Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Cataclysmo Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,677
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Cincinnat
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #21
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 03:55 PM)cpawstoney Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 03:21 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Could be worse. We could've sacrificed our entire academic model in favor of sleazy athletic directors, coaches, and backroom deals. We could have a palace of a basketball arena, a shiny new football stadium, and one of the most competitive Power5 conferences to house it all. And we could survive multiple scandles, including a federal investigation taking place on campus, to hire one of the best young coaches in the country.

But if the cost of all that is a university with an incompetent administration, embaressed student body, and potentially bankrupted city, I'm at least somewhat comfortable being stuck in our current predicament.

Our city isn't bankrupt? Great news!!! Let City Council know they can build a new police station, replace the Western Hills Viaduct, revamp PNC Bank Arena...

I was referring to the City of Louisville's deal with the University for the Yum! center. It won't happen, but if that program received the death penalty the city could be in some serious financial trouble (See: https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/n...round.html )

We can't even figure out how to build a soccer stadium for a sure-fire MLS bid. Imagine what would happen to this city if our taxes were diverted to cover for Mick Cronin's sleaziness. Imagine the outcry on this board alone.
 
04-04-2018 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #22
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 11:56 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  At some point, we're going to have to realize that Ono and Bohn made a huge gamble to get us into the P5 and came up craps. They bet $100M and lost. While Ono can't be fired (and I've always maintained that he ran away before all his phony promises were exposed), the university can certainly take an honest, hard look at the mistakes and not continue to go down that same path.

Imagine if we'd pumped $100M into the cancer hospital. I'd bet we'd be a lot closer to that Comprehensive Cancer Center designation than hoping some fairy tale Flutie Effect might happen.

Imagine if we'd pumped $100M into merit aid. I'd bet we'd be a lot closer to rising selectivity to Miami's level than waiting for the Flutie Effect to do it.

Imagine if we'd pumped $100M into the underachieving departments at UC. I'd bet we'd be a lot closer to an AAU invite than on waiting for athletics to have some magic effect in that regard.

Imagine if we scrapped the whole athletics department in 1990. I'd bet the university would be a lot closer to Cincinnati State than Ohio State...
 
04-04-2018 04:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #23
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 11:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  http://www.newsrecord.org/news/soaring-s...06336.html

Thank goodness we have these 'journalists' to enlighten us about the toxic UC athletic department.

I'd be interested to see the math behind this deficit. How much of the $100m+ deficit is due to the surcharge imposed by the University? (Edit: They actually did include that! Bravo. Turns out $27m of this deficit is the scholarships we charged the AD). The AD is charged full tuition for each scholarship it gives. I think it would be far more relevant (but far less sensationalist) to see how much it actually costs to educate these student athletes. Perhaps that accounting student would like to retake Governmental & Non-Profit Accounting if he is interested in learning more.

That quote about athletes getting so much is gold as well. Yes, the biggest problem we have in college athletics today is those coddled athletes who get nice gear (which is paid for by our athletic sponsor UA BTW) and nice facilities (most of which are paid for with private donations specifically made to the department). Perhaps the students peers should be upset the university is spending so much money to build a new business college for him. After all, the whole university doesn't get to use it. What a waste!

To help the business students out: Complaining about the athletic department's deficit at all is akin to a company wondering why that darn R&D department does nothing but bleed the money dry. Complaining about the amount of the deficit with misleading math such as this is like a company making something for $10 and then charging a subsidiary $100 to use it, then having the employees get mad the sub is bleeding HQ dry.

I look forward to these 'journalists' future careers hosting Local 12 Investigates, where you can create the story AND mislead people at the same time.
 
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2018 05:18 PM by stxrunner.)
04-04-2018 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatmark Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,515
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 230
I Root For: the Deliverator
Location:
Post: #24
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 05:11 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 11:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  http://www.newsrecord.org/news/soaring-s...06336.html

Thank goodness we have these 'journalists' to enlighten us about the toxic UC athletic department.

