(07-07-2017 04:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(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.

Having a football stadium on campus has ZERO to due with the numbers. If USF needed one because we didn't have a $700 million NFL stadium a few miles a way, we would have one. Let's say we did build an OCS. Going price for a 50k stadium is about $300million. The debt service on that would be huge.

For your information, USF pays no set rental fee for using one of the best football stadiums in the country. We do pay a ticket surcharge of a maximum $2.50 per ticket (used to enter the stadium, not total tickets sold) and cover "direct operational costs" like security and staffing lounges etc. BTW, these are the same costs that would have to be paid if the stadium was on campus.

Total maximum cost unique to playing at RJS is $2.50 per ticket. Say 40k butts in seats X $2.50 = $100,000 per game X 6 home games a season = $600,000 per year

A lot cheaper than building a new stadium, even though I am a huge supporter of an OCS.