(09-03-2015 04:52 PM)vcoog Wrote:  I'd be interested to see how that number compares to UC, Memphis, UCF

Have you seen our stadium? It didn't cost a whole lot....

Yeah I forgot to include "commuter school" as one of the code words tossed around by the local media here in Houston. The fact is that this hack writer used exaggerated graphs and self-serving stats to make a ridiculous point. UH has been completely up front with the students, faculty, city and state about what it is doing to improve the campus facilities, amenities, and academic and athletic programs. [/b]
[b]

(09-05-2015 08:39 AM)bullsbucsfan426 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:31 PM)litig8r Wrote:  I'm normally a fan of the Texas Tribune, but this article was a lazy hatchet job by a graduate of Texas A&M who thinks that there should only be 2 universities in the state that get all the glory. Be on the lookout for future articles and blogs filled with usual code words talking about UH being in a "crime-ridden" "urban" "inner city" area, despite the fact that the campus and surrounding neighborhoods have vastly improved over the last 15 years. But on the bright side, if a Texas media outlet is saying something bad about UH, it usually means something good is happening on campus and they're just trying to put us back in our proverbial place.

Oh well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure most of the other schools in this conference get the same treatment from their local and state media.

Our local beat writer had the audacity to call us a commuter school this week. Pretty ridiculous as we are a tier 1 carnegie research school and most of our population lives in apartments 5 minutes off campus, within access of USF Bus routes.

(09-03-2015 04:52 PM)vcoog Wrote:  I'd be interested to see how that number compares to UC, Memphis, UCF

To take emotions out of the discussion and speak from some numbers, below is a link to numbers that USAToday has been compiling. These numbers, while not categorized in the same way that the newspaper did; have been discussed, cussed, and thrown about for several years with most fans of programs in the conference. We've been discussing these so long that they only had 3 years of history when we began the discussion and they now have 10 years and Oregon has replaced Texas as the largest spender.

This link gives you a good "directional" feel for subsidies, income, expenses, and total budgets that the public programs receive.

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

Houston doesn't really stand out as having their hat in their hand among the rest of us. To simplify what I'm looking at, I mostly pay attention to the combo/total of ticket sales/contributions as that gives an indication of how much our paying customers think our individual university's athletic product is worth/how much they are willing to pay for it.

As I think that I said above, we all have challenges of one kind or another.

(09-03-2015 02:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:39 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  moving $100 million in academic funds to athletics is cool with you?

i understand you are a memphis fan and thus arent familiar with the process of owning your own facilities.....

you loan a ton of money to build the facility and then you pay it off over time...

lol was just being snappy cause he was trying to throw shade

(09-05-2015 01:23 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  This link gives you a good "directional" feel for subsidies, income, expenses, and total budgets that the public programs receive.

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

Houston doesn't really stand out as having their hat in their hand among the rest of us. To simplify what I'm looking at, I mostly pay attention to the combo/total of ticket sales/contributions as that gives an indication of how much our paying customers think our individual university's athletic product is worth/how much they are willing to pay for it.

As I think that I said above, we all have challenges of one kind or another.

Yep. It's not a Houston problem as the OP article seems to imply (with shoddy research).

It's a G5 problem.

Rutgers used to be among the nation's most indebted sports programs. Not anymore. The spending worked out for them.

(09-05-2015 02:10 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2015 01:23 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  This link gives you a good "directional" feel for subsidies, income, expenses, and total budgets that the public programs receive.

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

Houston doesn't really stand out as having their hat in their hand among the rest of us. To simplify what I'm looking at, I mostly pay attention to the combo/total of ticket sales/contributions as that gives an indication of how much our paying customers think our individual university's athletic product is worth/how much they are willing to pay for it.

As I think that I said above, we all have challenges of one kind or another.

Yep. It's not a Houston problem as the OP article seems to imply (with shoddy research).

It's a G5 problem.

Rutgers used to be among the nation's most indebted sports programs. Not anymore. The spending worked out for them.

We can't know if this is an apples to apples comparison, but (from the above link) Rutger's smallest subsidy the last 5 years from "school funds" is larger than the Cougars' smallest.

Rutgers
$26,017,575
$37,118,708
$18,477,322
$19,443,173
$18,426,587

Houston
$14,006,414
$18,331,757
$16,936,151
$15,779,750
$12,691,796