(05-17-2020 12:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Right, but you - we
[quote='quo vadis' pid='16820919' dateline='1589638692'] Also, as noted, there are in fact FCS and D1Sub schools in Ohio with smaller than average subsidies.

That's how averages work. Akron being at the average FBS subsidy, and then dropping down to FCS or Non-FB does not guarantee that it can drop down to the average FCS subsidy.

No it doesn't guarantee anything, but IIRC, you mentioned Akron's position in Ohio among other FBS as a possible reason they might require more of a subsidy at FCS/D1Sub level than the average such schools do. So it seems instructive to note what other D1 no football and FCS in Ohio are actually doing, and they subsidize at less than the average level.

And if a large fraction of the subsidy in question are fixed costs being charged to the AD budget, which includes a majority of the general University subsidy of tuition cost as well as the stadium bonds, the University doesn't save that money when the AD budget is cut, it either remains as a fixed cost in a smaller AD budget or else it is higher cost of education per student.

Ifs .... and we don't know that. We do know that Akron has about a $4m football stadium note it must pay through 2038. We do not know if that is counted against the athletic budget or not. If it does, then yes, the subsidy comparison goes from around $24m for Akron to $20m for Akron, compared to around $10m for the Ohio FCS/D1Sub schools. That's still a big spread, and again, we don't know if it is counted against the AD and subsidized or not.

The incremental cost savings is the actual reduction in University outlays. If the drop in official school subsidy is $9m, that is certainly smaller than a $9m savings in outlays ... and the drop in official school subsidy seems unlikely to be as high as $9m.

Bear in mind that the facilities debt service and facilities fees at about $5m where, by contrast, at Kent State it is $0, is where I get the notional $4m subsidy reduction, everything else equal.

And of course, not all of the subsidy reduction is actual savings. Coaches salaries would be about $2.5m, about $1m are allocated cost of ~85 full ride scholarships ... given $11,500 in-state tuition and $15,500 out of state, but perhaps 20% of that involves actual outlays, certainly no more than 40% ... travel costs and other incidental costs seem likely to be covered by a couple of guarantee games a year and FB associated revenue ... primarily the MAC distribution since Akron ticket revenues are pretty pathetic.

If Akron subsidies to outlays are partially funny-munny accounting, then it stands to reason the same is true at the schools they are being compared with. Any way you slice it, the $24m to $10m is an apples to apples comparison, save for possible the $4m on the stadium note. I always have trouble with these attempts to claim full-ride scholarships and the like are not "real costs" to a university. If they aren't, then why not just let anyone off the street take classes for free? After all, as the argument goes, the professors and facilities are already paid for .... but of course that makes no sense. No school could survive on that model, simply because others who are paying would refuse to pay if they knew others weren't. They would just say "well, why not make him (the other guy) pay and let me free-ride on the already paid-for infrastructure?"



Canning FB might save Akron somewhere around a net of $3m in actual outlays, mostly coaching salaries. Assuming variable costs of enrollment are 20%, it needs to attract a net 250 students to break even as a marketing spend.

At this point commentator 1 says,

No, at this point commentator 1 is skeptical of you argument that an apparent $14m monetary cost difference is only really $3m in actual costs difference, and recommends that you circle back up to $14m and abandon your attempt to whittle it down. There's a reason all universities account for money the same way, because these subsidies are real money being spent. Students really do have to dig into their pockets and pay these fees, and that money does go over to athletics. $24m to $10m. Maybe $20m to $10m if the stadium is actually covered by athletic subsidies. Now, how many more students have to be attracted to Zips football to cover that? I don't know.

Your entire approach to this seems to be that of a typical football-hugging admin: Making every possible allowance and assumption among unknowns in favor of the bloated, money losing football program and therefore not taking the "risk" of abandoning it.