I'd be interested to see the math behind this deficit. How much of the $100m+ deficit is due to the surcharge imposed by the University? (Edit: They actually did include that! Bravo. Turns out $27m of this deficit is the scholarships we charged the AD). The AD is charged full tuition for each scholarship it gives. I think it would be far more relevant (but far less sensationalist) to see how much it actually costs to educate these student athletes. Perhaps that accounting student would like to retake Governmental & Non-Profit Accounting if he is interested in learning more.

That quote about athletes getting so much is gold as well. Yes, the biggest problem we have in college athletics today is those coddled athletes who get nice gear (which is paid for by our athletic sponsor UA BTW) and nice facilities (most of which are paid for with private donations specifically made to the department). Perhaps the students peers should be upset the university is spending so much money to build a new business college for him. After all, the whole university doesn't get to use it. What a waste!

To help the business students out: Complaining about the athletic department's deficit at all is akin to a company wondering why that darn R&D department does nothing but bleed the money dry. Complaining about the amount of the deficit with misleading math such as this is like a company making something for $10 and then charging a subsidiary $100 to use it, then having the employees get mad the sub is bleeding HQ dry.

I look forward to these 'journalists' future careers hosting Local 12 Investigates, where you can create the story AND mislead people at the same time.
04-bow
 
04-04-2018 05:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #25
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 02:54 PM)grubs Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 12:56 PM)jarr Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 12:31 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  Doesn't this same article come out once every year? Nothing new here. If you are in the Cartel 5, tv subsidizes the athletic dept, whether or not said dept earned the money. In the P6 or Other 5, you need to use other methods to subsidize.

There are 3 paths - more tv revenue, current structure remains in place or UC starts axing programs. Sounds like some want either fball or basketball to get the axe.

I have no idea, just speculating... but does anyone have any numbers on the overall indirect revenue the football and basketball programs bring to the university? In other words, lets say we whacked football and/or basketball, how would that effect the university as a whole? Does the enrollment go down? Do donations and gifts go down? Does interest in the university go down? How does this affect general student and alumni well being as related to the university?

Its probably easy to point to sports and say, well they aren't making revenue. But some times youbbn have step back and look at the entire picture to see what they are truly bringing to the table. What are the programs bringing in revenue, and which ones are not? Are students paying for these as well?

Ultimately, the student has a choice if they want to pay the tuition, if not they have other options, if its too high and doesn't make sense for them, then why not look elsewhere. Everybody is not a victim.

Rough ideas can be gained by checking the University's budget which is public information. Direct Basketball and Football revenue were budgeted at 4.9 m and 6.9 m respectively. Gifts were 4 mil, and other is 14m. On the expense side, direct Basketball and Football expenses are 6.2m and 11.2m respectively. Womens sports were 6.9 m and other men sports 3m. Other expense lines Operations of 2.4m, 5m in debt service, 17m in admin and general. How close to revenue neutral the revenue sports are is dependant on how much you figure the gifts, others revenue evaporates without those sports and how much of the expenses can be reduced without them.
In reality, you shouldn't expect that athletics be revenue neutral any more than your communication departments would be. OSU is one of the small handful that is revenue positive. The majority of even the P5 run negative budgets. Having a strong athletic department brings value to the University in more ways that are covered in the balance sheet. The marketing alone to out of state students is incredibly valuable to the university.

It's a lazy article that was written to come to the conclusion that the writer wanted. This is not to say that the University's fees shouldn't be scrutinized. UC is second highest in the state behind Miami.

I think the bolded is a great conclusion. I have no doubt UC is on the higher end of the spectrum. It's not ideal. It's a huge gamble as many have pointed out. Louisville did the same thing a decade ago and cashed in. We may not. Noone could ever know. If things shift in college athletics in a major way, it's going to be time to have some hard conversations about where we spend our money.

