Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Nugget49er Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 824
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location:
Post: #61
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-10-2017 08:39 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Jesus christ ODU has over $29 million in student fees and an enrollment of 25k. That's over $1000 per yr per student in just athletic fees.

The next highest is FIU at $20 million(55k enrollment though) and Charlotte at $19 million. Everyone else falls between $6-$12 million, except La Tech who apparently doesnt charge their students athletic fees. Good for them.

I don't know about the state of Virginia, but in NC the state does not provide money to athletics so it comes from student fees. If your state uses tax dollars to help fund your program then you should expect fees to be less.
07-11-2017 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODUDrunkard13 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 7,138
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 148
I Root For: ODU
Location: 757
Post: #62
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-11-2017 08:13 AM)Nugget49er Wrote:  
(07-10-2017 08:39 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Jesus christ ODU has over $29 million in student fees and an enrollment of 25k. That's over $1000 per yr per student in just athletic fees.

The next highest is FIU at $20 million(55k enrollment though) and Charlotte at $19 million. Everyone else falls between $6-$12 million, except La Tech who apparently doesnt charge their students athletic fees. Good for them.

I don't know about the state of Virginia, but in NC the state does not provide money to athletics so it comes from student fees. If your state uses tax dollars to help fund your program then you should expect fees to be less.

Virginia has the same law.
07-11-2017 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,231
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 365
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #63
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
Which one do you think a AD can depend on when making a budget....

student fees
money usually generated by winning

Student fees are there first day in July.

Some of you are looking at this the wrong way when you look at % of money coming from student fees. Those are not going away and it's about like students paying for season tickets (usually great seats) just as those of us who buy season tickets and the donation that comes with it.

So when looking at student fees you need to look at them and the number of students. While Marshall is towards the bottom (top depending on the way you look at it) in the dollars giving to the AD in student fees. Their average per student is a lot higher than some of those schools that get a larger % of their overall money from student fees.

Other words ...

(example might not be exact numbers)
Marshall is only getting 20% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 10,000
FIU is getting 50% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 55,000

Marshall is charging their students more than FIU. So FIU has more room to grow a budget than Marshall and it's not close.

For Marshall to grow they need dollars from tickets and donations because their students are close to being at the of the amount they can afford. Western is in that same boat. The problem with that Marshall is also close to hitting their ceiling in money from tickets and donations. At least going by their historical numbers.

So Marshall who is getting less than FIU from students is kind of locked in without a source for new money growth. The only way to over come that is getting more fans in the seats and donations.

FIU can up their student fees by 100 and add 5.5 million to their budget. Marshall would need to increase student fees by $550 to get that much money. FIU is low in money from tickets and donations so if they all of a sudden start winning and drawing fans and the donations that comes with more fans. They have a larger up side on that end also

Now which school has a more health budget the one getting a lower amount of overall funds from student fees or the one that is charging students a lower amount of dollars but a larger % of overall budget coming from those fees..with room to grow on student fees?
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2017 09:34 AM by WKUYG.)
07-11-2017 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dawgxas Offline
3rd&93
*

Posts: 4,281
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #64
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
The only healthy budgets are the ones at the top with 0%, 1%, 2% allocated. They're self supporting and can generate enough from football to pay for the Title sports that are a drain but are required.

As far as G5, ranking by overall revenues doesnt tell someone how the program is doing. The Virginia schools are too high from high student fees, JMU an FCS is higher than every CUSA school. Ark State adds in money from capital projects. Too many different accounting tricks too see the true picture.

The best budget list so far is the one Frisco Dawg posted, with self generating revenues
07-11-2017 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Germdawg Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 226
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 32
I Root For: LA TECH
Location: Lafayette, LA
Post: #65
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:17 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  I wouldn't put too much stock in this reports, especially among the G5 conferences. Fuzzy accounting at best with some of these schools Ark State, ODU

Some of the G5 schools Revenues are propped up mostly by Student fees, I definitely wouldn't get on here bragging about it.

Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.

Nope, Tech get's a set amount for Athletics (transfer % of overall budget from the state). If we charge student fees for athletics budget that transfer amount is decreased dollar for dollar and fees cannot exceed total transfer cap. If we could charge another 18MM in student fees to put us on the same level as ODU. Unfortunately state law doesn't allow it, so most of our budget growth must come from sales/licensing/contributions, which being in a rural area with smaller markets is difficult.

