(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

(05-02-2014 08:35 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

Aresco can't allow this. He can make a recommendation, but the Presidents will vote on the policy, whatever it is.

FWIW, I think this is how it will be: No mandate from the conference that a school must match all P5 benefits, but freedom to do so if a school wishes to. And that seems reasonable.

(05-01-2014 10:37 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  These are the budgets on USA Today


AAC
UConn......64 million...(27% student fee's)
Cincy.......49 million...(34% studnet fee's)
Memphis...47 million...(40% student fees)
USF.........44 million...(38% student fees)
SMU........43 million....N/A
UCF.........40 million...(55% student fees)
Temple.....40 million...N/A
Houston...37 million...(58% student fees)
ECU.........36 million...(40% student fees)
Tulsa.......31 million.....N/A
Tulane.....28 million.....N/A
Navy........N/A

Way, way too much reliance on student fees. Students should not be taxed to support athletics.

(05-01-2014 10:37 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  These are the budgets on USA Today


AAC
UConn......64 million...(27% student fee's)
Cincy.......49 million...(34% studnet fee's)
Memphis...47 million...(40% student fees)
USF.........44 million...(38% student fees)
SMU........43 million....N/A
UCF.........40 million...(55% student fees)
Temple.....40 million...N/A
Houston...37 million...(58% student fees)
ECU.........36 million...(40% student fees)
Tulsa.......31 million.....N/A
Tulane.....28 million.....N/A
Navy........N/A


CUSA
ODU.........35 million......(74% student fees)
Rice.........30 million.......N/A
Marshall....29 million......(50% student fees)
UAB.........28 million.......(67% student fees)
UTEP........27 million......(55% student fees)
MTSU.......27 million.......(72% student fees)
WKU.........26 million......(69% student fees)
FIU..........25 million.......(84% student fees)
FAU.........23 million........(60% student fees)
USTA.......22 million........(62% student fees)
USM........22 milion.........(38% student fees)
UNCC.......21 million........(89% student fees)
UNT.........19 million.........(50% student fees)
La Tech....19 million.........(51% student fees)

Cincy will have an additional $16-18M when Nippert reopens with premium seats.

http://cincyontheprowl.com/2014/04/30/ni...cs-budget/

The fact that almost every CUSA budget is over 50% subsidized by student fees is a glaring problem for them. 84% at FIU!!

(05-02-2014 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:35 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

Aresco can't allow this. He can make a recommendation, but the Presidents will vote on the policy, whatever it is.

FWIW, I think this is how it will be: No mandate from the conference that a school must match all P5 benefits, but freedom to do so if a school wishes to. And that seems reasonable.

As long as that's the result. I serious doubt that schools like UConn, with P5 aspirations actually based in reality, would tolerate it otherwise.

(05-01-2014 10:39 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 08:49 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Glad to see UH raise its budget to 42M. Tulsa, Tulane and ECU need to get it above 40M, we will be smoking the MWC if that is the case.

According to USA Today we were 1 million behind you last year and far less of our budget was on the backs of the students. Worry about yourself.

The subsidy numbers per student is what i'd be most concerned about. That tells the whole story. Looking at it in terms of absolute dollars isn't quite accurate. For example, ECU has about 14-23,000 less students than other AAC schools.

UH = $26K in fees + subsidy / 41K students = $637 per student
UCF = $22K in fees + subsidy / 60K students = $373 per student
USF = $17K in fees + subsidy / 48K students = $369 per student
ECU = $13K in fees + subsidy / 27K students = $472 per student
Mem = $16K in fees + subsidy / 22K students = $707 per student
Cin = $20K in fees + subsidy / 43K students = $471 per student
UConn = $19K in fees + subsidy / 30K students = $629 per student (corrected)

Not really that much difference in the AAC in terms assuming they're paying this once a year for 4 years and paying it back over the lifetime of a student loan. Either way, I'm totally against raising student fees anymore.

(05-02-2014 08:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 10:39 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 08:49 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Glad to see UH raise its budget to 42M. Tulsa, Tulane and ECU need to get it above 40M, we will be smoking the MWC if that is the case.

According to USA Today we were 1 million behind you last year and far less of our budget was on the backs of the students. Worry about yourself.

I wouldn't be so quick to smack talk SJ. The subsidy numbers per student is what i'd be most concerned about. That tells the whole story. Looking at it in terms of absolute dollars isn't quite accurate. For example, ECU has about 14-23,000 less students than other AAC schools.

