Brian Gumble is doing a story of athletics funding Tuesday night at 10 to 11 pm on HBO and EMU will be the main player. It doesn't sound good. He was on campus the ladt 2 weekshttp://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes/0/229-episode/index.html

(04-18-2016 08:05 AM)emussuperfan Wrote:  Brian Gumble is doing a story of athletics funding Tuesday night at 10 to 11 pm on HBO and EMU will be the main player. It doesn't sound good. He was on campus the ladt 2 weekshttp://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes/0/229-episode/index.html

Will the U.N. or World Bank try to arrange for us to get a financial aid package?

As for myself, I will see if what I have been posting makes sense or Internet baloney.

I have been maintaining that MAC schools, for example, have seen their CASH EXPENSES rise (e.g., coaches salaries) but also their EXTERNALLY-GENERATED REVENUES rise (e.g., CFP monies, MAC media rights, NCAA college basketball tourney, road game guarantees in FB and also men's basketball, etc.).

I do not budget the value of scholarships (tuition) as a cash expense in my mind. I kind of do 'cash budgeting': if EMU needs to 'write a check', it is certainly an expense. I believe many (or most?) schools try to raise monies to offset the cost of those athletic scholarship as an expense. I assume many or most schools consider the athletic department a 'cost center' which produces a net profit or net loss just like the service department at your local car dealer (produces a profit or loss for the dealership). I do not consider individual departments as profit/loss cost centers with the probable exception of universities with med schools and attached hospitals (e.g., UofM).

Where EMU could get hammered to death is how small our revenues are from TICKET SALES. It is downright embarrassing. I've seen those revenue numbers in the BOR's packets (Board meetings as linked from threads on this forum).

Kind of like few show up at athletic events and 'half of (the) few' actually buy a ticket (e.g., lot of comps, Pepsi give aways, student tickets, etc. etc.).

Guess I will need to find a way to watch it...

the facts are a majority of our students don't live on campus and those that do aren't here for weekends and show me a similar situation in America where two state colleges are 6 miles apart

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)emu79 Wrote:  the facts are a majority of our students don't live on campus and those that do aren't here for weekends and show me a similar situation in America where two state colleges are 6 miles apart

Point well taken, but I can show a few...

The worst case is actually Georgia State and Georgia Tech. One can walk between the two campuses in say 30 minutes.

The good thing for Georgia State is Georgia Tech is NO UofM, drawing 100K+ for each home game.

That said, I believe Georgia State has similar attendance issues as EMU.

I'll repeat a point everyone knows about the battle EMU faces for athletic exposure and support:

We are surrounded by UofM, MSU and Pistons in basketball.

In football we are surrounded by UofM, MSU and the Lions.

#TooMuchCompetition especially in an era where all games are on television.

When '79, BobW, myself, and others here were at EMU, not many UofM, MSU or Pistons games were on television.

I remember my options: Go to Bowen or study.

I chose the former. (P.S. it would have been more fun if I had been a student during the George Gervin time ).

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)emu79 Wrote:  the facts are a majority of our students don't live on campus and those that do aren't here for weekends and show me a similar situation in America where two state colleges are 6 miles apart

Well, even if a majority of students do live away from campus, I'm not sure makes the situation inevitable. At least 3,000 live in dorms (housing has been at capacity since 2012, I believe). And there are at least a couple thousand more that live in Ypsi/Pittsfield.

If we mark that at the low end, say 6,000, that's still close to the undergraduate total at Duke or Notre Dame.

We just need to get them interested.

And I'm never sure why students are the first to be blamed. Alumni don't show up in great numbers either, and the community interest is very low. All three of these factors hold equal blame, in my book.

Also, does anyone even watch Real Sports?

(04-18-2016 10:37 AM)FrankAnderson Wrote:  Also, does anyone even watch Real Sports?

They will and that's not the point local markets will look at this and dig into it even deeper. My guess is that this goes back to the president at the time fisitpactric and his refinancing of the athletics debt to fund his palace. He had little use for athletics and wanted to turn EMU into another internet university.

