(07-01-2019 12:50 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  Since it's been coming up in a few threads, seems timely to repost (I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't find the thread with it) USA Today's compilation of athletic budgets for the 2016-17 year:

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

where "Total Allocated" includes "The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)"

Even two years ago, UConn was the most subsidized athletic program among all reporting schools (almost exclusively public schools - private schools are not required to report this) - to the tune of >$42MM and roughly 50% of their total athletic budget. Only 5 other schools were subsidized > $30MM. Makes a pretty compelling case that something needed to stop.

By the way, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that being in the P5 is some magical path to making these go away. Virginia, Rutgers ($33MM!), Minnesota, Maryland, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah all have more than $10MM in subsidies/state support. But there's no escaping notice that every AAC, MWC and MAC school also receives at least $10MM as well. In 2019 with greater attention being paid to student debt, this will eventually get scrutinized and is almost certainly unsustainable.

USFFan

Contained within this report is the reason for the distinction between the G5 and the P5. P5=<20% subsidy. G5=>25% subsidy. And off the P5 schools only 3 or 4 had a subsidy > 10%. Athletic fees for students accounted for a good portion of those subsidized under 5% and I think they must have been the ones highlighted in red.

Shouldn’t you list all of the exceptions if you’re going to state that as a hard fact when it’s actually not? You know, to maintain credibility?

If you want to get into the nitty gritty then go to the Equity in Athletics site and look up the tax returns but, by and large, those who heavily subsidize probably can't afford the sports they are playing.