UH = $26K in fees + subsidy / 41K students = $637 per student
UCF = $22K in fees + subsidy / 60K students = $373 per student
USF = $17K in fees + subsidy / 48K students = $369 per student
ECU = $13K in fees + subsidy / 27K students = $472 per student
Mem = $16K in fees + subsidy / 22K students = $707 per student
Cin = $20K in fees + subsidy / 43K students = $471 per student
UConn = $19K in fees + subsidy / 18K students = $1048 per student

Not really that much difference in the AAC in terms assuming they're paying this once a year for 4 years and paying it back over the lifetime of a student loan. Either way, I'm totally against raising student fees anymore.

That $19K is for the entire UCONN system (not just Storrs undergrads), which is about 30K students.

(05-02-2014 08:58 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:35 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

Aresco can't allow this. He can make a recommendation, but the Presidents will vote on the policy, whatever it is.

FWIW, I think this is how it will be: No mandate from the conference that a school must match all P5 benefits, but freedom to do so if a school wishes to. And that seems reasonable.

As long as that's the result. I serious doubt that schools like UConn, with P5 aspirations actually based in reality, would tolerate it otherwise.

Nor Cincinnati. As mentioned earlier --- UConn and Cincinnati both have an additional 5 million or so added to their athletic coffers over each of the next 5 years. I think BOTH schools have legitimate shots at P5 and I think BOTH will acknowledge the importance at this time to keep up with the P5s no matter what some of the others schools in the conference do.

(05-02-2014 08:35 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

I don't agree with this. Every member needs to match the P5, those that don't can leave and we will find schools that are committed. We can't ask for better media, bowls, governance and have schools not fully committed to being a Power conference. I think some fans around here need to leave that CUSA mentality behind.

(05-02-2014 09:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:58 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:35 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

Aresco can't allow this. He can make a recommendation, but the Presidents will vote on the policy, whatever it is.

FWIW, I think this is how it will be: No mandate from the conference that a school must match all P5 benefits, but freedom to do so if a school wishes to. And that seems reasonable.

As long as that's the result. I serious doubt that schools like UConn, with P5 aspirations actually based in reality, would tolerate it otherwise.

Nor Cincinnati. As mentioned earlier --- UConn and Cincinnati both have an additional 5 million or so added to their athletic coffers over each of the next 5 years. I think BOTH schools have legitimate shots at P5 and I think BOTH will acknowledge the importance at this time to keep up with the P5s no matter what some of the others schools in the conference do.

UConn also has another big source of revenue coming online next year: Hockey East. It has its own TV deal, but more importantly we will be building a new arena for the team, and in the interim are playing the top teams in the country try in Hartford. For those that aren't familiar with the region, hockey is big up here (just last year the NCAA championship was two CT schools) and the school is expecting significant revenue from the sport.

(05-02-2014 08:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 10:39 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 08:49 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Glad to see UH raise its budget to 42M. Tulsa, Tulane and ECU need to get it above 40M, we will be smoking the MWC if that is the case.

According to USA Today we were 1 million behind you last year and far less of our budget was on the backs of the students. Worry about yourself.

The subsidy numbers per student is what i'd be most concerned about. That tells the whole story. Looking at it in terms of absolute dollars isn't quite accurate. For example, ECU has about 14-23,000 less students than other AAC schools.

UH = $26K in fees + subsidy / 41K students = $637 per student
UCF = $22K in fees + subsidy / 60K students = $373 per student
USF = $17K in fees + subsidy / 48K students = $369 per student
ECU = $13K in fees + subsidy / 27K students = $472 per student
Mem = $16K in fees + subsidy / 22K students = $707 per student
Cin = $20K in fees + subsidy / 43K students = $471 per student
UConn = $19K in fees + subsidy / 18K students = $1048 per student

Not really that much difference in the AAC in terms assuming they're paying this once a year for 4 years and paying it back over the lifetime of a student loan. Either way, I'm totally against raising student fees anymore.

Right, and for some universities it is not only student fees included in what USA Today lumps into subsidies; it also includes university funds for some.....which are taxpayer $.

That aside, if I'm going to a university on student loans and I'm paying as much as $1K per year in funding athletics and I'm going to spend decades paying that back; I'd have serious problem with that.