Their may be some shared services that we don't count as athletics to keep it from hitting the transfer but that's small potatoes.
07-11-2017 11:09 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 6,750
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 424
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #66
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-11-2017 11:09 AM)Germdawg Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:17 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  I wouldn't put too much stock in this reports, especially among the G5 conferences. Fuzzy accounting at best with some of these schools Ark State, ODU

Some of the G5 schools Revenues are propped up mostly by Student fees, I definitely wouldn't get on here bragging about it.

Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.

Nope, Tech get's a set amount for Athletics (transfer % of overall budget from the state). If we charge student fees for athletics budget that transfer amount is decreased dollar for dollar and fees cannot exceed total transfer cap. If we could charge another 18MM in student fees to put us on the same level as ODU. Unfortunately state law doesn't allow it, so most of our budget growth must come from sales/licensing/contributions, which being in a rural area with smaller markets is difficult.

Their may be some shared services that we don't count as athletics to keep it from hitting the transfer but that's small potatoes.

Right. So La Tech is incentivized to keep anything they can out of their athletic budget so it doesn't count against their limit and ODU is legislatively required to include items typically not included in athletic budgets. In JMU's Carr report, they estimate the amount included in their athletic budget that typically wouldn't be in other states to be 6 million. So not huge numbers but not small potatoes either and this was 4 years ago. I have no idea how ODU's would compare but there is certainly some. If La Tech is on the other end of the spectrum and excludes some items from their athletic budget that others typical would include the spread could be even more. I don't have any evidence of that but as I said there does seem to be an incentive. My point is that I don't think ODU's and La Tech's overall budgets are as far away as these numbers portray but neither is the percentage subsidized.

From JMU's Carr Report several years ago (starts at the bottom of page VII - 45):


Quote:However, it is important to note that approximately $6 million, or 17%, of Athletics' FY 2011-12 operating expenses of $34,595,223 were designated to cover the combined expenses for the University Agency Service Charges (ASC) and Facilities Maintenance. Agency Service Charges ($2.78 million for Athletics in 2011-12) are required by the Commonwealth of Virginia and serve as a form of recovery back to the University’s Education and General Budget to offset institutional expenses associated with supporting Auxiliary Operations. CarrSports observes that the extent and amount of these charges is atypical for most FCS and many FBS (non-Automatic Qualifying) athletics programs. While the costs associated with the ASC and Facility Maintenance occur at all institutions, they are often not allocated to athletics, but absorbed by the University. As such, these costs do not often appear in the NCAA or Federal financial disclosure reports for athletic departments.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews...1c.pdf.pdf
07-11-2017 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
galojah Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,289
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation: 36
I Root For: WKU
Location: Raleigh, NC

Donators
Post: #67
2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-07-2017 11:15 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 11:28 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 09:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 09:49 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  What's the over/under on the ArkyState internets po-po pull you over for mentioning them? Officer Arkstfan arriving in ...... Or maybe my boy Winston the Woof.

He's (Winston) negatived rep me I believe 10 times out of 21 that I have and BamaScorpio69 6 times. Guess I rub them the wrong way.

Ark St fan must be busy because we been doing this for freaking 12 years. I post about their numbers and POP! there he is. Chief use to do it often also. Use to tell me they are different the "Ark St way"

I forgot about Chief. I believe he's the editor of the Arky State Pravda. He and Arkstfan can explain anything into an Arky State windfall. I wish I could buy a set of the red colored glasses those guys wear. They'd make me a little more forgiving when we pull a Western.

WKUYG just has a hate boner for us. I've given him the IRS tax return numbers for our booster club and he says BUT USATODAY. Then when USATODAY numbers look good for us he calls bull****.

Whatever.

We picked up nearly $5 million when Centennial Bank bought Liberty Bank and paid the entire naming rights fee remaining upfront as part of the closing costs of the transaction. Picked up another $5 million when the owner of Centennial Bank wrote a personal check for $5 million. Losers want to say its fake accounting.

The numbers USA today use is numbers each school files with the government. And even with the one time $10,000,000 from the bank that would be under Contributions & Rights / Licensing. I will repeat this one more time. Ark St is listing building funds in with their numbers and one time donations. I know for a fact at Western those are not counting in as Revenues. Houchen paid $5,000,000 for the naming rights to Western's stadium in 2007 but you will not see that in Western's numbers.

Western is adding new video boards in Diddle Arena and for football at the cost of 2.5 million dollars. Paid for by private donations. You do not see that in the numbers on USA Today.

Below is what you sent me...it's far from a public doc but I take your word those numbers are correct. So tell me which government form is Ark ST lying on? The IRS or the ones USA Today got from ask or a open records request?

If you click on the breakdown of the numbers below is the amount being spent by Western and ARK ST. in the most common forms...Coaching / Staff, Scholarships, Facilities / Overhead.

