(05-17-2020 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 11:14 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(05-16-2020 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

No, I didn't.

Post 99, sentence 3.

Which is not say anything along the lines you say, since I was talking about the possibility of a selection bias involved in the difference in the average FBC subsidy and the average FCS / Non-FB subsidy.

In Ohio, I'd guess there is one break-even to surplus FBS school, one break-even to surplus FCS school and one break-even to surplus NFS school, and since these are net, not gross, numbers, the impact of OSU on the In-Ohio FBS average is much lower than the impact of the Flyers on the FCS average as a mathematical consequence that the Buckeyes are an outlier among eight, while the Flyers are an "outlier" among 2.

Obviously a surplus Athletic Department doesn't deliver the surplus it COULD to the University, like a profit-seeking division would do, it rather seeks out "beneficial costs" to soak up most of the surplus and hands over a modest share of the surplus to the University in order to retain program independence of the University pursue strings.