(07-07-2017 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  False todge -- by definition.

Students ALWAYS have a choice in tuition: that's literally the decision of choosing that school or not. If the school raises tuition too high, students go elsewhere.

there are many factors that play into where a student ends up going to school so your simplistic argument about "having a choice" is just that simplistic

students could be 2 or three years into a degree program only offered at the one school in their area when the ADMINISTRATION makes the decision to increase academic side transfers to athletics

there is no real "choice" for that student to uproot themselves and move to an area/school that offers that same degree program, that will take their transfer credits and that will have the same cost of living

a student could be set on a particular degree only offered at a couple of schools in the state and perhaps because one school being in a much more desirable place to live their program fills up faster and is more difficult to get into

so the "choice" of what school to attend for that degree program is several limited for that student

a student might have to live at home to save money so their "choice" is limited

a student might have a family, career, very good job as they work their way through school and thus their "choice" to up and move to a school that limits academic transfers is not there for them

so again only a simpleton sees it as "choose to go elsewhere if you are not happy with the administration of a school making a unilateral decision to increase academic transfers"

and taking that (very weak) side of an argument is all the worse in the case of an administration that has already admitted that their academic side transfers are not long term sustainable

it is not as you pretend where there are many readily available other options that offer the same degrees, admission requirements, same cost of living, same places to live (like with family), career choices ect for working/adult students to choose from especially in a particular area or even state and that all a student has to do is drive 12 miles to the east to school B that spends less on athletics instead of 12 miles to the west to school A that spends more on athletics

(07-07-2017 04:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 03:51 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million

We get it, you hate USF football and are mad because students that choose to go there have some amount of their tutuition money going to pay for the arts and sports....

Can't speak for Quo on how much he contributed to his school last year but I agree with him that the big bucks that pay for athletics can't be put all on the students backs. Students can continue to choose to pay for arts and sports. They should, as both are a key part of the college experience. But donors are probably going to have to fund a new on campus football stadium. Student fees for that would be a huge burden on college kids I would think.

Having a football stadium on campus has ZERO to due with the numbers. If USF needed one because we didn't have a $700 million NFL stadium a few miles a way, we would have one. Let's say we did build an OCS. Going price for a 50k stadium is about $300million. The debt service on that would be huge.

For your information, USF pays no set rental fee for using one of the best football stadiums in the country. We do pay a ticket surcharge of a maximum $2.50 per ticket (used to enter the stadium, not total tickets sold) and cover "direct operational costs" like security and staffing lounges etc. BTW, these are the same costs that would have to be paid if the stadium was on campus.

Total maximum cost unique to playing at RJS is $2.50 per ticket. Say 40k butts in seats X $2.50 = $100,000 per game X 6 home games a season = $600,000 per year

A lot cheaper than building a new stadium, even though I am a huge supporter of an OCS.

(07-07-2017 04:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 03:51 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million

We get it, you hate USF football and are mad because students that choose to go there have some amount of their tutuition money going to pay for the arts and sports....

You don't get a thing. I can't see how any USF student or alumnus can be happy with a situation wherein our athletic department generates so little revenue compared to our peers up I-4 in Orlando, and the AAC generally.

I'm also embarrassed that current students are bearing so much of the burden. Athletics is something that students should get to enjoy while on campus without footing any bills beyond nominal ticket sales. Alumni, those of us who have benefited from a USF education, should be the ones footing the big bills by purchasing the high-end tickets and making donations to the athletic department. That's how it happens at Big Time schools, they don't soak their students, they soak their alumni, who can afford to be soaked because we've taken our USF education and made something of ourselves in the world and making those contributions is our way of showing appreciation.

$24 million shows very weak support for USF athletics, and we won't be Big Time again until USF alumni step up via ticket sales and athletic donations.

USF started in 1956. There aren't "generations" of alumni like other schools with 200+ year history and endowments compounded over centuries.

How many games do you go to a year? What level Bulls donor are you? I support USF every year and go to as many home games as possible despite living in Atlanta

EDIT: sorry Quo, not my place to question how you choose to or choose not to make those personal choices...
Go Bulls!

(07-07-2017 04:58 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 04:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 03:51 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top G5 programs minus the "institutional robbery" of student fees and transfers, as derived from the USA Today data Attackcoog posted. This is revenue actually generated by the athletic department.

