Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,781
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 631
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #61
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-19-2018 03:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 10:22 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  
(03-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-16-2018 02:53 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  weaaaah weaaah weaaah said the professor. All these faculty members care about is themselves and their programs (which I understand), and they see athletics as an easy target. The most vocal of them grew up hating sports to begin with, so they are completely biased. The vocal ones usually didn't attend the university that they teach at and have no history of attending games or feeling any sort of connection to the athletic department. A lot of them have also had some bad interactions with athletes in their classes that have also swayed their view of things.

I've had discussions in person and via email with a number of anti-sports professors at UMass and they are all a bunch of whiny idiots who simply want more money for their programs and think if they whine about the athletic department budget then maybe the school will give them some extra money to be quiet.

Oh, and they also all refuse to even come to a tailgate or game and try to understand why athletics are so important to a university community.

Isn't UMass one of the worst cases of a bloated athletic budget?

If you consider LESS than 1% of the entire UMass budget to be a bloated athletic budget, than sure. To me when the athletic department budget is LESS than 1% of the entire school budget, I would say that it most certainly isn't bloated.

A one thousand dollar budget is "bloated", if that $1000 shouldn't be spent at all, or the same ROI could be achieved for $500.

The move to FBS has proved to be a big white elephant, their attendance is still FCS-level, at about 12,000 a game, costing UMass students and academics more money with zero to show for it.

I understand how it looks to people who are on the outside and don't know the full positive effects of having FBS football has had on the athletic department, most of which can't be calculated for easy understanding. Luckily our administration understands it and is fully supportive of FBS football.

I've already had this argument with too many people, I'm not going to bother going through all my points over and over again.

You don't want to have this argument again because you can't win. All you can do is speak in tongues about all the alleged "positive impacts" the move to FBS has had, with zero actual hard facts/data to back it up.

The hard facts show that UMass football attendance is about 12,000 per game, FCS level. Revenues are flat while fees from students and transfers from the academic 'side' keep rising.

UMass is chasing the "big time football" pipe dream, and like almost all others chasing that same dream, they are squandering millions of academic money each year with just about a zero % chance of achieving it.

But in the meantime, admins stroke their own egos and coaches make a lot of money.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018 09:58 AM by quo vadis.)
03-20-2018 09:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,781
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 631
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #62
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-19-2018 10:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 08:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  They even protest at the big name schools. Until you shut them up with facts.

.....

There haven't been many complaints at Clemson since that meeting.

You seem to be a little harsh here. I don't see a lot of faculty whining. Looks like some faculty were wondering why football coaches were making millions per year and so the Faculty Senate invited the AD to answer questions at a FS meeting, the AD did, and the faculty were satisfied with the answers. That's constructive dialogue, and the reason the faculty 'shut up' since that 2012 meeting is because their questions were satisfactorily answered.

At Clemson and other big P5 schools, faculty truly has nothing to complain about because the athletic departments are self-sustaining. Not at all, e.g., Virginia still soaks its students to the tune of about $700 a year, which is ridiculous. But at many.

But at the G5 schools, faculty complaints are 100% justified, as these schools are running athletics via massive subsidies and transfers.

E.g., the EMU football coach is reportedly paid about $425,000 per year, and for what? To lose a bunch of games and cost the school millions in transfers and subsidies?

That's a total boondoggle situation. 07-coffee3

The article painted a far nicer picture than it really was. The Athletic Representatives were called there to be brow-beaten by the faculty for raises given to football coaches while there was a state enacted freeze on raises for state employees paid from state funds during the recession.

To me, that's part of the job of an AD, to get brow-beaten by faculty and other academic constituencies. Pay me $800,000 a year like the Clemson AD gets and I'll gladly sit through a few two-hour meetings in which faculty or students complain about my salary or Dabo's salary or whatever. And I'll gladly read as many bitchy e-mails as they want to send me. Not much sympathy from me about that, that's snowflake-complaining.

In this case, he provided them with facts that satisfied their concerns, so that seemed to work out well for you all around.

And IIRC, about 3 years ago, the Clemson AD tried to impose a $350 fee on students to fund more Clemson athletics spending. That's something students and faculty could rightly object to. With the $$$ coming in from the CFP, the Clemson AD isn't doing his job if he's trying to squeeze money out of students. That's true of all P5 schools, not just Clemson.