I do know it would be a lot easier on the budget to axe almost every sport UC sponsors except the revenue ones while having minimal impact on donations and marketing (obviously we can't do this because of Title IX, but hypothetically). I'd love to read the sensationalist article written after we did that one, especially after UC tried to save money by having teams play in Ursula's gym this past year.
 
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2018 05:29 PM by stxrunner.)
04-04-2018 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
grubs Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 385
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 15
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 05:26 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 02:54 PM)grubs Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 12:56 PM)jarr Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 12:31 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  Doesn't this same article come out once every year? Nothing new here. If you are in the Cartel 5, tv subsidizes the athletic dept, whether or not said dept earned the money. In the P6 or Other 5, you need to use other methods to subsidize.

There are 3 paths - more tv revenue, current structure remains in place or UC starts axing programs. Sounds like some want either fball or basketball to get the axe.

I have no idea, just speculating... but does anyone have any numbers on the overall indirect revenue the football and basketball programs bring to the university? In other words, lets say we whacked football and/or basketball, how would that effect the university as a whole? Does the enrollment go down? Do donations and gifts go down? Does interest in the university go down? How does this affect general student and alumni well being as related to the university?

Its probably easy to point to sports and say, well they aren't making revenue. But some times youbbn have step back and look at the entire picture to see what they are truly bringing to the table. What are the programs bringing in revenue, and which ones are not? Are students paying for these as well?

Ultimately, the student has a choice if they want to pay the tuition, if not they have other options, if its too high and doesn't make sense for them, then why not look elsewhere. Everybody is not a victim.

Rough ideas can be gained by checking the University's budget which is public information. Direct Basketball and Football revenue were budgeted at 4.9 m and 6.9 m respectively. Gifts were 4 mil, and other is 14m. On the expense side, direct Basketball and Football expenses are 6.2m and 11.2m respectively. Womens sports were 6.9 m and other men sports 3m. Other expense lines Operations of 2.4m, 5m in debt service, 17m in admin and general. How close to revenue neutral the revenue sports are is dependant on how much you figure the gifts, others revenue evaporates without those sports and how much of the expenses can be reduced without them.
In reality, you shouldn't expect that athletics be revenue neutral any more than your communication departments would be. OSU is one of the small handful that is revenue positive. The majority of even the P5 run negative budgets. Having a strong athletic department brings value to the University in more ways that are covered in the balance sheet. The marketing alone to out of state students is incredibly valuable to the university.

It's a lazy article that was written to come to the conclusion that the writer wanted. This is not to say that the University's fees shouldn't be scrutinized. UC is second highest in the state behind Miami.

I think the bolded is a great conclusion. I have no doubt UC is on the higher end of the spectrum. It's not ideal. It's a huge gamble as many have pointed out. Louisville did the same thing a decade ago and cashed in. We may not. Noone could ever know. If things shift in college athletics in a major way, it's going to be time to have some hard conversations about where we spend our money.

I do know it would be a lot easier on the budget to axe almost every sport UC sponsors except the revenue ones while having minimal impact on donations and marketing (obviously we can't do this because of Title IX, but hypothetically). I'd love to read the sensationalist article written after we did that one, especially after UC tried to save money by having teams play in Ursula's gym this past year.

The other game is to compare to other institutions which likely accounted the expenses and revenue differently enough to make a difference between highly negative and barely negative. Do you think the Linder College of Business is charged with the debt service on their new building? That change alone would make the revenue sports self-sufficient.
 
04-04-2018 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gerhard911 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 638
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Bearcats!
Location:
Post: #27
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 06:16 PM)grubs Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 05:26 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 02:54 PM)grubs Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 12:56 PM)jarr Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 12:31 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  Doesn't this same article come out once every year? Nothing new here. If you are in the Cartel 5, tv subsidizes the athletic dept, whether or not said dept earned the money. In the P6 or Other 5, you need to use other methods to subsidize.

