(02-27-2017 04:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm glad UMASS is FBS. I don't think they should abandon their goal of making this work. Just want to get that out of the way. I'm arguing with the notion that it's normal for universities to pay for athletics with the University general funds. Sure, those who disagree with that can give examples of a school who needed a couple million here and there to buy out a coaches contract/emergency facility repair etc. That's different than a school using non-athletic department money to fund its athletics. Thats not the norm. The norm is donations/ticket sales/merchandise sales/media contract money.
Cheers!

Actually the schools able to support their athletics with the revenue streams you listed are the extreme minority. All the rest of us require a subsidy of some amount or another. For some that comes from student fees, for others it comes from transfers from the general fund.

And I agree with your UMASS sentiments.

You are correct, most schools require a subsidy. New Mexico is the least subsidized G5 school at around 26%. The highest is (I think) Louisiana Monroe at 80%. Or maybe they have the lowest athletic budget? Is it Old Dominion that is the most subsidized FBS school?
But, getting a subsidy from your state is different that pulling money out of an schools endowment or general fund. That's my point. If someone wants to list specific facts on examples that I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected and admit I'm wrong.
Cheers!