(04-18-2016 08:05 AM)emussuperfan Wrote:  Brian Gumble is doing a story of athletics funding Tuesday night at 10 to 11 pm on HBO and EMU will be the main player. It doesn't sound good. He was on campus the ladt 2 weekshttp://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes/0/229-episode/index.html

Emdypo already posted this in the Breaking News (WBB) thread.

"Outstanding student-loan debt in the United States currently stands at more than $1 trillion. Meanwhile, a financial arms race is underway, as the pursuit of winning athletic programs continues to drive up college costs. However, the majority of schools caught up in this competition are losing money, with just about two dozen athletic programs turning a profit on sports last year. This growing expense is sinking many students financially and, some claim, weakening the education they receive, as REAL SPORTS learns from professors at New Jersey state school Rutgers University."

As Matthew McConaughey eloquently explained in The Wolf of Wall Street........
......Fugayzi, fughazi, it's a whazi, it's a whoozie, it's fairy dust!

They're trying to somehow blame sports for skyrocketing tuition when the real culprit is the Fed backed easy money loans, which they describe in their first sentence. Deflect, distract, fughazi......Rosenberg and Wickersham types are going to buy into this crap hook, line and sinker.

'Shut the program down, it's so unfair to these poor students and professors. Let's get Bernie in there so it's all 'free' and 'fair'.'

The attendance is what it is. Win more games and attendance will increase marginally. It's a different era, a different type of student, a different type of fan, different interests and priorities, technology, etc, etc, etc. Even the better teams in the MAC have attendance issues. If we all had the $$$, the MAC, and EMU in particular, would be better off bulldozing the stadium and rebuilding it half it's current size, without the track. Dreaming I know.

I digress, let's just start by trying to win 6 games.

The state financing of education in general and higher education has been dropping or stagnant as the state cuts taxes for some special interests along with enough job tax credits to insure potential deficits

So, it's my understanding that the budget shortfall is substantial and the University is facing heavy cuts. The administration has asked all departments to make cuts before they are mandated in order to close the gap. This is where the Real Sports story comes in, Athletics has been spending quite a bit more money in recent years, if they fail to make the cuts voluntarily or once mandated, don't face the same types of cuts the faculty, course and programs, operations are expected to face than the faculty will lose their collective minds. This is bad and since the negative view of EMU athletics is about to get worse, nobody knows where cuts will end. Do we cut sports? It's my understanding that the current A.D. hasnt been shy about spending money and that opulence at a time when the university was going broke isn't going to be looked upon well.

(04-18-2016 01:16 PM)emdypo Wrote:  So, it's my understanding that the budget shortfall is substantial and the University is facing heavy cuts. The administration has asked all departments to make cuts before they are mandated in order to close the gap. This is where the Real Sports story comes in, Athletics has been spending quite a bit more money in recent years, if they fail to make the cuts voluntarily or once mandated, don't face the same types of cuts the faculty, course and programs, operations are expected to face than the faculty will lose their collective minds. This is bad and since the negative view of EMU athletics is about to get worse, nobody knows where cuts will end. Do we cut sports? It's my understanding that the current A.D. hasnt been shy about spending money and that opulence at a time when the university was going broke isn't going to be looked upon well.

I question whether athletics is the major cause of these deficits show me the proof lets see did we not have a 8% tutiion increase along with a 4% room and board increase? What does the projected vs actual state funding look like? did we sign a new labor agreement with the profs that we couldn't afford?

This is why this board is so infuriating, arguing just to argue. By no means is the budget problem because of athletics. It has nothing to do with athletics. I don't have the time or inclination to explain strategic budgeting, but the bottom line is revenue is not meeting expenditures and the University is left with a giant defecit. This happened at the same time the athletic department has been spending more money. They were allocated the money, it came out of their budget. The issue isn't one entity, the issue is EMU not generating enough revenue. Many of my closest friends still work for EMU, they way it was explained to me is that while enrollment was up, the amount of classes and credits taken is way down.