Western

$9,644,170
$6,335,700
$3,500,730

ARK ST

$7,201,988
$6,755,420
$2,061,827

Yet ARK ST is spending $27,082,809 in OTHER which is 19 million more than 2 years earlier.

As I said Ark St is adding in building funds where other schools don't do that. At least not Western

Below is the "IRS" numbers Arkstfan sent me

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 19,509
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:

AState tax returns.
To: WKUYG
From 1099's filed with the IRS by the Red Wolf Foundation.
Year is what year it was in July when the fiscal year started.
This is from the revenue line of each return, it is signed under penalty of perjury and the risk of prosecution for filing a false return.
2002 $1,520,699
2003 $1,822,344
2004 $1,517,000
2005 $1,561,806
2006 $1,348,602
2007 $1,583,110
2008 $1,572,927
2009 $2,435,279
2010 $2,183,311
2011 $2,657,240
2012 $3,288,308
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 19,509
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:

More tax
To: WKUYG
2013 $5,543,925
2014 $6,071,620
2015 $7,500,866


The gift by Houchins was to the WKU Foundation and not Hilltopper Athletic Foundation. It was also split between two fiscal years.

Actually, only actual scholarship donations (HAF gifts) go to HAF. Enhancement gifts (sports, touchdown club, etc) go to WKU Foundation. Different 990.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2017 08:29 PM by galojah.)
07-11-2017 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,231
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 365
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #68
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-11-2017 08:25 PM)galojah Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 11:15 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 09:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 11:28 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 09:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  He's (Winston) negatived rep me I believe 10 times out of 21 that I have and BamaScorpio69 6 times. Guess I rub them the wrong way.

Ark St fan must be busy because we been doing this for freaking 12 years. I post about their numbers and POP! there he is. Chief use to do it often also. Use to tell me they are different the "Ark St way"

I forgot about Chief. I believe he's the editor of the Arky State Pravda. He and Arkstfan can explain anything into an Arky State windfall. I wish I could buy a set of the red colored glasses those guys wear. They'd make me a little more forgiving when we pull a Western.

WKUYG just has a hate boner for us. I've given him the IRS tax return numbers for our booster club and he says BUT USATODAY. Then when USATODAY numbers look good for us he calls bull****.

Whatever.

We picked up nearly $5 million when Centennial Bank bought Liberty Bank and paid the entire naming rights fee remaining upfront as part of the closing costs of the transaction. Picked up another $5 million when the owner of Centennial Bank wrote a personal check for $5 million. Losers want to say its fake accounting.

The numbers USA today use is numbers each school files with the government. And even with the one time $10,000,000 from the bank that would be under Contributions & Rights / Licensing. I will repeat this one more time. Ark St is listing building funds in with their numbers and one time donations. I know for a fact at Western those are not counting in as Revenues. Houchen paid $5,000,000 for the naming rights to Western's stadium in 2007 but you will not see that in Western's numbers.

Western is adding new video boards in Diddle Arena and for football at the cost of 2.5 million dollars. Paid for by private donations. You do not see that in the numbers on USA Today.

Below is what you sent me...it's far from a public doc but I take your word those numbers are correct. So tell me which government form is Ark ST lying on? The IRS or the ones USA Today got from ask or a open records request?

If you click on the breakdown of the numbers below is the amount being spent by Western and ARK ST. in the most common forms...Coaching / Staff, Scholarships, Facilities / Overhead.

Western

$9,644,170
$6,335,700
$3,500,730

ARK ST

$7,201,988
$6,755,420
$2,061,827

Yet ARK ST is spending $27,082,809 in OTHER which is 19 million more than 2 years earlier.

As I said Ark St is adding in building funds where other schools don't do that. At least not Western

Below is the "IRS" numbers Arkstfan sent me

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 19,509
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:

AState tax returns.
To: WKUYG
From 1099's filed with the IRS by the Red Wolf Foundation.
Year is what year it was in July when the fiscal year started.
This is from the revenue line of each return, it is signed under penalty of perjury and the risk of prosecution for filing a false return.
2002 $1,520,699
2003 $1,822,344
2004 $1,517,000
2005 $1,561,806
2006 $1,348,602
2007 $1,583,110
2008 $1,572,927
2009 $2,435,279
2010 $2,183,311
2011 $2,657,240
2012 $3,288,308
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 19,509
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:

More tax
To: WKUYG
2013 $5,543,925
2014 $6,071,620
2015 $7,500,866


The gift by Houchins was to the WKU Foundation and not Hilltopper Athletic Foundation. It was also split between two fiscal years.