...and I understand that the UConn fan says that the $1K per student is overstated and that may indeed be true, but that's unclear and yet to be demonstrated at this point.

No mention here that I have seen about cost of living, facilities, etc...

Put it this way...room and board at one school is worth more than room and board at another...the cost of construction in one place (say Philly) costs more than another (say Greenville). I know the costs of most programs may be equal (coaches, uniforms, food) but there are items in those budgets that could have fairly big disparities.

As well, there are items in some budgets that aren't in others...for example Louisville got a bunch of money from Yum brands for the naming rights of the Yum center...and promptly put it in their bottom line, even though it may be a one time thing or spread out over a limited period of years. Louisville, again for example, has the ability to rent out its luxury level in its football stadium for events like the Kentucky Derby (of which it overlooks) that is specific to its facility.

(05-02-2014 08:48 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 10:37 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  These are the budgets on USA Today


AAC
UConn......64 million...(27% student fee's)
Cincy.......49 million...(34% studnet fee's)
Memphis...47 million...(40% student fees)
USF.........44 million...(38% student fees)
SMU........43 million....N/A
UCF.........40 million...(55% student fees)
Temple.....40 million...N/A
Houston...37 million...(58% student fees)
ECU.........36 million...(40% student fees)
Tulsa.......31 million.....N/A
Tulane.....28 million.....N/A
Navy........N/A


CUSA
ODU.........35 million......(74% student fees)
Rice.........30 million.......N/A
Marshall....29 million......(50% student fees)
UAB.........28 million.......(67% student fees)
UTEP........27 million......(55% student fees)
MTSU.......27 million.......(72% student fees)
WKU.........26 million......(69% student fees)
FIU..........25 million.......(84% student fees)
FAU.........23 million........(60% student fees)
USTA.......22 million........(62% student fees)
USM........22 milion.........(38% student fees)
UNCC.......21 million........(89% student fees)
UNT.........19 million.........(50% student fees)
La Tech....19 million.........(51% student fees)

Cincy will have an additional $16-18M when Nippert reopens with premium seats.

http://cincyontheprowl.com/2014/04/30/ni...cs-budget/

Yep. That number will grow even more when they announce whether they will renovate 5/3 Arena or move the team to US Bank. There will be more opportunities for premium seating in either stadium. The only variable will be how much money the athletic department gets to keep if they move to US Bank.

Looks like UC's budget could be $70M plus in a couple years.

(05-02-2014 09:04 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 10:39 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 08:49 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Glad to see UH raise its budget to 42M. Tulsa, Tulane and ECU need to get it above 40M, we will be smoking the MWC if that is the case.

According to USA Today we were 1 million behind you last year and far less of our budget was on the backs of the students. Worry about yourself.

I wouldn't be so quick to smack talk SJ. The subsidy numbers per student is what i'd be most concerned about. That tells the whole story. Looking at it in terms of absolute dollars isn't quite accurate. For example, ECU has about 14-23,000 less students than other AAC schools.

UH = $26K in fees + subsidy / 41K students = $637 per student
UCF = $22K in fees + subsidy / 60K students = $373 per student
USF = $17K in fees + subsidy / 48K students = $369 per student
ECU = $13K in fees + subsidy / 27K students = $472 per student
Mem = $16K in fees + subsidy / 22K students = $707 per student
Cin = $20K in fees + subsidy / 43K students = $471 per student
UConn = $19K in fees + subsidy / 18K students = $1048 per student

Not really that much difference in the AAC in terms assuming they're paying this once a year for 4 years and paying it back over the lifetime of a student loan. Either way, I'm totally against raising student fees anymore.

That $19K is for the entire UCONN system (not just Storrs undergrads), which is about 30K students.

Notify the people that put this data together. ESPN.

I've corrected the number of students. I was looking at undergrads on wiki.