There are 3 paths - more tv revenue, current structure remains in place or UC starts axing programs. Sounds like some want either fball or basketball to get the axe.

I have no idea, just speculating... but does anyone have any numbers on the overall indirect revenue the football and basketball programs bring to the university? In other words, lets say we whacked football and/or basketball, how would that effect the university as a whole? Does the enrollment go down? Do donations and gifts go down? Does interest in the university go down? How does this affect general student and alumni well being as related to the university?

Its probably easy to point to sports and say, well they aren't making revenue. But some times youbbn have step back and look at the entire picture to see what they are truly bringing to the table. What are the programs bringing in revenue, and which ones are not? Are students paying for these as well?

Ultimately, the student has a choice if they want to pay the tuition, if not they have other options, if its too high and doesn't make sense for them, then why not look elsewhere. Everybody is not a victim.

Rough ideas can be gained by checking the University's budget which is public information. Direct Basketball and Football revenue were budgeted at 4.9 m and 6.9 m respectively. Gifts were 4 mil, and other is 14m. On the expense side, direct Basketball and Football expenses are 6.2m and 11.2m respectively. Womens sports were 6.9 m and other men sports 3m. Other expense lines Operations of 2.4m, 5m in debt service, 17m in admin and general. How close to revenue neutral the revenue sports are is dependant on how much you figure the gifts, others revenue evaporates without those sports and how much of the expenses can be reduced without them.
In reality, you shouldn't expect that athletics be revenue neutral any more than your communication departments would be. OSU is one of the small handful that is revenue positive. The majority of even the P5 run negative budgets. Having a strong athletic department brings value to the University in more ways that are covered in the balance sheet. The marketing alone to out of state students is incredibly valuable to the university.

It's a lazy article that was written to come to the conclusion that the writer wanted. This is not to say that the University's fees shouldn't be scrutinized. UC is second highest in the state behind Miami.

I think the bolded is a great conclusion. I have no doubt UC is on the higher end of the spectrum. It's not ideal. It's a huge gamble as many have pointed out. Louisville did the same thing a decade ago and cashed in. We may not. Noone could ever know. If things shift in college athletics in a major way, it's going to be time to have some hard conversations about where we spend our money.

I do know it would be a lot easier on the budget to axe almost every sport UC sponsors except the revenue ones while having minimal impact on donations and marketing (obviously we can't do this because of Title IX, but hypothetically). I'd love to read the sensationalist article written after we did that one, especially after UC tried to save money by having teams play in Ursula's gym this past year.

The other game is to compare to other institutions which likely accounted the expenses and revenue differently enough to make a difference between highly negative and barely negative. Do you think the Linder College of Business is charged with the debt service on their new building? That change alone would make the revenue sports self-sufficient.

Wait, what? UC bent over for CarlIII & FCC and still has a large debt service on the new CHLjr CoB building?
 
04-04-2018 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Not Duane Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
A crappy FB program ends up being a lodestone around the AD's neck. UC FB does not have a lineage of success, thus they can't attract top-flite recruits, and the on-field results suffer. The task of competing against a cluster of P5 schools in our backyard makes the task of generating a title contender virtually impossible.

Had we ditched FB PRIOR to all the investment, we could have reduced the student fees, axed the equivalent # of title IX scholarships and programs, and run a leaner (and more profitable) AD.

The alumni wouldn't have it.

Dreams of National Championships clouded their judgement.

If the FB program were historically successful, then the model would have worked, but UC has no FB cred historically, while MBB has a lineage of success.

MBB is where the UC AD's bread is buttered--the bulk of the expense should have been aimed at that.

XU axed FB long ago and runs a leaner AD with one successful revenue sport. They get along just fine with a substantially smaller student body and a disproportionate share of success. It's a better model for them.

We're stuck waiting for a non-existant P5 invite and a giant stadium debt that needs to be offset somehow. That's why I hope FC Cincinnati STAYS in Nippert and we cut some kind of a deal with them.