Actually, only actual scholarship donations (HAF gifts) go to HAF. Enhancement gifts (sports, touchdown club, etc) go to WKU Foundation. Different 990.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So where the naming rights to the ARK ST stadium....went to the school not the AD or the RWF. In that case it should go into the general fund and not counted as revenue to the AD.

When you have anomalies like ARK ST does for 2015 in donations and in 2016 for "OTHER" it's not because revenues jumped for hose years....fuzzy math. The OTHER box is mostly for pay check games, concession, parking, coaching buyouts (plus side) for revenue. The only year that jumps out at you for Western is 2014 $4,538,034 and that is the year BP had to pay something like 1.2 or 1.5 million. The other years it's with in a few hundred K and I guess the difference is the amount someone paid Western to play.

ARK ST is trying to make their numbers look like they compete with the AAC just in case a spot opens. They know the usual ARK ST 15 Million budget will not cut it....

FUZZY MATH
07-11-2017 10:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
beefcake0520 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 205
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: marshall
Location:
Post: #69
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-11-2017 09:30 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Which one do you think a AD can depend on when making a budget....

student fees
money usually generated by winning

Student fees are there first day in July.

Some of you are looking at this the wrong way when you look at % of money coming from student fees. Those are not going away and it's about like students paying for season tickets (usually great seats) just as those of us who buy season tickets and the donation that comes with it.

So when looking at student fees you need to look at them and the number of students. While Marshall is towards the bottom (top depending on the way you look at it) in the dollars giving to the AD in student fees. Their average per student is a lot higher than some of those schools that get a larger % of their overall money from student fees.

Other words ...

(example might not be exact numbers)
Marshall is only getting 20% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 10,000
FIU is getting 50% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 55,000

Marshall is charging their students more than FIU. So FIU has more room to grow a budget than Marshall and it's not close.

For Marshall to grow they need dollars from tickets and donations because their students are close to being at the of the amount they can afford. Western is in that same boat. The problem with that Marshall is also close to hitting their ceiling in money from tickets and donations. At least going by their historical numbers.

So Marshall who is getting less than FIU from students is kind of locked in without a source for new money growth. The only way to over come that is getting more fans in the seats and donations.

FIU can up their student fees by 100 and add 5.5 million to their budget. Marshall would need to increase student fees by $550 to get that much money. FIU is low in money from tickets and donations so if they all of a sudden start winning and drawing fans and the donations that comes with more fans. They have a larger up side on that end also

Now which school has a more health budget the one getting a lower amount of overall funds from student fees or the one that is charging students a lower amount of dollars but a larger % of overall budget coming from those fees..with room to grow on student fees?

Not a bad analysis but its a little flawed as well. Marshall's budget prior to joining CUSA was below 20 mil. The attendance didn't change much, nor did the ticket price, other than the farce facility fee that was charged and stolen by the president at that time. The only thing that has changed is we earned our way to getting P5 home games to boost average attendance somewhat and joining CUSA gave us a more valuable license fee vs. the MAC. Given MU's smaller enrollment, we should probably be at the bottom of the list, but community support and pedigree keeps us off of it.

FIU does have way more room to grow than most anyone in the conference based on your numbers, but that's about where it stops. Numbers only mean something when its applied. FAU probably has more realistic numbers to apply with nicer facilities, it would be interesting to see them do well on the field and how that affects donations, ticket sales etc. They have more potential to be the next USF, UCF than FIU does at this point. FIU just hasn't taken sports seriously, lack on facility investment is hampering them and of course Miami barely backs the Hurricanes, FIU really has no shot of doing much better with all the factors against them. I would venture to say that the room to grow more would fall to UNT. Such a large enrollment and a new stadium baffles me a bit on program interest. UTSA has tons of room to grow, its already been proven that community interest is there, they just need to give them something to cheer for. UTEP under the Mike Price (successful portion) era had amazing attendance and support. Playing down there at that time was intimidating with a packed sun bowl, I haven't looked it up, maybe their revenue at that time was higher than it is now? I dunno.

Anyways, my point is that the ceiling of a good number of CUSA programs is very high, but also next to impossible to reach.
07-12-2017 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIU4Ever Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,338
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 134
I Root For: FIU
Location:
Post: #70
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 11:18 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 09:30 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Which one do you think a AD can depend on when making a budget....

student fees
money usually generated by winning

Student fees are there first day in July.

Some of you are looking at this the wrong way when you look at % of money coming from student fees. Those are not going away and it's about like students paying for season tickets (usually great seats) just as those of us who buy season tickets and the donation that comes with it.

