if you bond it out and pay it over 50 years then the cost of that will be reflected in REVENUES for 50 years or so as you find the REVENUE needed to PAY off those bonds yearly

it is like Cal they spent over $400 million and right now they are paying INTEREST ONLY for something like 20 years before the payments on the ACTUAL BORROWED MONEY AND INTEREST kick in and somewhere along the way they will need the REVENUE for paying that no matter the source

the years it comes in will reflect that REVENUE and the years it is spend will reflect that EXPENSE

you are simply being thick and pretending that dem coogs doh are doing much better than the numbers reflect because you have taken on a lot of DEBT and you want credit for that DEBT WITHOUT THE ACTUAL REVENUES coming in

you have $93+ million in DEBT and your yearly EXPENSES reflect that as do your DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS and your donations reflect the money coming in YEARLY

if you got a large donation in a single year that would be reflected, but what you have gotten is PLEDGES for that money that will be paid out over a extended period of time and reflected in REVENUES as they are actually paid

it is no different than a capital campaign that raises $500 million, but $200 million of that is life trust that do not pay until the death of the person making the pledge

when the Butlers gave $50 million to the UT School of Music (Butler School of Music now) they did not just cut a check for $50 million so while UT reports that as part of the campaign donations they do not have that on the audited books until the annual money comes in

and in the case of the Butlers they offered to pay it off to UT in one chunk if UT would change the School of Music to a College of Music

just like stAtefan explained they had a bank and a bank owner take a long term pledge (that would have been reflected yearly as the money came in) and pay it out in one chunk and that was reflected in a single years numbers and now will no longer show up yearly because the money has been collected


we all get it dem coogs doh spent money, but what you do not get is that DEBT is NOT REVENUE and REVENUE is not promised money that has not been actually collected and it will not show up until it is collected and when you have more expenses than you have revenues you take money from academics to pay that off......and that is not ADDITIONAL REVENUES that is simply revenues reflected as an institutional transfer from academics to athletics and because you have a large amount of DEBT SPENDING there is not some hidden revenues related to that which some schools show and others do not

That's the thing.

If T. Boone hands OkSt a check for $10 million to help with a $20 million facility, even if the money arrives on day one, if the Cowboys are financing the project over five years they aren't going to show that $10 million all in year one, they are going split it over five years as it is allocated to pay the debt.

not really in most cases

in most cases the university and the department that the money is going to would reflect that revenue all in one year......just like A&M has been doing with their large donations/large amount of donations the last couple of years and just like Oregon did with their single year from fill night

then they will reflect the EXPENSES of using that money to pay the bonds over the multiple years it is bonded for

for what you are saying to occur the university and their athletics department would need a foundation that is completely separate from the athletics department that takes that donation in a single year and then holds it and invest it (hoping to make a return greater than borrowing cost) and yearly they transfer money from that independent foundation over to the athletics department that is reflected in yearly revenues for that department

but the more important thing is even in that case the money does not just disappear like dem coogs doh are pretending happens to they can say their numbers are better

the money is simply reflected as yearly REVENUES (along with any interest earned that is also transferred from the independent foundation to the department) instead of being reflected in a single year

so if A&M or Oregon had an independent foundation that was taking these donations. holding/investing them and then paying out money YEARLY to the department that money did not disappear from athletics revenues because it was not accounted for by the athletics department in a single year it is simply spread out and reflected over multiple years instead of in one large year

so the IMPORTANT THING to remember.know is that SPENDING is never going to be a reflection of revenues in any single year and even over the long term when you are taking on debt for that spending

and revenues do not disappear because they are not reflected in one giant year of donations or because they are reflected over multiple years even if the money was collected in a single year

spending is not revenues and because you spend a lot in the form of debt that does not mean your income/revenues goes up

so while one can debate how the annual donations may or may not be accounted for there is no debate that spending is not a reflection of revenues and eventually those donations are accounted for be it yearly or in a single year

METHODOLOGY

The data, updated for 2016, are based on the revenue and expense reports collected from more than 225 public schools in the NCAA’s Division I that have an obligation to release the data (the NCAA does not release the data publicly). The others are private or are covered under a state exemption.

►In 2015, a new category was created to clarify that an athletics department should report debt service payments on facilities as part of its operating expenses. Another category was revised so that it now groups facilities maintenance with overhead and other administrative expenses. That means an assessment of annual spending on facilities spending no longer can be made from these reports, which allowed such assessments for 2005 through 2014.

►In 2016, a new category was created in which schools were to report spending on meals and snacks provided for athletes beyond those provided under regular board plans and during team travel. Another new category was added so schools could separately report school-specific expenses from participation in a bowl game, including those for team travel, bonuses paid to coaches and staff, spirit groups and uniforms. Schools that did not play in a bowl game during the 2015-16 season, should have reported $0 in this category.

(07-07-2017 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If presidents and their boards WANTED athletics to operate in the black, they would operate in the black.

If athletics were a profit center for universities they wouldn't run in the red for a century, the school would put their money elsewhere.

Of course they would. They'd simply transfer enough money from the school's general fund until the balance sheet for just the athletics dept looked good enough. And that is just fine.