LSU, which screws a lot of stuff up, has the correct model: (1) Athletics gets zero money from the "academic side", no fees, nothing, must be 100% self-sustaining. (2) Not only that, athletics has to make a payment to the academic side. At LSU, that's a minimum of $7 million a year. That's mandated, no wiggle room. Even if they want to give the football coach a $1m raise, they first have to make that payment to academics.

That's the way it should be done.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018 10:16 AM by quo vadis.)
03-20-2018 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 26,011
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1109
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #63
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 03:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 10:22 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  
(03-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Isn't UMass one of the worst cases of a bloated athletic budget?

If you consider LESS than 1% of the entire UMass budget to be a bloated athletic budget, than sure. To me when the athletic department budget is LESS than 1% of the entire school budget, I would say that it most certainly isn't bloated.

A one thousand dollar budget is "bloated", if that $1000 shouldn't be spent at all, or the same ROI could be achieved for $500.

The move to FBS has proved to be a big white elephant, their attendance is still FCS-level, at about 12,000 a game, costing UMass students and academics more money with zero to show for it.

I understand how it looks to people who are on the outside and don't know the full positive effects of having FBS football has had on the athletic department, most of which can't be calculated for easy understanding. Luckily our administration understands it and is fully supportive of FBS football.

I've already had this argument with too many people, I'm not going to bother going through all my points over and over again.

You don't want to have this argument again because you can't win. All you can do is speak in tongues about all the alleged "positive impacts" the move to FBS has had, with zero actual hard facts/data to back it up.

The hard facts show that UMass football attendance is about 12,000 per game, FCS level. Revenues are flat while fees from students and transfers from the academic 'side' keep rising.

UMass is chasing the "big time football" pipe dream, and like almost all others chasing that same dream, they are squandering millions of academic money each year with just about a zero % chance of achieving it.

But in the meantime, admins stroke their own egos and coaches make a lot of money.

It’s the primary marketing arm of the university and a student amenity. There are students who want to go to a school that plays FBS football. There are students that don’t care. If you want to appeal to both groups—you have to have the amenity. Keep in mind—-There are only 130 schools in the nation that offer FBS football. It’s nice way to set your school apart. Better yet, the school doesn’t even have to pay the full cost of this amenity and marketing tool. Nope—a good chunk of its cost is subsidized by fans and alumni via ticket costs, concessions, and flat out donations. It’s a pretty ingenious way to advertise your school while providing an attractive amenity.

That said—EMU looks like a place where atletics is not even remotely embraced by its target student. I have no real issue with dumping sports if it has almost zero support among a schools students and alums. Seems that battle is already lost at EMU. I don’t think the UMass athletics situation is nearly as bad.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018 10:34 AM by Attackcoog.)
03-20-2018 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,192
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 383
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #64
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-19-2018 03:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I understand how it looks to people who are on the outside and don't know the full positive effects of having FBS football has had on the athletic department, most of which can't be calculated for easy understanding. Luckily our administration understands it and is fully supportive of FBS football.

I've already had this argument with too many people, I'm not going to bother going through all my points over and over again.

The putative reason for sponsoring football at all has always been the positive effect it has in enhancing the academic mission of the university, not its athletic department.

Apparently, you are more capable than most of us in understanding how moving up to FBS positively affects the athletic department. Would that you were as capable of articulating those benefits for those of us who aren't "in the know" the way you are.
03-20-2018 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 26,011
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1109
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #65
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
Eastern Michigan University announced today, March 20, that it will reduce its intercollegiate athletic program by four sports, effective at the end of the 2018 spring season. The action is being taken as part of the University’s overall budget restructuring efforts.

Affected by the decision are the sports of softball, men’s swimming and diving, women’s tennis, and wrestling. With the change EMU, which previously led the MAC with 21 sports, will now have 17 sports (seven men’s sports and 10 women’s sports). This action in no way impacts Eastern’s affiliation with the Mid-American Conference (MAC).


https://today.emich.edu/story/news/10617
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018 10:58 AM by Attackcoog.)
03-20-2018 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,756
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 198
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #66
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Eastern Michigan University announced today, March 20, that it will reduce its intercollegiate athletic program by four sports, effective at the end of the 2018 spring season. The action is being taken as part of the University’s overall budget restructuring efforts.

Affected by the decision are the sports of softball, men’s swimming and diving, women’s tennis, and wrestling. With the change EMU, which previously led the MAC with 21 sports, will now have 17 sports (seven men’s sports and 10 women’s sports). This action in no way impacts Eastern’s affiliation with the Mid-American Conference (MAC).


https://today.emich.edu/story/news/10617

Cut the wrong sports
03-20-2018 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,663
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 353
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #67
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 11:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Eastern Michigan University announced today, March 20, that it will reduce its intercollegiate athletic program by four sports, effective at the end of the 2018 spring season. The action is being taken as part of the University’s overall budget restructuring efforts.