(05-02-2014 09:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:48 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 10:37 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  These are the budgets on USA Today


AAC
UConn......64 million...(27% student fee's)
Cincy.......49 million...(34% studnet fee's)
Memphis...47 million...(40% student fees)
USF.........44 million...(38% student fees)
SMU........43 million....N/A
UCF.........40 million...(55% student fees)
Temple.....40 million...N/A
Houston...37 million...(58% student fees)
ECU.........36 million...(40% student fees)
Tulsa.......31 million.....N/A
Tulane.....28 million.....N/A
Navy........N/A


CUSA
ODU.........35 million......(74% student fees)
Rice.........30 million.......N/A
Marshall....29 million......(50% student fees)
UAB.........28 million.......(67% student fees)
UTEP........27 million......(55% student fees)
MTSU.......27 million.......(72% student fees)
WKU.........26 million......(69% student fees)
FIU..........25 million.......(84% student fees)
FAU.........23 million........(60% student fees)
USTA.......22 million........(62% student fees)
USM........22 milion.........(38% student fees)
UNCC.......21 million........(89% student fees)
UNT.........19 million.........(50% student fees)
La Tech....19 million.........(51% student fees)

Cincy will have an additional $16-18M when Nippert reopens with premium seats.

http://cincyontheprowl.com/2014/04/30/ni...cs-budget/

Yep. That number will grow even more when they announce whether they will renovate 5/3 Arena or move the team to US Bank. There will be more opportunities for premium seating in either stadium. The only variable will be how much money the athletic department gets to keep if they move to US Bank.

Looks like UC's budget could be $70M plus in a couple years.

I just want to make sure that I understand what that means and put that into the perspective that I can understand.

In 2012 the Bearcats total athletic ticket sales for all sports were $8.1 million and total contributions were $6.2 million. Next year, the increase in football ticket/donations (required for seating/clubhouse seats) will be more than the total athletic ticket sales and donations in 2012? I'm not saying that it isn't true, but that's a bold projection and I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged it.

The increase alone is projected to be larger than what you received in 2012?

(05-02-2014 09:17 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:35 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

I don't agree with this. Every member needs to match the P5, those that don't can leave and we will find schools that are committed. We can't ask for better media, bowls, governance and have schools not fully committed to being a Power conference. I think some fans around here need to leave that CUSA mentality behind.

I agree that would be ideal but if only 4 or 5 schools vote to match all the P5 benefits (and this could happen) than, I suppose, forming a new conference with like-minded schools from other G5 conferences is a possibility. I guess it could be done with North/South or East/West divisions for travel purposes. But still you need the schools.

(05-02-2014 09:41 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 09:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:48 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 10:37 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  These are the budgets on USA Today


AAC
UConn......64 million...(27% student fee's)
Cincy.......49 million...(34% studnet fee's)
Memphis...47 million...(40% student fees)
USF.........44 million...(38% student fees)
SMU........43 million....N/A
UCF.........40 million...(55% student fees)
Temple.....40 million...N/A
Houston...37 million...(58% student fees)
ECU.........36 million...(40% student fees)
Tulsa.......31 million.....N/A
Tulane.....28 million.....N/A
Navy........N/A


CUSA
ODU.........35 million......(74% student fees)
Rice.........30 million.......N/A
Marshall....29 million......(50% student fees)
UAB.........28 million.......(67% student fees)
UTEP........27 million......(55% student fees)
MTSU.......27 million.......(72% student fees)
WKU.........26 million......(69% student fees)
FIU..........25 million.......(84% student fees)
FAU.........23 million........(60% student fees)
USTA.......22 million........(62% student fees)
USM........22 milion.........(38% student fees)
UNCC.......21 million........(89% student fees)
UNT.........19 million.........(50% student fees)
La Tech....19 million.........(51% student fees)

Cincy will have an additional $16-18M when Nippert reopens with premium seats.

http://cincyontheprowl.com/2014/04/30/ni...cs-budget/

Yep. That number will grow even more when they announce whether they will renovate 5/3 Arena or move the team to US Bank. There will be more opportunities for premium seating in either stadium. The only variable will be how much money the athletic department gets to keep if they move to US Bank.

Looks like UC's budget could be $70M plus in a couple years.

I just want to make sure that I understand what that means and put that into the perspective that I can understand.

In 2012 the Bearcats total athletic ticket sales for all sports were $8.1 million and total contributions were $6.2 million. Next year, the increase in football ticket/donations (required for seating/clubhouse seats) will be more than the total athletic ticket sales and donations in 2012? I'm not saying that it isn't true, but that's a bold projection and I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged it.

The increase alone is projected to be larger than what you received in 2012?

There is a lot of flawed logic in that UC article. Our budget is not increasing by $17 million because of the renovation. A lot of that money is earmarked for the debt on the stadium renovation. I would expect our budget to increase around $5-7 million because of the upgrade.