Any school should be allowed to spend as much tuition money as it wants on athletics. Forget fees, cancel them all. Just raise tuition.


Students demand athletics, even though it does nothing for learning, just like students demand high speed internet connections throughout campus, even though technically that does nothing for learning (mainly used to stream video and play games).

Students don't just want a classroom and a textbook, they want a whole experience for their four years of money.

NAU spends more on Technology (IT, computers, software) than it subsidizes athletics (even with student fees thrown in), by quite a bit.

The Music College costs as much as athletics (yes, I know they grant degrees, and students pay tuition, but you'd be surprised how much scholarship money is allocated to attract top music students).

(07-06-2017 07:38 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Arkansas St has been doing something right....I must admit I'm impressed and surprised

Thanks. We have a great AD and President. Some of our former conference mates are in their feelings about our success but that is fine. We are raising a lot of money without as much from students and general revenues as some of our peers and we are spending most of it on facilities, stipends and salaries... especially facilities. If that type of spending is less "impressive" to some people, we cannot help it.

(07-07-2017 12:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

Which is why using whole budgetary figures is never going to be helpful in a comparison discussion, because you can never force two schools and athletic departments to account of all types of line items in exactly the same way.

I like to use football coaching salaries (regardless if just head coach, or including staff) as a good proxy statistic to understand how much a university wants to financially support its program.

Bingo! What are you paying coaches and athletes, how nice are your facilities and what does your apparel deal look like? Those are tangible, real measurements of how you are doing. Spreadsheets are not a true measurement.

(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million

We get it, you hate USF football and are mad because students that choose to go there have some amount of their tutuition money going to pay for the arts and sports....

(07-07-2017 03:51 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million

We get it, you hate USF football and are mad because students that choose to go there have some amount of their tutuition money going to pay for the arts and sports....

You don't get a thing. I can't see how any USF student or alumnus can be happy with a situation wherein our athletic department generates so little revenue compared to our peers up I-4 in Orlando, and the AAC generally.

I'm also embarrassed that current students are bearing so much of the burden. Athletics is something that students should get to enjoy while on campus without footing any bills beyond nominal ticket sales. Alumni, those of us who have benefited from a USF education, should be the ones footing the big bills by purchasing the high-end tickets and making donations to the athletic department. That's how it happens at Big Time schools, they don't soak their students, they soak their alumni, who can afford to be soaked because we've taken our USF education and made something of ourselves in the world and making those contributions is our way of showing appreciation.

$24 million shows very weak support for USF athletics, and we won't be Big Time again until USF alumni step up via ticket sales and athletic donations.

(07-07-2017 03:06 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  And yet Houston spent a $128M on a football stadium that never shower up in the USAToday figures. Neither did the $65M in donations we raised from the alumni to help pay for it.

If Arky State or Oregon is counting capex projects in their USAToday survey responses, and Houston is not, then the numbers are not apples to apples.

Which is why using whole budgetary figures is never going to be helpful in a comparison discussion, because you can never force two schools and athletic departments to account of all types of line items in exactly the same way.

I like to use football coaching salaries (regardless if just head coach, or including staff) as a good proxy statistic to understand how much a university wants to financially support its program.

Bingo! What are you paying coaches and athletes, how nice are your facilities and what does your apparel deal look like? Those are tangible, real measurements of how you are doing. Spreadsheets are not a true measurement.

Not just apparel but what does an outside party like Learfield think of your program?

UNT and La.Tech get $500,000 from Learfield. AState gets $1.6 million a year.

When you have the largest rice producer in the world in your corner, the owner of the state's largest banking company (currently 117th in the nation should break top 100 with newest purchase), and your top fan and former governor is on the board of directors of the world's largest poultry producer, some good things come your way.

one thing I will say for USF is at least the student fee aspect of the subsidy SHOULD have (at one point) had a student voice in that choice to spend that money

what I think is worse is when a university has a relatively large student fee/student fee income compared to the vast majority of other programs and then on top of that they spend as much or even more directly from other academic money with no student choice

and I certainly think it is laughable to go with the "haterz" type of (weak) defense towards someone that has a desire for their program to take in more program generated revenues and to reduce student/academic generated revenues

if you are concerned with the long term viability of a program and with being closer to schools you aspire to compete with then you need to look at any and all ways possible to generate revenues exclusive of student/academic side "revenues" (transfers) and to reduce those student fees and academic side transfers as much as possible

False todge -- by definition.

Students ALWAYS have a choice in tuition: that's literally the decision of choosing that school or not. If the school raises tuition too high, students go elsewhere.

(07-07-2017 03:51 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million

We get it, you hate USF football and are mad because students that choose to go there have some amount of their tutuition money going to pay for the arts and sports....

Can't speak for Quo on how much he contributed to his school last year but I agree with him that the big bucks that pay for athletics can't be put all on the students backs. Students can continue to choose to pay for arts and sports. They should, as both are a key part of the college experience. But donors are probably going to have to fund a new on campus football stadium. Student fees for that would be a huge burden on college kids I would think.