Affected by the decision are the sports of softball, men’s swimming and diving, women’s tennis, and wrestling. With the change EMU, which previously led the MAC with 21 sports, will now have 17 sports (seven men’s sports and 10 women’s sports). This action in no way impacts Eastern’s affiliation with the Mid-American Conference (MAC).


https://today.emich.edu/story/news/10617

Cut the wrong sports

EMU need to cut football.
EMU students and alumni are just not that into football.
03-20-2018 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,488
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #68
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 11:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Eastern Michigan University announced today, March 20, that it will reduce its intercollegiate athletic program by four sports, effective at the end of the 2018 spring season. The action is being taken as part of the University’s overall budget restructuring efforts.

Affected by the decision are the sports of softball, men’s swimming and diving, women’s tennis, and wrestling. With the change EMU, which previously led the MAC with 21 sports, will now have 17 sports (seven men’s sports and 10 women’s sports). This action in no way impacts Eastern’s affiliation with the Mid-American Conference (MAC).


https://today.emich.edu/story/news/10617

Cut the wrong sports
What were you eexpecting men's and women's basketball?



Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app
03-20-2018 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,488
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #69
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
MAC wrestling is down to only 8 members.

Missouri, SIUE, NIU, BallSt, CMU, Kent St, Ohio, Old Dominion

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app
03-20-2018 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,861
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 105
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #70
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
EMU has transferred $200M from the institution (i.e., tax payer dollar) to Athletics. Students refused to support continuing the student fee. In 2009 the extended fee was not renewed dropping student funding from $8M per year to $1.5M, and three years ago even that $1.5M was not extended by the students. The cuts made today simply keep Football going, and the school subsidy just below $30M annually for the moment.

Revenues from rights run about $3M per year (MAC distributions, ESPN TV money, apparel etc), but ticket sales for all sports, excepting one blip up year, typically run under $250K, while donations fluctuate around $500K.

However Football budget ran $9,033,503 in 2016. An additional $9,497,427 was placed in the category of "not allocated by sport." But comparisons with similar programs without football from a higher cost state even (e.g., Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Northridge, UC Riverside) yielded $4,976,777, $5,025,499 and $4,108,498 was spent by the comparable institutions. Indicating perhaps 45-50% of the "not allocated by sport" money is Football related. Comparing non-Football schools in region (Wright State, Milwaukee, IUPUI) yielded even smaller "not allocated by sport" expenses of $3,859,273, $1,918,254, and $3,140,394, which suggests Football may actually be eating up 2/3rds of the not allocated by sport expenses.

So it appears football's true cost at EMU is somewhere between $13.7M and $15.2M, at least in 2016, but likely higher now. Even if you apply 100% of all ticket sales, donations, and rights/licensing to football it would come up to under $4M (most is $3M in rights or MAC). You can probably add most of the "other" category, which are body bag games to football, which seem to be above $2M, so a rough max revenue of $6M is possible. However this is a serious overestimate. Horizon schools still get about $1M for rights/licensing and that is probably a fair number to guess for EMU, and donations and ticket sales are likely around 50% football specific. That suggests the real football revenue stream is around $4.5M for EMU, almost 90% of that body bag games and MAC TV. This would put the net operating loss of running Football somewhere between $9.2M and $10.7M per year.


Revenue breakdowns from USA Today, Expense breakdowns from DOE Equity in Athletics website.

[commentary]

Since students refuse to pay even $1 in fees to support athletics, the logical move would be to drop to D-II and drop football altogether. That would probably dry up 90% of the $6M revenue athletics derive, but comparable sized schools in more expensive California in D-II spend only about $5M per year for 20+ sports if they don't have football. That would reduce the athletic budget over $25M per year, and reduce the annual deficit by almost $20M.

If Students are willing to pay a D-I fee of $400 ($200 per semester full time) or roughly $15 a credit unit, then I would say stay D-I and drop Football, to cut the budget in half to maybe $18M range and compete in the Missouri Valley. That would cut the annual deficit by about 2/3rds, and put the institutional transfers under $10M per year, which while higher than I like, would be comparable to most D-I institutions.