That said, the increase compared to the current ticket sales WILL be large. The money they are charging for the seats is big time $ and it is selling. We will easily be making the most money from ticket sales in the AAC come 2015. People like to rag on our low capacity, but one thing that DOES do is allow us to charge a bit more for a ticket.

(05-02-2014 09:42 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 09:17 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:35 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:28 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think the goal should be to get all our programs above the 40 million dollar threshold

No, "our" goal should be to match the P5 benefits item for item. And if all AAC schools can't or aren't willing to do this .. then Aresco needs to allow the individual AAC schools to make their independent decisions. In no event should any AAC schools to forced to accept the decisions of other AAC schools who aren't matching the P5s item by item.

I don't agree with this. Every member needs to match the P5, those that don't can leave and we will find schools that are committed. We can't ask for better media, bowls, governance and have schools not fully committed to being a Power conference. I think some fans around here need to leave that CUSA mentality behind.

I agree that would be ideal but if only 4 or 5 schools vote to match all the P5 benefits (and this could happen) than, I suppose, forming a new conference with like-minded schools from other G5 conferences is a possibility. I guess it could be done with North/South or East/West divisions for travel purposes. But still you need the schools.

When I look around the league I see a majority of schools that are absolutely committed to competing at thevery highest level: SMU, UCF, USF, Cinci, Memphis, ECU, UConn. And I see others that I am pretty sure are fully committed: Houston and Tulane. And only three that I am really not sure about: Temple, Tulsa and Navy.

I think the AAC will be fine in this regard.

(05-02-2014 09:47 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 09:41 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 09:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:48 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 10:37 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  These are the budgets on USA Today


AAC
UConn......64 million...(27% student fee's)
Cincy.......49 million...(34% studnet fee's)
Memphis...47 million...(40% student fees)
USF.........44 million...(38% student fees)
SMU........43 million....N/A
UCF.........40 million...(55% student fees)
Temple.....40 million...N/A
Houston...37 million...(58% student fees)
ECU.........36 million...(40% student fees)
Tulsa.......31 million.....N/A
Tulane.....28 million.....N/A
Navy........N/A


CUSA
ODU.........35 million......(74% student fees)
Rice.........30 million.......N/A
Marshall....29 million......(50% student fees)
UAB.........28 million.......(67% student fees)
UTEP........27 million......(55% student fees)
MTSU.......27 million.......(72% student fees)
WKU.........26 million......(69% student fees)
FIU..........25 million.......(84% student fees)
FAU.........23 million........(60% student fees)
USTA.......22 million........(62% student fees)
USM........22 milion.........(38% student fees)
UNCC.......21 million........(89% student fees)
UNT.........19 million.........(50% student fees)
La Tech....19 million.........(51% student fees)

Cincy will have an additional $16-18M when Nippert reopens with premium seats.

http://cincyontheprowl.com/2014/04/30/ni...cs-budget/

Yep. That number will grow even more when they announce whether they will renovate 5/3 Arena or move the team to US Bank. There will be more opportunities for premium seating in either stadium. The only variable will be how much money the athletic department gets to keep if they move to US Bank.

Looks like UC's budget could be $70M plus in a couple years.

I just want to make sure that I understand what that means and put that into the perspective that I can understand.

In 2012 the Bearcats total athletic ticket sales for all sports were $8.1 million and total contributions were $6.2 million. Next year, the increase in football ticket/donations (required for seating/clubhouse seats) will be more than the total athletic ticket sales and donations in 2012? I'm not saying that it isn't true, but that's a bold projection and I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged it.

The increase alone is projected to be larger than what you received in 2012?

There is a lot of flawed logic in that UC article. Our budget is not increasing by $17 million because of the renovation. A lot of that money is earmarked for the debt on the stadium renovation. I would expect our budget to increase around $5-7 million because of the upgrade.

That said, the increase compared to the current ticket sales WILL be large. The money they are charging for the seats is big time $ and it is selling. We will easily be making the most money from ticket sales in the AAC come 2015. People like to rag on our low capacity, but one thing that DOES do is allow us to charge a bit more for a ticket.

Now that makes sense and I appreciate the clarification.

Regarding capacity, I agree with your comment. We get hurt because we've got 60K seats and other than the lifelong diehards like most of us on this board; there's no reason to buy a season ticket because you can walk up and buy a ticket at any time.