(02-27-2017 11:36 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:33 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 06:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:27 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Oh great. Another poster who thinks the overall school budget being much bigger somehow equates to it not being a big deal to subsidize athletics. IT is a big deal, if it wasn't' then why doesnt' Houston (or everyone else) just bump that up to a 100m AD budget by taking from the schools budget?

Because they can't.

Houston AD budget is 44 million BTW. Almost 60% subsidy to operate at that level.

62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00

UH Audited Athletic Budget for 2015-2016 is 52.2 million with a 17.61 million Direct school subsidy. See page 19 of pdf link below.

https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicIt...k=40122266

My point was its not a "big deal" in terms of students making a decision on where they attend school. Getting rid of the athletics program wouldn't make a significant difference in tuition cost. In other words, nobody is selecting their future school based on a disagreement with the appropriation of around 1 tenth of one percent of the schools budget. That said, I also don't think its a bid deal anyway because I think athletics is just the marketing arm of the modern school.

The reality is any FBS school dumping athletics will find that much of the money saved will simply be redirected to the marketing department as that budget will have to be increased to make up for the loss of free advertising and publicity. Also, for every student you might gain because tuition went down a few dollars, you likely lose more students who have no interest in attending a school that cannot offer the full "major college" experience that sports is a big part of. So you probably will lose overall income as those students go elsewhere. You also likely see a significant fall off in your current donor base (both athletic and academic) due to big money alums being angry about the dissolution of their favorite college sports programs (see Idaho). So, frankly, the dumping of even a subsidized athletics program is as likely to be a net negative as it is a net positive.

Bottom line---I don't expect athletics to pay for themselves because they are essentially the marketing department of the university. The school gets a dozen nationally televised infomercials extolling how great it is to be a student at Big State Tech. Better yet, the school has figured out a way to get people to watch the entire infomercial. Then, in a real twist---the TV network talking heads actually talk about the school after the infomercial is over--plus the local paper will write about the infomercial once its over and the put it on their front page for free. The local TV news will lead off talking about with your 3 hour informercial and talk for a week about next weeks infomercial. The schools also get a another 30 or so less viewed nationally televised infomercials a year in the form their 30 basketball games. But if they make the tournament---those extra infomercials get millions of viewers.

For all this publicity the average G5 pays about 20-50 million---but the deal gets even better. The schools have figured out a way to get past students and "t-shirt fans"( who never darkened the door of the school) to pay for a large portion of the cost of these marketing infomercials. So, no---I don't think a school subsidy of the athletics department is really a big deal. I don't think its a big deal---because that's not whats really happening. Whats really happening is the TV networks and ticket buyers are actually subsidizing the school's marketing department---not the other way around.

You're going to go down the rabbit hole with this dude.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Attackcoog is a reasonable person.

You are just mad becasue you made a fool of yourself in a couple of thread recently. You claimed Colorado St hd no TV contract which was why the game with CU needed to end and the latest is that becasue UMAss has a big operating budget its' not a big deal to take money from that side to support the athletic side in it's quest for FBS football even with an 80% subsidy.

You are one of the least intelligent posters on this board. But you are entertaining.