[/commentary]
03-20-2018 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_Is_Back Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
Post: #71
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-19-2018 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The move to FBS has proved to be a big white elephant, their attendance is still FCS-level, at about 12,000 a game, costing UMass students and academics more money with zero to show for it.

The real "mistake" UMass made was trying to go independent. They get no TV contract and they get less in the way of a CFP payout. Those two things are a lot of money.

The MAC Offered them, but UMass want's the A10 for other sports (and there is something to that). UMass also is assuming the AAC will come calling quickly (Not likely, but who knows).

That being said, UMass is playing a lot of paycheck games and I suspect that is greatly offsetting the cost of being FBS.
03-20-2018 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_Is_Back Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
Post: #72
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 12:58 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  MAC wrestling is down to only 8 members.

Missouri, SIUE, NIU, BallSt, CMU, Kent St, Ohio, Old Dominion

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app

Ummmm Buffalo....
03-20-2018 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,801
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 74
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #73
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 12:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 11:49 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Eastern Michigan University announced today, March 20, that it will reduce its intercollegiate athletic program by four sports, effective at the end of the 2018 spring season. The action is being taken as part of the University’s overall budget restructuring efforts.

Affected by the decision are the sports of softball, men’s swimming and diving, women’s tennis, and wrestling. With the change EMU, which previously led the MAC with 21 sports, will now have 17 sports (seven men’s sports and 10 women’s sports). This action in no way impacts Eastern’s affiliation with the Mid-American Conference (MAC).


https://today.emich.edu/story/news/10617

Cut the wrong sports

EMU need to cut football.
EMU students and alumni are just not that into football.

They're into Michigan football. The Big House is 6.5 miles from EMU campus.
03-20-2018 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,488
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #74
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 01:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 12:58 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  MAC wrestling is down to only 8 members.

Missouri, SIUE, NIU, BallSt, CMU, Kent St, Ohio, Old Dominion

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app

Ummmm Buffalo....
Can't forget them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app
03-20-2018 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,781
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 631
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #75
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 10:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 03:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 10:22 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  If you consider LESS than 1% of the entire UMass budget to be a bloated athletic budget, than sure. To me when the athletic department budget is LESS than 1% of the entire school budget, I would say that it most certainly isn't bloated.

A one thousand dollar budget is "bloated", if that $1000 shouldn't be spent at all, or the same ROI could be achieved for $500.

The move to FBS has proved to be a big white elephant, their attendance is still FCS-level, at about 12,000 a game, costing UMass students and academics more money with zero to show for it.

I understand how it looks to people who are on the outside and don't know the full positive effects of having FBS football has had on the athletic department, most of which can't be calculated for easy understanding. Luckily our administration understands it and is fully supportive of FBS football.

I've already had this argument with too many people, I'm not going to bother going through all my points over and over again.

You don't want to have this argument again because you can't win. All you can do is speak in tongues about all the alleged "positive impacts" the move to FBS has had, with zero actual hard facts/data to back it up.

The hard facts show that UMass football attendance is about 12,000 per game, FCS level. Revenues are flat while fees from students and transfers from the academic 'side' keep rising.

UMass is chasing the "big time football" pipe dream, and like almost all others chasing that same dream, they are squandering millions of academic money each year with just about a zero % chance of achieving it.

But in the meantime, admins stroke their own egos and coaches make a lot of money.

It’s the primary marketing arm of the university and a student amenity. There are students who want to go to a school that plays FBS football. There are students that don’t care. If you want to appeal to both groups—you have to have the amenity. Keep in mind—-There are only 130 schools in the nation that offer FBS football. It’s nice way to set your school apart. Better yet, the school doesn’t even have to pay the full cost of this amenity and marketing tool. Nope—a good chunk of its cost is subsidized by fans and alumni via ticket costs, concessions, and flat out donations. It’s a pretty ingenious way to advertise your school while providing an attractive amenity.

That's surely true at some schools. But UMass football attendance is FCS-level, there's zero evidence that any student has ever enrolled at UMass because of football, FCS or FBS.

But they are paying a football coach $400,000 a year for basically nothing.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018 03:57 PM by quo vadis.)
03-20-2018 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 20,880
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1913
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #76
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 10:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 03:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  
(03-19-2018 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A one thousand dollar budget is "bloated", if that $1000 shouldn't be spent at all, or the same ROI could be achieved for $500.

The move to FBS has proved to be a big white elephant, their attendance is still FCS-level, at about 12,000 a game, costing UMass students and academics more money with zero to show for it.