We'll see.
 
04-04-2018 08:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Recluse1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,751
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation: 50
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #29
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
Quote:Imagine if we'd pumped $100M into the cancer hospital. I'd bet we'd be a lot closer to that Comprehensive Cancer Center designation than hoping some fairy tale Flutie Effect might happen.

Ah, bureaucratic thinking - > X amount of money + Y amount of physical resources = Z amount of progress.
Yeah, life never plays out the way you think it will. There are simply too many variables, but it's always better to have taken a chance and failed than sit in irrelevance by choice. I'd rather be a sore loser, than a good sport.
 
04-04-2018 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #30
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 08:00 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  XU axed FB long ago and runs a leaner AD with one successful revenue sport. They get along just fine with a substantially smaller student body and a disproportionate share of success. It's a better model for them.

My man, XU pays more than UC on a per student basis in fees to subsidize athletics when accounting the same way. And talk about lack of transparency. They aren’t required to disclose anything. At least any UC student could look at the multitude of sites that aggregate athletics data or even do a public records request and get answers. XU can tell their students to eff off.
 
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2018 11:15 PM by stxrunner.)
04-04-2018 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Not Duane Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 11:15 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:00 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  XU axed FB long ago and runs a leaner AD with one successful revenue sport. They get along just fine with a substantially smaller student body and a disproportionate share of success. It's a better model for them.

My man, XU pays more than UC on a per student basis in fees to subsidize athletics when accounting the same way. And talk about lack of transparency. They aren’t required to disclose anything. At least any UC student could look at the multitude of sites that aggregate athletics data or even do a public records request and get answers. XU can tell their students to eff off.

They have more success/$ spent by having dumped FB.
 
04-05-2018 07:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,228
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #32
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 05:11 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 11:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  http://www.newsrecord.org/news/soaring-s...06336.html

Thank goodness we have these 'journalists' to enlighten us about the toxic UC athletic department.

I'd be interested to see the math behind this deficit. How much of the $100m+ deficit is due to the surcharge imposed by the University? (Edit: They actually did include that! Bravo. Turns out $27m of this deficit is the scholarships we charged the AD). The AD is charged full tuition for each scholarship it gives. I think it would be far more relevant (but far less sensationalist) to see how much it actually costs to educate these student athletes. Perhaps that accounting student would like to retake Governmental & Non-Profit Accounting if he is interested in learning more.

That quote about athletes getting so much is gold as well. Yes, the biggest problem we have in college athletics today is those coddled athletes who get nice gear (which is paid for by our athletic sponsor UA BTW) and nice facilities (most of which are paid for with private donations specifically made to the department). Perhaps the students peers should be upset the university is spending so much money to build a new business college for him. After all, the whole university doesn't get to use it. What a waste!

To help the business students out: Complaining about the athletic department's deficit at all is akin to a company wondering why that darn R&D department does nothing but bleed the money dry. Complaining about the amount of the deficit with misleading math such as this is like a company making something for $10 and then charging a subsidiary $100 to use it, then having the employees get mad the sub is bleeding HQ dry.

I look forward to these 'journalists' future careers hosting Local 12 Investigates, where you can create the story AND mislead people at the same time.

Excellent post!
 
04-05-2018 07:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,228
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #33
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 11:15 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:00 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  XU axed FB long ago and runs a leaner AD with one successful revenue sport. They get along just fine with a substantially smaller student body and a disproportionate share of success. It's a better model for them.

My man, XU pays more than UC on a per student basis in fees to subsidize athletics when accounting the same way. And talk about lack of transparency. They aren’t required to disclose anything. At least any UC student could look at the multitude of sites that aggregate athletics data or even do a public records request and get answers. XU can tell their students to eff off.

Exactly right. One could argue they are not only subsidizing athletics for institutional visibility, but subsidizing undergraduate enrollment to compete with more selective private and public universities. Given the X endowment size, that's not sustainable and arguably not even fiscally responsible.