The AAC has 4 of the top 5, with UConn comfortably at #1, but surprisingly, to me, west coast schools are well-represented, with 5 of the top 11, moreso than the overall revenue figures would indicate. Reason? western schools don't use the truly massive $20m+ subsidies that the AAC schools use. IMO, this reveals the hidden strength of west coast schools in deriving athletic revenues.

As an aside, this also reveals the weakness of my USF: In the official chart, USF is #8 in G5 athletic revenue. But once institutional transfers are deleted, we fall to #15. This is embarrassing for a school that was in the Big Boy club for 9 years. It especially sucks given UCF's relative strength, and UCF hasn't been getting the extra Big East money that we have been getting. Houston also takes a tumble, checking in at #5 on the USA Today list but #13 here.

1) UCONN ..... $44 million

2) Cincy ....... $35 million

3) Boise ........ $34 million

4) UCF .......... $33 million

5) Memphis ... $32 million

6) Army ........ $31 million

7) New Mexico .... $30 million

8) SDSU ............. $30 million

9) Arkansas St ..... $30 million

10) UNLV ............... $28 million

11) Hawaii ............. $27 million

12) ECU ................ $27 million

13) Houston .......... $26 million

14) Fresno ............ $25 million

15) USF ................ $24 million

We get it, you hate USF football and are mad because students that choose to go there have some amount of their tutuition money going to pay for the arts and sports....

You don't get a thing. I can't see how any USF student or alumnus can be happy with a situation wherein our athletic department generates so little revenue compared to our peers up I-4 in Orlando, and the AAC generally.

I'm also embarrassed that current students are bearing so much of the burden. Athletics is something that students should get to enjoy while on campus without footing any bills beyond nominal ticket sales. Alumni, those of us who have benefited from a USF education, should be the ones footing the big bills by purchasing the high-end tickets and making donations to the athletic department. That's how it happens at Big Time schools, they don't soak their students, they soak their alumni, who can afford to be soaked because we've taken our USF education and made something of ourselves in the world and making those contributions is our way of showing appreciation.

$24 million shows very weak support for USF athletics, and we won't be Big Time again until USF alumni step up via ticket sales and athletic donations.

USF started in 1956. There aren't "generations" of alumni like other schools with 200+ year history and endowments compounded over centuries.

How many games do you go to a year? What level Bulls donor are you? I support USF every year and go to as many home games as possible despite living in Atlanta

You are a good fan Selluar 1. The school needs fans like you. I've contributed more to ECU in the past than I currently am now and it bothers me. I need to make more sales this year to send more dollars back to my school....As for Quo: Do you go to USF football games anymore? I notice you are on here during the games posting so I assume you do not. I'm not judging or putting you down Quo, just curious.

(07-07-2017 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  False todge -- by definition.

Students ALWAYS have a choice in tuition: that's literally the decision of choosing that school or not. If the school raises tuition too high, students go elsewhere.

there are many factors that play into where a student ends up going to school so your simplistic argument about "having a choice" is just that simplistic

students could be 2 or three years into a degree program only offered at the one school in their area when the ADMINISTRATION makes the decision to increase academic side transfers to athletics

there is no real "choice" for that student to uproot themselves and move to an area/school that offers that same degree program, that will take their transfer credits and that will have the same cost of living

a student could be set on a particular degree only offered at a couple of schools in the state and perhaps because one school being in a much more desirable place to live their program fills up faster and is more difficult to get into

so the "choice" of what school to attend for that degree program is several limited for that student

a student might have to live at home to save money so their "choice" is limited

a student might have a family, career, very good job as they work their way through school and thus their "choice" to up and move to a school that limits academic transfers is not there for them

so again only a simpleton sees it as "choose to go elsewhere if you are not happy with the administration of a school making a unilateral decision to increase academic transfers"

and taking that (very weak) side of an argument is all the worse in the case of an administration that has already admitted that their academic side transfers are not long term sustainable

it is not as you pretend where there are many readily available other options that offer the same degrees, admission requirements, same cost of living, same places to live (like with family), career choices ect for working/adult students to choose from especially in a particular area or even state and that all a student has to do is drive 12 miles to the east to school B that spends less on athletics instead of 12 miles to the west to school A that spends more on athletics

There is FAR more choice in the college you attend, the degree you pursue, and the price you pay than in most other areas of life. If your property taxes rise, your choice is to pay up or sell.