I understand how it looks to people who are on the outside and don't know the full positive effects of having FBS football has had on the athletic department, most of which can't be calculated for easy understanding. Luckily our administration understands it and is fully supportive of FBS football.

I've already had this argument with too many people, I'm not going to bother going through all my points over and over again.

You don't want to have this argument again because you can't win. All you can do is speak in tongues about all the alleged "positive impacts" the move to FBS has had, with zero actual hard facts/data to back it up.

The hard facts show that UMass football attendance is about 12,000 per game, FCS level. Revenues are flat while fees from students and transfers from the academic 'side' keep rising.

UMass is chasing the "big time football" pipe dream, and like almost all others chasing that same dream, they are squandering millions of academic money each year with just about a zero % chance of achieving it.

But in the meantime, admins stroke their own egos and coaches make a lot of money.

It’s the primary marketing arm of the university and a student amenity. There are students who want to go to a school that plays FBS football. There are students that don’t care. If you want to appeal to both groups—you have to have the amenity. Keep in mind—-There are only 130 schools in the nation that offer FBS football. It’s nice way to set your school apart. Better yet, the school doesn’t even have to pay the full cost of this amenity and marketing tool. Nope—a good chunk of its cost is subsidized by fans and alumni via ticket costs, concessions, and flat out donations. It’s a pretty ingenious way to advertise your school while providing an attractive amenity.

That's surely true at some schools. But UMass football attendance is FCS-level, there's zero evidence that any student has ever enrolled at UMass because of football, FCS or FBS.

But they are paying a football coach $400,000 a year for basically nothing.

Which is just barely above what they would be paying for a FCS head coach competing in the CAA for absolutely nothing.
03-20-2018 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,488
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #77
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 01:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  EMU has transferred $200M from the institution (i.e., tax payer dollar) to Athletics. Students refused to support continuing the student fee. In 2009 the extended fee was not renewed dropping student funding from $8M per year to $1.5M, and three years ago even that $1.5M was not extended by the students. The cuts made today simply keep Football going, and the school subsidy just below $30M annually for the moment.

Revenues from rights run about $3M per year (MAC distributions, ESPN TV money, apparel etc), but ticket sales for all sports, excepting one blip up year, typically run under $250K, while donations fluctuate around $500K.

However Football budget ran $9,033,503 in 2016. An additional $9,497,427 was placed in the category of "not allocated by sport." But comparisons with similar programs without football from a higher cost state even (e.g., Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Northridge, UC Riverside) yielded $4,976,777, $5,025,499 and $4,108,498 was spent by the comparable institutions. Indicating perhaps 45-50% of the "not allocated by sport" money is Football related. Comparing non-Football schools in region (Wright State, Milwaukee, IUPUI) yielded even smaller "not allocated by sport" expenses of $3,859,273, $1,918,254, and $3,140,394, which suggests Football may actually be eating up 2/3rds of the not allocated by sport expenses.

So it appears football's true cost at EMU is somewhere between $13.7M and $15.2M, at least in 2016, but likely higher now. Even if you apply 100% of all ticket sales, donations, and rights/licensing to football it would come up to under $4M (most is $3M in rights or MAC). You can probably add most of the "other" category, which are body bag games to football, which seem to be above $2M, so a rough max revenue of $6M is possible. However this is a serious overestimate. Horizon schools still get about $1M for rights/licensing and that is probably a fair number to guess for EMU, and donations and ticket sales are likely around 50% football specific. That suggests the real football revenue stream is around $4.5M for EMU, almost 90% of that body bag games and MAC TV. This would put the net operating loss of running Football somewhere between $9.2M and $10.7M per year.


Revenue breakdowns from USA Today, Expense breakdowns from DOE Equity in Athletics website.

[commentary]

Since students refuse to pay even $1 in fees to support athletics, the logical move would be to drop to D-II and drop football altogether. That would probably dry up 90% of the $6M revenue athletics derive, but comparable sized schools in more expensive California in D-II spend only about $5M per year for 20+ sports if they don't have football. That would reduce the athletic budget over $25M per year, and reduce the annual deficit by almost $20M.

If Students are willing to pay a D-I fee of $400 ($200 per semester full time) or roughly $15 a credit unit, then I would say stay D-I and drop Football, to cut the budget in half to maybe $18M range and compete in the Missouri Valley. That would cut the annual deficit by about 2/3rds, and put the institutional transfers under $10M per year, which while higher than I like, would be comparable to most D-I institutions.