Consistent with that, when Louisville wanted Mack they weren't going to lose him over money regardless of any other school's bid. But I also believe any counteroffer Mack got from X was meager. And Steele probably saved X some money. From an athletic resource standpoint I think we now know what the ceiling looks like over in Norwood.
 
04-05-2018 07:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #34
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-05-2018 07:15 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 11:15 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:00 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  XU axed FB long ago and runs a leaner AD with one successful revenue sport. They get along just fine with a substantially smaller student body and a disproportionate share of success. It's a better model for them.

My man, XU pays more than UC on a per student basis in fees to subsidize athletics when accounting the same way. And talk about lack of transparency. They aren’t required to disclose anything. At least any UC student could look at the multitude of sites that aggregate athletics data or even do a public records request and get answers. XU can tell their students to eff off.

They have more success/$ spent by having dumped FB.

Whoa, where'd those goalposts go? So your issue is the money being spent or the level of success?

You really think UC could just dump money in the basketball program by cutting football? Heck naw. UC would and should be expected to scale back the AD budget significantly by cutting football, and significantly reduce the university's contributions to the AD considering the lack of benefit you are getting by axing football.

And by the way, if you are making financial decisions based on a couple rounds of advancement in an inherently fickle tournament (which is literally all you can say they have us on in basketball), you are doing it wrong.
 
04-05-2018 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Not Duane Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-05-2018 09:15 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-05-2018 07:15 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 11:15 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 08:00 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  XU axed FB long ago and runs a leaner AD with one successful revenue sport. They get along just fine with a substantially smaller student body and a disproportionate share of success. It's a better model for them.

My man, XU pays more than UC on a per student basis in fees to subsidize athletics when accounting the same way. And talk about lack of transparency. They aren’t required to disclose anything. At least any UC student could look at the multitude of sites that aggregate athletics data or even do a public records request and get answers. XU can tell their students to eff off.

They have more success/$ spent by having dumped FB.

Whoa, where'd those goalposts go? So your issue is the money being spent or the level of success?

You really think UC could just dump money in the basketball program by cutting football? Heck naw. UC would and should be expected to scale back the AD budget significantly by cutting football, and significantly reduce the university's contributions to the AD considering the lack of benefit you are getting by axing football.

And by the way, if you are making financial decisions based on a couple rounds of advancement in an inherently fickle tournament (which is literally all you can say they have us on in basketball), you are doing it wrong.

So.....Villanova and XU are "doing it wrong"? Should they go DI in FB and pour loads of $$ into a crappy FB program? Kind of like UConn?

I think they are putting their $$ where it will provide the greatest opportunity for exposure and success.

The measurement of success is advancement in the post-season and putting collegiate athletes in the pros consistently. There is no other yardstick for athletics. The fact that the MBB tourney is a field of 64 makes it theoretically possible to win the National Championship by gaining access to the field....but SUSTAINED success only comes from a consistent record of deep penetration.

Otherwise, why play the GD game at all? If you want to simply field a team and STINK....you can do that for very little $$$$. UC did it in FB for many years--I think we made the Penthouse 20 worst several times in the 70's and 80's....I don't remember high AD fees during those years.

Do I think ALL the $$ donated to shore up FB should go to MBB if cut? In a word...NO....just focus on doing one revenue sport as well as possible and get the bigger bang for the smaller $$$.
 
04-05-2018 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 12,066
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #36
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-04-2018 06:23 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 06:16 PM)grubs Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 05:26 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 02:54 PM)grubs Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 12:56 PM)jarr Wrote:  I have no idea, just speculating... but does anyone have any numbers on the overall indirect revenue the football and basketball programs bring to the university? In other words, lets say we whacked football and/or basketball, how would that effect the university as a whole? Does the enrollment go down? Do donations and gifts go down? Does interest in the university go down? How does this affect general student and alumni well being as related to the university?