Bottom line----The school is going to pay "X" for marketing. The school is going to pay "X" for student amenities. My guess is that most of any funds you save by eliminating athletics and the university subsidy would simply be absorbed into marketing and student amenities. The cost of attendance would likely remain basically the same.

If you really want to do something that would significantly affect the cost of higher education, address the runaway cost of books and online homework modules. Those can combine to add $200-300 a class to the cost of attendance. For a student carrying a full load, it could be as much as $1500 for jsut books and modules.

The online homework modules can be replaced by a $10 workbook or the online services can get price competitive with that alternative. There is no reason for a the typical textbook to cost $100-$200 in an age where they can be loaded electronically onto a device pad or computer. If the state of Texas would simply standardize the base textbook for required courses (like government, history, etc) the state could offer a better quality education across all its state supported universities and eliminate one of the biggest student rip offs in higher education.

(07-07-2017 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  False todge -- by definition.

Students ALWAYS have a choice in tuition: that's literally the decision of choosing that school or not. If the school raises tuition too high, students go elsewhere.

there are many factors that play into where a student ends up going to school so your simplistic argument about "having a choice" is just that simplistic

students could be 2 or three years into a degree program only offered at the one school in their area when the ADMINISTRATION makes the decision to increase academic side transfers to athletics

there is no real "choice" for that student to uproot themselves and move to an area/school that offers that same degree program, that will take their transfer credits and that will have the same cost of living

a student could be set on a particular degree only offered at a couple of schools in the state and perhaps because one school being in a much more desirable place to live their program fills up faster and is more difficult to get into

so the "choice" of what school to attend for that degree program is several limited for that student

a student might have to live at home to save money so their "choice" is limited

a student might have a family, career, very good job as they work their way through school and thus their "choice" to up and move to a school that limits academic transfers is not there for them

so again only a simpleton sees it as "choose to go elsewhere if you are not happy with the administration of a school making a unilateral decision to increase academic transfers"

and taking that (very weak) side of an argument is all the worse in the case of an administration that has already admitted that their academic side transfers are not long term sustainable

it is not as you pretend where there are many readily available other options that offer the same degrees, admission requirements, same cost of living, same places to live (like with family), career choices ect for working/adult students to choose from especially in a particular area or even state and that all a student has to do is drive 12 miles to the east to school B that spends less on athletics instead of 12 miles to the west to school A that spends more on athletics

Yes every student should get everything his/her way...



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(07-07-2017 02:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  METHODOLOGY

The data, updated for 2016, are based on the revenue and expense reports collected from more than 225 public schools in the NCAA’s Division I that have an obligation to release the data (the NCAA does not release the data publicly). The others are private or are covered under a state exemption.

►In 2015, a new category was created to clarify that an athletics department should report debt service payments on facilities as part of its operating expenses. Another category was revised so that it now groups facilities maintenance with overhead and other administrative expenses. That means an assessment of annual spending on facilities spending no longer can be made from these reports, which allowed such assessments for 2005 through 2014.

►In 2016, a new category was created in which schools were to report spending on meals and snacks provided for athletes beyond those provided under regular board plans and during team travel. Another new category was added so schools could separately report school-specific expenses from participation in a bowl game, including those for team travel, bonuses paid to coaches and staff, spirit groups and uniforms. Schools that did not play in a bowl game during the 2015-16 season, should have reported $0 in this category.

What this says to me is the overall budget number doesn't mean anything if its pumped up by debt service.

Expenses-Other
Uconn 27.8 million
UCF 16.3 million
Cincinnati 18.5 million
San Diego St. 19.3 million
Houston 19.1 million
Memphis 21.9 million
South Florida 19.0 million
UNLV 18.8 million
Boise State 14.9 million
Fresno State 18.5 million
Old Dominion 12.1 million
East Carolina 13.2 million
Hawaii 20.5 million
AState 27.1 million
New Mexico 17.3 million
UMass 14.1 million
Colorado St. 16.2 million
W.Michigan 11.8 million

All the G5's that are doing 45 million dollar in expenses are at least doing 16 million plus in debt service.

The number one way to get a programs athletic budget increased then is to issue a large, long term construction bond, IMO.

(07-08-2017 04:15 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 02:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  METHODOLOGY

The data, updated for 2016, are based on the revenue and expense reports collected from more than 225 public schools in the NCAA’s Division I that have an obligation to release the data (the NCAA does not release the data publicly). The others are private or are covered under a state exemption.