So when looking at student fees you need to look at them and the number of students. While Marshall is towards the bottom (top depending on the way you look at it) in the dollars giving to the AD in student fees. Their average per student is a lot higher than some of those schools that get a larger % of their overall money from student fees.

Other words ...

(example might not be exact numbers)
Marshall is only getting 20% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 10,000
FIU is getting 50% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 55,000

Marshall is charging their students more than FIU. So FIU has more room to grow a budget than Marshall and it's not close.

For Marshall to grow they need dollars from tickets and donations because their students are close to being at the of the amount they can afford. Western is in that same boat. The problem with that Marshall is also close to hitting their ceiling in money from tickets and donations. At least going by their historical numbers.

So Marshall who is getting less than FIU from students is kind of locked in without a source for new money growth. The only way to over come that is getting more fans in the seats and donations.

FIU can up their student fees by 100 and add 5.5 million to their budget. Marshall would need to increase student fees by $550 to get that much money. FIU is low in money from tickets and donations so if they all of a sudden start winning and drawing fans and the donations that comes with more fans. They have a larger up side on that end also

Now which school has a more health budget the one getting a lower amount of overall funds from student fees or the one that is charging students a lower amount of dollars but a larger % of overall budget coming from those fees..with room to grow on student fees?

Not a bad analysis but its a little flawed as well. Marshall's budget prior to joining CUSA was below 20 mil. The attendance didn't change much, nor did the ticket price, other than the farce facility fee that was charged and stolen by the president at that time. The only thing that has changed is we earned our way to getting P5 home games to boost average attendance somewhat and joining CUSA gave us a more valuable license fee vs. the MAC. Given MU's smaller enrollment, we should probably be at the bottom of the list, but community support and pedigree keeps us off of it.

FIU does have way more room to grow than most anyone in the conference based on your numbers, but that's about where it stops. Numbers only mean something when its applied. FAU probably has more realistic numbers to apply with nicer facilities, it would be interesting to see them do well on the field and how that affects donations, ticket sales etc. They have more potential to be the next USF, UCF than FIU does at this point. FIU just hasn't taken sports seriously, lack on facility investment is hampering them and of course Miami barely backs the Hurricanes, FIU really has no shot of doing much better with all the factors against them. I would venture to say that the room to grow more would fall to UNT. Such a large enrollment and a new stadium baffles me a bit on program interest. UTSA has tons of room to grow, its already been proven that community interest is there, they just need to give them something to cheer for. UTEP under the Mike Price (successful portion) era had amazing attendance and support. Playing down there at that time was intimidating with a packed sun bowl, I haven't looked it up, maybe their revenue at that time was higher than it is now? I dunno.

Anyways, my point is that the ceiling of a good number of CUSA programs is very high, but also next to impossible to reach.

The thing about facilities is they all age and they all can be replaced / upgraded. Like 2 new practice fields, one grass the other turf for fall:
[Image: DEJmXYNW0AAQJ7M.jpg]

Plus new Jubotron, turf and players' dinning area at the stadium. Y'all think the stadium is crap but folks consistently use it for ads and video shoots.
[Image: C8Q4z6mUwAA9kuw.jpg]

There has been upgrades/additions to baseball/bb arena seating/softball etc.

FIU's problem is not facilities, our problem is a lack of consistent success and good leadership in the AD. Two winning seasons since 14 years will not fill the seats. FIU was doing well with donations during Mario years including $2.8M in donations in 2013, the year just after he was fired (no winning season before, 2 bowls games then dud). That dropped to $152k in 2015, 3 years into Turner's era. So yeah, we can do better than we are now because we have done better before. "Win and they will come".
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2017 12:35 PM by FIU4Ever.)
07-12-2017 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
beefcake0520 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 205
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: marshall
Location:
Post: #71
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 12:32 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 11:18 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 09:30 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Which one do you think a AD can depend on when making a budget....

student fees
money usually generated by winning

Student fees are there first day in July.

Some of you are looking at this the wrong way when you look at % of money coming from student fees. Those are not going away and it's about like students paying for season tickets (usually great seats) just as those of us who buy season tickets and the donation that comes with it.

So when looking at student fees you need to look at them and the number of students. While Marshall is towards the bottom (top depending on the way you look at it) in the dollars giving to the AD in student fees. Their average per student is a lot higher than some of those schools that get a larger % of their overall money from student fees.

Other words ...

(example might not be exact numbers)
Marshall is only getting 20% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 10,000
FIU is getting 50% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 55,000

Marshall is charging their students more than FIU. So FIU has more room to grow a budget than Marshall and it's not close.

