(06-18-2018 12:15 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:28 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 09:06 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 10:59 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  When I see these types of numbers, given my background in financial, the so called "institutional support" drives me crazy as those numbers are total crap and makes the university support look significant.

Do you think the institutional support should be MORE than 2/3 of the budget?

I do not believe it is the roughly 2/3rd's that is shown therein as I suspect as I noted that a large chunk of that number is funny money bookeeping and not true out of pocket. University's are the hallmark of fuzzy math as they just don't want stakeholders to know where all the money is being spent.

About half of the institutional support number was scholarship costs, the last time those data were reported in the Owl Club materials. At some point, the method of calculating those costs was changed. Formerly, it was a net number based on the average actually paid by non-athlete students, after financial aid. That was changed several years ago and the cost charged to the athletic department now represents 100% full sticker price.

Obviously the questions you have raised apply to scholarship costs, however calculated. Is there a cash cost? Is there an opportunity cost from having a student-athlete sit in that chair versus a non-athlete? What are the offsetting benefits?

Isn’t that why we have to pay for parking now? Rice parking isn’t the same as Rice athletics so they have to charge $5 and pay Rice parking for use of the lots? I don’t mind paying for parking because it’s cheap and way better than any other large sporting event but it’s stupid for departments to charge each other and report it as revenue/expenses.