►In 2015, a new category was created to clarify that an athletics department should report debt service payments on facilities as part of its operating expenses. Another category was revised so that it now groups facilities maintenance with overhead and other administrative expenses. That means an assessment of annual spending on facilities spending no longer can be made from these reports, which allowed such assessments for 2005 through 2014.

►In 2016, a new category was created in which schools were to report spending on meals and snacks provided for athletes beyond those provided under regular board plans and during team travel. Another new category was added so schools could separately report school-specific expenses from participation in a bowl game, including those for team travel, bonuses paid to coaches and staff, spirit groups and uniforms. Schools that did not play in a bowl game during the 2015-16 season, should have reported $0 in this category.

What this says to me is the overall budget number doesn't mean anything if its pumped up by debt service.

Expenses-Other
Uconn 27.8 million
UCF 16.3 million
Cincinnati 18.5 million
San Diego St. 19.3 million
Houston 19.1 million
Memphis 21.9 million
South Florida 19.0 million
UNLV 18.8 million
Boise State 14.9 million
Fresno State 18.5 million
Old Dominion 12.1 million
East Carolina 13.2 million
Hawaii 20.5 million
AState 27.1 million
New Mexico 17.3 million
UMass 14.1 million
Colorado St. 16.2 million
W.Michigan 11.8 million

All the G5's that are doing 45 million dollar in expenses are at least doing 16 million plus in debt service.

The number one way to get a programs athletic budget increased then is to issue a large, long term construction bond, IMO.

this is like saying the best way to increase your income is to take out a home loan

(07-07-2017 07:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  False todge -- by definition.

Students ALWAYS have a choice in tuition: that's literally the decision of choosing that school or not. If the school raises tuition too high, students go elsewhere.

there are many factors that play into where a student ends up going to school so your simplistic argument about "having a choice" is just that simplistic

students could be 2 or three years into a degree program only offered at the one school in their area when the ADMINISTRATION makes the decision to increase academic side transfers to athletics

there is no real "choice" for that student to uproot themselves and move to an area/school that offers that same degree program, that will take their transfer credits and that will have the same cost of living

a student could be set on a particular degree only offered at a couple of schools in the state and perhaps because one school being in a much more desirable place to live their program fills up faster and is more difficult to get into

so the "choice" of what school to attend for that degree program is several limited for that student

a student might have to live at home to save money so their "choice" is limited

a student might have a family, career, very good job as they work their way through school and thus their "choice" to up and move to a school that limits academic transfers is not there for them

so again only a simpleton sees it as "choose to go elsewhere if you are not happy with the administration of a school making a unilateral decision to increase academic transfers"

and taking that (very weak) side of an argument is all the worse in the case of an administration that has already admitted that their academic side transfers are not long term sustainable

it is not as you pretend where there are many readily available other options that offer the same degrees, admission requirements, same cost of living, same places to live (like with family), career choices ect for working/adult students to choose from especially in a particular area or even state and that all a student has to do is drive 12 miles to the east to school B that spends less on athletics instead of 12 miles to the west to school A that spends more on athletics

There is FAR more choice in the college you attend, the degree you pursue, and the price you pay than in most other areas of life. If your property taxes rise, your choice is to pay up or sell.

Bottom line----The school is going to pay "X" for marketing. The school is going to pay "X" for student amenities. My guess is that most of any funds you save by eliminating athletics and the university subsidy would simply be absorbed into marketing and student amenities. The cost of attendance would likely remain basically the same.

If you really want to do something that would significantly affect the cost of higher education, address the runaway cost of books and online homework modules. Those can combine to add $200-300 a class to the cost of attendance. For a student carrying a full load, it could be as much as $1500 for jsut books and modules.

The online homework modules can be replaced by a $10 workbook or the online services can get price competitive with that alternative. There is no reason for a the typical textbook to cost $100-$200 in an age where they can be loaded electronically onto a device pad or computer. If the state of Texas would simply standardize the base textbook for required courses (like government, history, etc) the state could offer a better quality education across all its state supported universities and eliminate one of the biggest student rip offs in higher education.

Actually if you want to control higher ed costs you change the financial model. Old model for state schools was a fairly generous appropriation from the state so tuition could be kept low and try to attract students since the state funding tended to be tied to enrollment. Now the model is to fund students more via scholarships, grants, and loans. The theory being that would force schools to compete for students to get the money. But it made many families price insensitive and the competition became over housing, rec centers, student union buildings, internet access, and amenities rather than price or quality of education.