For Marshall to grow they need dollars from tickets and donations because their students are close to being at the of the amount they can afford. Western is in that same boat. The problem with that Marshall is also close to hitting their ceiling in money from tickets and donations. At least going by their historical numbers.

So Marshall who is getting less than FIU from students is kind of locked in without a source for new money growth. The only way to over come that is getting more fans in the seats and donations.

FIU can up their student fees by 100 and add 5.5 million to their budget. Marshall would need to increase student fees by $550 to get that much money. FIU is low in money from tickets and donations so if they all of a sudden start winning and drawing fans and the donations that comes with more fans. They have a larger up side on that end also

Now which school has a more health budget the one getting a lower amount of overall funds from student fees or the one that is charging students a lower amount of dollars but a larger % of overall budget coming from those fees..with room to grow on student fees?

Not a bad analysis but its a little flawed as well. Marshall's budget prior to joining CUSA was below 20 mil. The attendance didn't change much, nor did the ticket price, other than the farce facility fee that was charged and stolen by the president at that time. The only thing that has changed is we earned our way to getting P5 home games to boost average attendance somewhat and joining CUSA gave us a more valuable license fee vs. the MAC. Given MU's smaller enrollment, we should probably be at the bottom of the list, but community support and pedigree keeps us off of it.

FIU does have way more room to grow than most anyone in the conference based on your numbers, but that's about where it stops. Numbers only mean something when its applied. FAU probably has more realistic numbers to apply with nicer facilities, it would be interesting to see them do well on the field and how that affects donations, ticket sales etc. They have more potential to be the next USF, UCF than FIU does at this point. FIU just hasn't taken sports seriously, lack on facility investment is hampering them and of course Miami barely backs the Hurricanes, FIU really has no shot of doing much better with all the factors against them. I would venture to say that the room to grow more would fall to UNT. Such a large enrollment and a new stadium baffles me a bit on program interest. UTSA has tons of room to grow, its already been proven that community interest is there, they just need to give them something to cheer for. UTEP under the Mike Price (successful portion) era had amazing attendance and support. Playing down there at that time was intimidating with a packed sun bowl, I haven't looked it up, maybe their revenue at that time was higher than it is now? I dunno.

Anyways, my point is that the ceiling of a good number of CUSA programs is very high, but also next to impossible to reach.

The thing about facilities is they all age and they all can be replaced / upgraded. Like 2 new practice fields, one grass the other turf for fall:
[Image: DEJmXYNW0AAQJ7M.jpg]

Plus new Jubotron, turf and players' dinning area at the stadium. Y'all think the stadium is crap but folks consistently use it for ads and video shoots.
[Image: C8Q4z6mUwAA9kuw.jpg]

There has been upgrades/additions to baseball/bb arena seating/softball etc.

FIU's problem is not facilities, our problem is a lack of consistent success and good leadership in the AD. Two winning seasons since 14 years will not fill the seats. FIU was doing well with donations during Mario years including $2.8M in donations in 2013, the year just after he was fired (no winning season before, 2 bowls games then dud). That dropped to $152k in 2015, 3 years into Turner's era. So yeah, we can do better than we are now because we have done better before. "Win and they will come".

You are free to have your own opinion about facilities, but as far as football is concerned, it has a long ways to go. Where exactly is all the press box at anyways? There is nothing wrong with seating and it is pretty on ground level, but whats above the ground level matters a whole heck of a lot because right now you basically have no press box and this isn't your first year in CUSA. At this point in time it doesn't look like a D1A stadium. Are there any projections of when the next phase of construction will start? Winning helps a lot, but facilities help you recruit to win.

Not trying to start a facilities war, just stating the obvious.
07-12-2017 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIU4Ever Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,338
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 134
I Root For: FIU
Location:
Post: #72
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 01:23 PM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 12:32 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 11:18 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 09:30 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Which one do you think a AD can depend on when making a budget....

student fees
money usually generated by winning

Student fees are there first day in July.

Some of you are looking at this the wrong way when you look at % of money coming from student fees. Those are not going away and it's about like students paying for season tickets (usually great seats) just as those of us who buy season tickets and the donation that comes with it.

So when looking at student fees you need to look at them and the number of students. While Marshall is towards the bottom (top depending on the way you look at it) in the dollars giving to the AD in student fees. Their average per student is a lot higher than some of those schools that get a larger % of their overall money from student fees.

Other words ...

(example might not be exact numbers)
Marshall is only getting 20% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 10,000
FIU is getting 50% of their AD dollars from student fees and their enrollment is 55,000

Marshall is charging their students more than FIU. So FIU has more room to grow a budget than Marshall and it's not close.