On a separate note stop generating false narratives to create an argument. It's pathetic.

The sports programs are always an easy target for these bloated bureaucracies and the tenured intelligentsia. Keep giving them 8% increases for infinity and they'll spend every dime plus some.

Yeah, yeah, it's these 85 football players that are bankrupting this school of 23,000 plus!

EMU Board of Regents Chair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTHlXb0PXh4

Talking about '85'.

I did not know that (until recently) only FB, MBB and WBB are the only sports which are mandated full scholarships at FBS level.

That means that most of those in other sports, the so-called Olympic Sports, aren't getting the full ride.

So the notion that we are giving full rides to almost 500 students athletes is not true (to the best of my knowledge).

It certainly changes the equation if one assumes that 500 scholarships is really say less than 300.

Anyone have any hard data on full scholarship equivalencies?

Don't forget cost of attendance and full meals

(04-18-2016 01:16 PM)emdypo Wrote:  So, it's my understanding that the budget shortfall is substantial and the University is facing heavy cuts. The administration has asked all departments to make cuts before they are mandated in order to close the gap. This is where the Real Sports story comes in, Athletics has been spending quite a bit more money in recent years, if they fail to make the cuts voluntarily or once mandated, don't face the same types of cuts the faculty, course and programs, operations are expected to face than the faculty will lose their collective minds. This is bad and since the negative view of EMU athletics is about to get worse, nobody knows where cuts will end. Do we cut sports? It's my understanding that the current A.D. hasnt been shy about spending money and that opulence at a time when the university was going broke isn't going to be looked upon well.

One thing about collegiate sports:

It spends money, lots of money, but it can also generate revenue.

For example, in the area of donors, both individuals and corporate.

How much does it cost to raise another $1 in giving?

If one spends say an additional 100K but brings in another 250K isn't that 100K an investment, not an expense?

What happens if a corporate entity says, "Sure, we'll donate 2M for (whatever)"?

Expenditures in the athletic department can be productive or a waste of money.

I would love to see revenues and expenditures for the last 5 or 10 years.

BTW, one thing about winning teams (FB and MBB). Start winning big and road game guarantees go up. Curious what TOL gets for a 'guarantee' FB game versus what we get?

(04-18-2016 02:05 PM)emdypo Wrote:  This is why this board is so infuriating, arguing just to argue. By no means is the budget problem because of athletics. It has nothing to do with athletics. I don't have the time or inclination to explain strategic budgeting, but the bottom line is revenue is not meeting expenditures and the University is left with a giant defecit. This happened at the same time the athletic department has been spending more money. They were allocated the money, it came out of their budget. The issue isn't one entity, the issue is EMU not generating enough revenue. Many of my closest friends still work for EMU, they way it was explained to me is that while enrollment was up, the amount of classes and credits taken is way down.

On a separate note stop generating false narratives to create an argument. It's pathetic.

So if the amount of classes and credits taken is way down, they can certainly trim the administrative staff, and faculty, to better match up with demand. Correct?

I would like to see data on that. I was under the impression that full-time enrollment was going up, or at least had been going up for a few years consecutively (obviously, I could have heard wrong). Maybe we'll get details on this after the BOR meeting.

(04-18-2016 03:51 PM)FrankAnderson Wrote:  I would like to see data on that. I was under the impression that full-time enrollment was going up, or at least had been going up for a few years consecutively (obviously, I could have heard wrong). Maybe we'll get details on this after the BOR meeting.

Frank, I kind of follow this (a little).

I think enrollment increased nicely with the '0-0-0' plan but declined since.

Anyone have the hard data on FT enrollment trend as well as credit hours attempted?

I vaguely thought that the state gave EMU a small increase in funds about equal to inflation last year.

I doubt that is the problem, per se. What if there is a 3 or 4% decrease in credit hours attempted? That's enough to seriously affect the bottom line...

One thing about universities and expenditures. Much of their expenditures are salaries and benefits. Salaries may rise slowly, but benefits may not (e.g., employer health insurance premiums). I believe that to be a problem for universities with tight budgets.