The fix
Change the funding model. Create an index of test scores and GPA that shows a reasonable probability of academic success. Say something very similar to the NCAA initial eligibility standards level. Everyone at that level has a scholarship. That scholarship is X dollars with regional adjustments Houston a bit more than Lubbock and a bit less than San Francisco just like the Federal government does with its pay scale.

But here is the catch.
If a school accepts the scholarship it has to accept it as 100% payment of tuition, mandatory fees (parking fee is optional, a fee for all nursing students is mandatory) AND books, software etc. A school can still charge to park on campus, charge for housing and charge for meals without it being covered.

If the school accepts the scholarship for any qualified student it has to accept it for all qualified students.

A school doesn't have to accept the scholarship. They can offer their own scholarships and loans will still be out there.
Schools with massive endowments opting out of the plan will be forced to use more of the proceeds for scholarships. Schools lacking large endowments and unable to match the set price for their region will be in serious trouble.
The college publishing industry will be disrupted first.

(07-07-2017 04:58 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  Go Bulls!

Go Bulls!

I wonder what happens when you take conference payments out.

I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

The no conference payments is interesting because it might ID the worthiness of a school. The no BExit money is interesting because it might ID how UConn, USF, and UC are going to look in a couple of years.

(07-07-2017 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it is not as you pretend where there are many readily available other options that offer the same degrees, admission requirements, same cost of living, same places to live (like with family), career choices ect for working/adult students to choose from especially in a particular area or even state and that all a student has to do is drive 12 miles to the east to school B that spends less on athletics instead of 12 miles to the west to school A that spends more on athletics

No one is forcing anyone to obtain an undergrad degree. Many people will tell you that they're mostly unnecessary to perform a particular job, and really just serve as an initial "weed out" point for an HR dept.

There is no way for you to argue against the simple principle that if a school charges too high a price, then it will lose applicants. That fact can't be bypassed.

(07-07-2017 07:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is FAR more choice in the college you attend, the degree you pursue, and the price you pay than in most other areas of life. If your property taxes rise, your choice is to pay up or sell.

Bottom line----The school is going to pay "X" for marketing. The school is going to pay "X" for student amenities. My guess is that most of any funds you save by eliminating athletics and the university subsidy would simply be absorbed into marketing and student amenities. The cost of attendance would likely remain basically the same.

It comes back to the fierce competition for students. Most high school graduates who want to pursue an undergrad degree for the next four years don't want a "Good Will Hunting - buck fifty in late charges at the local library" experience. That's not what college is anymore, for better or worse.

(07-07-2017 07:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you really want to do something that would significantly affect the cost of higher education, address the runaway cost of books and online homework modules. Those can combine to add $200-300 a class to the cost of attendance. For a student carrying a full load, it could be as much as $1500 for jsut books and modules.

The online homework modules can be replaced by a $10 workbook or the online services can get price competitive with that alternative. There is no reason for a the typical textbook to cost $100-$200 in an age where they can be loaded electronically onto a device pad or computer. If the state of Texas would simply standardize the base textbook for required courses (like government, history, etc) the state could offer a better quality education across all its state supported universities and eliminate one of the biggest student rip offs in higher education.

Higher ed software is booming business. The trend is going the other way, I'm afraid. Colleges and universities are spending huge dollars on fast internet connections and software licenses for student and faculty use.

As far as textbooks go, I would not be surprised if they change the model from paying for each printed book to making the school pay a huge yearly contract for X number of seats for students to log in and then be able to download/view any textbook in the library.

(07-08-2017 04:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  But here is the catch.
If a school accepts the scholarship it has to accept it as 100% payment of tuition, mandatory fees (parking fee is optional, a fee for all nursing students is mandatory) AND books, software etc. A school can still charge to park on campus, charge for housing and charge for meals without it being covered.

In other words, price controls.

It might be a very valid idea ... but it will fly about as well as a brick. Don't see much chance for this, any time soon.

Personally, I'd rather let the fiercely competitive market control prices. Schools like Harvard, well they're going to (and do) charge whatever they want. U of Minn, though, has to be careful.

(07-08-2017 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

Deduct about $6M in revenue for Cincy, UConn and USF, and $1M in revenue for Houston, SMU, UCF, etc.