For Marshall to grow they need dollars from tickets and donations because their students are close to being at the of the amount they can afford. Western is in that same boat. The problem with that Marshall is also close to hitting their ceiling in money from tickets and donations. At least going by their historical numbers.

So Marshall who is getting less than FIU from students is kind of locked in without a source for new money growth. The only way to over come that is getting more fans in the seats and donations.

FIU can up their student fees by 100 and add 5.5 million to their budget. Marshall would need to increase student fees by $550 to get that much money. FIU is low in money from tickets and donations so if they all of a sudden start winning and drawing fans and the donations that comes with more fans. They have a larger up side on that end also

Now which school has a more health budget the one getting a lower amount of overall funds from student fees or the one that is charging students a lower amount of dollars but a larger % of overall budget coming from those fees..with room to grow on student fees?

Not a bad analysis but its a little flawed as well. Marshall's budget prior to joining CUSA was below 20 mil. The attendance didn't change much, nor did the ticket price, other than the farce facility fee that was charged and stolen by the president at that time. The only thing that has changed is we earned our way to getting P5 home games to boost average attendance somewhat and joining CUSA gave us a more valuable license fee vs. the MAC. Given MU's smaller enrollment, we should probably be at the bottom of the list, but community support and pedigree keeps us off of it.

FIU does have way more room to grow than most anyone in the conference based on your numbers, but that's about where it stops. Numbers only mean something when its applied. FAU probably has more realistic numbers to apply with nicer facilities, it would be interesting to see them do well on the field and how that affects donations, ticket sales etc. They have more potential to be the next USF, UCF than FIU does at this point. FIU just hasn't taken sports seriously, lack on facility investment is hampering them and of course Miami barely backs the Hurricanes, FIU really has no shot of doing much better with all the factors against them. I would venture to say that the room to grow more would fall to UNT. Such a large enrollment and a new stadium baffles me a bit on program interest. UTSA has tons of room to grow, its already been proven that community interest is there, they just need to give them something to cheer for. UTEP under the Mike Price (successful portion) era had amazing attendance and support. Playing down there at that time was intimidating with a packed sun bowl, I haven't looked it up, maybe their revenue at that time was higher than it is now? I dunno.

Anyways, my point is that the ceiling of a good number of CUSA programs is very high, but also next to impossible to reach.

The thing about facilities is they all age and they all can be replaced / upgraded. Like 2 new practice fields, one grass the other turf for fall:
[Image: DEJmXYNW0AAQJ7M.jpg]

Plus new Jubotron, turf and players' dinning area at the stadium. Y'all think the stadium is crap but folks consistently use it for ads and video shoots.
[Image: C8Q4z6mUwAA9kuw.jpg]

There has been upgrades/additions to baseball/bb arena seating/softball etc.

FIU's problem is not facilities, our problem is a lack of consistent success and good leadership in the AD. Two winning seasons since 14 years will not fill the seats. FIU was doing well with donations during Mario years including $2.8M in donations in 2013, the year just after he was fired (no winning season before, 2 bowls games then dud). That dropped to $152k in 2015, 3 years into Turner's era. So yeah, we can do better than we are now because we have done better before. "Win and they will come".

You are free to have your own opinion about facilities, but as far as football is concerned, it has a long ways to go. Where exactly is all the press box at anyways? There is nothing wrong with seating and it is pretty on ground level, but whats above the ground level matters a whole heck of a lot because right now you basically have no press box and this isn't your first year in CUSA. At this point in time it doesn't look like a D1A stadium. Are there any projections of when the next phase of construction will start? Winning helps a lot, but facilities help you recruit to win.

Not trying to start a facilities war, just stating the obvious.

What does a "D1A stadium" look like?
07-12-2017 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FriscoDawg Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 621
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #73
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.
The real truth is that amounts indirectly spent for athletics from the university budget are reported on the NCAA report in the categories Indirect institutional support (#6 on page 24 of the linked document) and Indirect institutional support-Athletic Facilities Debt Service, Lease and Rental Fees (#6A also on page 24). 6A is a new category just added to the NCAA report in the last couple of years.

Louisiana Tech's 2015-2016 allocated funds (subsidy) breaks down this way:
Direct institutional support (university transfer) $8,095,811
Indirect institutional support $1,451,845
Indirect institutional support-debt service $603,792
Total allocated funds $10,151,448 (matches what USA Today lists)

Indirect institutional support is how university-paid costs related to but not directly paid for by athletics are shown on the annual NCAA reports. Maintenance staff salaries paid by the university as a whole who perform at least part of their work at athletic facilities should be one of the most common items reported as indirect institutional support.