[/commentary]
Not allocated revenues/expenses are spread evenly over all the sports.

Most likely authorized institutional support that wasn't used.

Also FB expenses include scholarships which are an internal transfer of funds.

Budgets are set up to look balanced and bigger than what they actually are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app
03-20-2018 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,861
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 105
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #78
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 04:43 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Not allocated revenues/expenses are spread evenly over all the sports.

Most likely authorized institutional support that wasn't used.

Also FB expenses include scholarships which are an internal transfer of funds.

Budgets are set up to look balanced and bigger than what they actually are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app

If what you said were true then the examples I gave for Division I schools that do not play football, would only have budgets 20-25% smaller than EMU and similar G5 schools. However their budgets are approximately half, and all of them have much smaller sums for "not allocated by sport" than do schools with football.

I can show you 20 or 30 more examples that demonstrate a much higher cost for not allocated by sport expenses at football schools than non-football.

EMU's budget is typical of G5 around $32M. UC Riverside and Cal State Fullerton are typical among non-Football schools that play other sports at roughly the same level as EMU (arguably much higher in some sports). Their budgets are in the $18M dollar range. Both EMU in G5 and these two California schools are typical budgets, not outliers high or low cost. The difference is around 45% less for non-football, even carrying a similar number of scholarship athletes as EMU.

So why would funds not allocated to specific sports be so much higher at football schools? I think the answer is rather obvious. For one thing practice and training facilities are much more expensive - more rooms, larger locker spaces, more weight training facilities, more dietary specialists, more athletic support staff, higher insurance costs, and so on. There are no doubt other expenses and administrative staff dedicating significant chunks of time more to football than other sports, who might well be redundant without football.

The numbers do not lie. Football schools have budget almost double those without football.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018 06:37 PM by Stugray2.)
03-20-2018 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,488
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #79
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
(03-20-2018 06:35 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 04:43 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Not allocated revenues/expenses are spread evenly over all the sports.

Most likely authorized institutional support that wasn't used.

Also FB expenses include scholarships which are an internal transfer of funds.

Budgets are set up to look balanced and bigger than what they actually are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app

If what you said were true then the examples I gave for Division I schools that do not play football, would only have budgets 20-25% smaller than EMU and similar G5 schools. However their budgets are approximately half, and all of them have much smaller sums for "not allocated by sport" than do schools with football.

I can show you 20 or 30 more examples that demonstrate a much higher cost for not allocated by sport expenses at football schools than non-football.

EMU's budget is typical of G5 around $32M. UC Riverside and Cal State Fullerton are typical among non-Football schools that play other sports at roughly the same level as EMU (arguably much higher in some sports). Their budgets are in the $18M dollar range. Both EMU in G5 and these two California schools are typical budgets, not outliers high or low cost. The difference is around 45% less for non-football, even carrying a similar number of scholarship athletes as EMU.

So why would funds not allocated to specific sports be so much higher at football schools? I think the answer is rather obvious. For one thing practice and training facilities are much more expensive - more rooms, larger locker spaces, more weight training facilities, more dietary specialists, more athletic support staff, higher insurance costs, and so on. There are no doubt other expenses and administrative staff dedicating significant chunks of time more to football than other sports, who might well be redundant without football.

The numbers do not lie. Football schools have budget almost double those without football.

There is a difference between allocated and not-allocated.

How does a school have not-allocated revenues? The only way that could make sense is if it is a pool of money drawn from the institution to fill the purpose of the "budget". Its usually shown as a line item in as a revenue and out as an expense at about the same amount both ways.
03-20-2018 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,488
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #80
RE: EMU sports front and center is faculty protest over cuts and layoffs
Tough to find good examples of what's in a not allocated budget.

NC State did a break down on not allocated budget. Scholarship costs are around $12 million which is an internal accounting item.

Quote:The revenue numbers are probably what you’d expect, with the exception of Other Revenues (referred to as “Not Allocated by Sport” in the EADA). The other revenues, I believe are mostly due to the Student Fees, Wolfpack Club donations, merchandise licensing, the Adidas apparel deal, and other revenue that couldn’t be attributed to a specific sport. From my examination of the data, it appears that the ACC media rights deal is likely pro-rated across the sports, though I could be wrong on that front.

https://www.backingthepack.com/nc-state-...cs-budgets

The Not Allocated expenses were estimated to include debt service on facilities. Its a fudge factor category adjusted so the overall budget numbers add up.
03-20-2018 11:49 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.