(07-08-2017 08:02 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

Deduct about $6M in revenue for Cincy, UConn and USF, and $1M in revenue for Houston, SMU, UCF, etc.

I've been hearing mixed things about the BE monies. Is it gone now? Or is there still a little left to dole out? The original plan was to give out a little a year over the 6 year media contract as a way to stop anyone from taking the legacy money and leaving. When anyone leaving became a moot point did all the money get distributed? Is there anything left of it? My guess is no based on a couple things...one of which is the AAC bowl getting sold to ESPN. I hope I'm wrong.

(07-08-2017 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

As i noted in the OP, that's something that makes USF's no-subs revenue of $24m even sadder than it looks. We're getting about $5m in extra BExit money per year right now than schools like UCF and Memphis, and they are still beating us in revenue by $7m+ per year.

(07-09-2017 04:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

As i noted in the OP, that's something that makes USF's no-subs revenue of $24m even sadder than it looks. We're getting about $5m in extra BExit money per year right now than schools like UCF and Memphis, and they are still beating us in revenue by $7m+ per year.

Why is UCF doing so much better? Was it bigger longer, or is there something else going on?

(07-09-2017 12:24 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I've been hearing mixed things about the BE monies. Is it gone now? Or is there still a little left to dole out? The original plan was to give out a little a year over the 6 year media contract as a way to stop anyone from taking the legacy money and leaving. When anyone leaving became a moot point did all the money get distributed? Is there anything left of it? My guess is no based on a couple things...one of which is the AAC bowl getting sold to ESPN. I hope I'm wrong.

The last year of payment is 2018-19 if I recall.

(07-09-2017 04:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As i noted in the OP, that's something that makes USF's no-subs revenue of $24m even sadder than it looks. We're getting about $5m in extra BExit money per year right now than schools like UCF and Memphis, and they are still beating us in revenue by $7m+ per year.

An on-campus football stadium is a revenue engine. People have to donate to the stadium in order to get priority in the seat picking line. Then people pay quite a bit per year for premium seating.

I looked at the USF ticket prices. Club seats go for $510/$820 for the general public, and $438-$736 for alums. To purchase football club seats for your family, the minimum Bull Club donation is $1000.

So a USF alum with a family of 4 who wants club seats for football can get them for:

$1000 + 4x438 to 4x736 = $2752 to $3944.

At Houston, it costs $6K for that family to sit in club seats, and you had to donate at least $15K to the stadium construction for the right to spend that $6K.

At Cincy, it costs $8K for that family to sit in club seats.

Not to mention, Houston and Cincy don't pay rent and get to keep all gameday parking, signage and concessions.

(07-09-2017 05:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 04:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

As i noted in the OP, that's something that makes USF's no-subs revenue of $24m even sadder than it looks. We're getting about $5m in extra BExit money per year right now than schools like UCF and Memphis, and they are still beating us in revenue by $7m+ per year.

Why is UCF doing so much better? Was it bigger longer, or is there something else going on?

The common view is that versus UCF, it's UCF's on-campus stadium, and given that other numbers, such as attendance, are very close, I tend to agree with that. UCF controls and owns revenue streams that USF, being a tenant of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, doesn't.

It's a problem for us.

Now Memphis is harder to explain, because IIRC, they rent from the Liberty Bowl like we do. Their attendance at football and basketball has been significantly higher than ours has recently, though.

(07-09-2017 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 05:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 04:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

As i noted in the OP, that's something that makes USF's no-subs revenue of $24m even sadder than it looks. We're getting about $5m in extra BExit money per year right now than schools like UCF and Memphis, and they are still beating us in revenue by $7m+ per year.

Why is UCF doing so much better? Was it bigger longer, or is there something else going on?

The common view is that versus UCF, it's UCF's on-campus stadium, and given that other numbers, such as attendance, are very close, I tend to agree with that. UCF controls and owns revenue streams that USF, being a tenant of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, doesn't.

It's a problem for us.

Now Memphis is harder to explain, because IIRC, they rent from the Liberty Bowl like we do. Their attendance at football and basketball has been significantly higher than ours has recently, though.

Basketball makes a huge difference in Memphis.

UConn, Cincy, and Memphis all generate a nice chunk of change with thier basketball programs. UConn does pretty well with women's basketball---that's an income stream few schools have,