Since the direct and indirect categories became part of the NCAA reports for 2004-2005, Louisiana Tech has reported between $1.14 million and $2.09 million in that category each year. When ESPN did the FBS budget analysis instead of USA Today, it broke down the numbers by category. In 2009-2010, 49 of the 97 FBS schools reported included indirect support amounts averaging almost $2.19 million with Tennessee topping the list at $12,552,020.

And one final response to the Arkansas State posters claiming IRS numbers are being used. Amounts reported for tax compliance are not classified in the manner required for the NCAA Financial Reporting System amounts posted in the USA Today database.
07-12-2017 08:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thegoldstandard Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,816
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #74
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 08:42 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.
The real truth is that amounts indirectly spent for athletics from the university budget are reported on the NCAA report in the categories Indirect institutional support (#6 on page 24 of the linked document) and Indirect institutional support-Athletic Facilities Debt Service, Lease and Rental Fees (#6A also on page 24). 6A is a new category just added to the NCAA report in the last couple of years.

Louisiana Tech's 2015-2016 allocated funds (subsidy) breaks down this way:
Direct institutional support (university transfer) $8,095,811
Indirect institutional support $1,451,845
Indirect institutional support-debt service $603,792
Total allocated funds $10,151,448 (matches what USA Today lists)

Indirect institutional support is how university-paid costs related to but not directly paid for by athletics are shown on the annual NCAA reports. Maintenance staff salaries paid by the university as a whole who perform at least part of their work at athletic facilities should be one of the most common items reported as indirect institutional support.

Since the direct and indirect categories became part of the NCAA reports for 2004-2005, Louisiana Tech has reported between $1.14 million and $2.09 million in that category each year. When ESPN did the FBS budget analysis instead of USA Today, it broke down the numbers by category. In 2009-2010, 49 of the 97 FBS schools reported included indirect support amounts averaging almost $2.19 million with Tennessee topping the list at $12,552,020.

And one final response to the Arkansas State posters claiming IRS numbers are being used. Amounts reported for tax compliance are not classified in the manner required for the NCAA Financial Reporting System amounts posted in the USA Today database.
Is tops included those numbers? I would assume the direct inst support?
07-12-2017 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FriscoDawg Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 621
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #75
RE: 2016 New CUSA Budgets - USA Today
(07-12-2017 09:02 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 08:42 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:32 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Truth is La Tech is probably more subsidized than is being reported. Based on how they receive funding, it's a safe bet that anything that they can say is not an athletic expense they would leave on the academic side. If you were forced to include everything related to athletics as VA is and allocate general University overhead to athletics then there's no doubt your athletic budget would be higher. But so would your subsidy.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about those ticket sales and contributions though.
The real truth is that amounts indirectly spent for athletics from the university budget are reported on the NCAA report in the categories Indirect institutional support (#6 on page 24 of the linked document) and Indirect institutional support-Athletic Facilities Debt Service, Lease and Rental Fees (#6A also on page 24). 6A is a new category just added to the NCAA report in the last couple of years.

Louisiana Tech's 2015-2016 allocated funds (subsidy) breaks down this way:
Direct institutional support (university transfer) $8,095,811
Indirect institutional support $1,451,845
Indirect institutional support-debt service $603,792
Total allocated funds $10,151,448 (matches what USA Today lists)

Indirect institutional support is how university-paid costs related to but not directly paid for by athletics are shown on the annual NCAA reports. Maintenance staff salaries paid by the university as a whole who perform at least part of their work at athletic facilities should be one of the most common items reported as indirect institutional support.

Since the direct and indirect categories became part of the NCAA reports for 2004-2005, Louisiana Tech has reported between $1.14 million and $2.09 million in that category each year. When ESPN did the FBS budget analysis instead of USA Today, it broke down the numbers by category. In 2009-2010, 49 of the 97 FBS schools reported included indirect support amounts averaging almost $2.19 million with Tennessee topping the list at $12,552,020.

And one final response to the Arkansas State posters claiming IRS numbers are being used. Amounts reported for tax compliance are not classified in the manner required for the NCAA Financial Reporting System amounts posted in the USA Today database.
Is tops included those numbers? I would assume the direct inst support?
Per Board of Regents' rules the full cost of all athletic scholarships is included in amounts allowed to be transferred that are reported as direct institutional support on the revenue side and as athletics student aid on the expense side. What little is left of TOPS should be counted in that total.
07-12-2017 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.