(07-15-2019 03:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 01:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:45 PM)panama Wrote:  It's 2%. And it's a cost center that works for FBS schools.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It doesn't work for FBS schools, at least there's no evidence it does.

As for 2%, that figure is misleading, because as a state institution, much of the $1B budget is not discretionary, the great bulk of it is fixed by the legislature and is dedicated to stuff like infrastructure, maintenance, and faculty and staff salaries. Faculty have tenure and staff often have civil service protections.

So that $20m is a much bigger chunk of the budget that the school administration actually has control over. Unlike in the private sector, where the executives have control over basically everything.

It doesn't? Would you rather be you or Florida Tech. The only reason I know your school exists is because of FBS football.

People have to stop thinking about college athletics as if profit is the goal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I can see why you would say that, as Georgia State socks its students with $22m in transfers, a whopping 74% of the athletic budget. You guys are hemorrhaging money that should be spent on the academic side chasing an FBS dream. Your POV is designed to basically justify that, forever. You are probably one of the 16k or so Georgia State alums or students who goes to the games, so of course you want other students - the clear majority who do not - to subsidize your entertainment.

But investments have to earn a positive return, otherwise you pay an opportunity cost.

IMO, USF's ongoing investment in FBS, with the concomitant $21m in student fees, is justifiable only as a means to building up the athletics so as to get a Power conference bid. It's a strategy of losing money now to cash in a bigger check later, that is, it is a strategy that is designed to "make a profit" in the end.

It is not a status-quo situation with long run sustainability. If at a certain point it becomes clear that we are never being elevated, and that our future is $20m a year subsidies essentially forever, then we will have to downgrade our football, as UConn has done. Georgia State is doing the same thing USF is, but faces the same fate.

It is true that in the 19 years we have had FBS football, the academic 'side' has improved significantly. But, that was also true about the 19 years before we had FBS football. So there's no reason to think that FBS football is mission-critical to the university. I love having it, but it has to justify itself in ROI.

We have a $1.2B budget and we are restricted by the state to 55% so we are way under 74%. So you're data is old. Hemmhorraging money. You funny. I actually chuckled.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

My data was just the USA Today data from 2017, which showed Georgia State with a $30m athletic budget, $22m of which is from transfers and subsidies, or 74%.

That means your athletics only generates $8m a year in real revenue. That is an incredibly small amount.