Its probably easy to point to sports and say, well they aren't making revenue. But some times youbbn have step back and look at the entire picture to see what they are truly bringing to the table. What are the programs bringing in revenue, and which ones are not? Are students paying for these as well?

Ultimately, the student has a choice if they want to pay the tuition, if not they have other options, if its too high and doesn't make sense for them, then why not look elsewhere. Everybody is not a victim.

Rough ideas can be gained by checking the University's budget which is public information. Direct Basketball and Football revenue were budgeted at 4.9 m and 6.9 m respectively. Gifts were 4 mil, and other is 14m. On the expense side, direct Basketball and Football expenses are 6.2m and 11.2m respectively. Womens sports were 6.9 m and other men sports 3m. Other expense lines Operations of 2.4m, 5m in debt service, 17m in admin and general. How close to revenue neutral the revenue sports are is dependant on how much you figure the gifts, others revenue evaporates without those sports and how much of the expenses can be reduced without them.
In reality, you shouldn't expect that athletics be revenue neutral any more than your communication departments would be. OSU is one of the small handful that is revenue positive. The majority of even the P5 run negative budgets. Having a strong athletic department brings value to the University in more ways that are covered in the balance sheet. The marketing alone to out of state students is incredibly valuable to the university.

It's a lazy article that was written to come to the conclusion that the writer wanted. This is not to say that the University's fees shouldn't be scrutinized. UC is second highest in the state behind Miami.

I think the bolded is a great conclusion. I have no doubt UC is on the higher end of the spectrum. It's not ideal. It's a huge gamble as many have pointed out. Louisville did the same thing a decade ago and cashed in. We may not. Noone could ever know. If things shift in college athletics in a major way, it's going to be time to have some hard conversations about where we spend our money.

I do know it would be a lot easier on the budget to axe almost every sport UC sponsors except the revenue ones while having minimal impact on donations and marketing (obviously we can't do this because of Title IX, but hypothetically). I'd love to read the sensationalist article written after we did that one, especially after UC tried to save money by having teams play in Ursula's gym this past year.

The other game is to compare to other institutions which likely accounted the expenses and revenue differently enough to make a difference between highly negative and barely negative. Do you think the Linder College of Business is charged with the debt service on their new building? That change alone would make the revenue sports self-sufficient.

Wait, what? UC bent over for CarlIII & FCC and still has a large debt service on the new CHLjr CoB building?

It's a $120,000,000 facility...even if he gave $60,000,000, which is more than what Louise Nippert gave for CCM, we'd still have debt service on the project.
 
04-05-2018 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,228
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #37
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-05-2018 02:07 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 06:23 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 06:16 PM)grubs Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 05:26 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 02:54 PM)grubs Wrote:  Rough ideas can be gained by checking the University's budget which is public information. Direct Basketball and Football revenue were budgeted at 4.9 m and 6.9 m respectively. Gifts were 4 mil, and other is 14m. On the expense side, direct Basketball and Football expenses are 6.2m and 11.2m respectively. Womens sports were 6.9 m and other men sports 3m. Other expense lines Operations of 2.4m, 5m in debt service, 17m in admin and general. How close to revenue neutral the revenue sports are is dependant on how much you figure the gifts, others revenue evaporates without those sports and how much of the expenses can be reduced without them.
In reality, you shouldn't expect that athletics be revenue neutral any more than your communication departments would be. OSU is one of the small handful that is revenue positive. The majority of even the P5 run negative budgets. Having a strong athletic department brings value to the University in more ways that are covered in the balance sheet. The marketing alone to out of state students is incredibly valuable to the university.

It's a lazy article that was written to come to the conclusion that the writer wanted. This is not to say that the University's fees shouldn't be scrutinized. UC is second highest in the state behind Miami.

I think the bolded is a great conclusion. I have no doubt UC is on the higher end of the spectrum. It's not ideal. It's a huge gamble as many have pointed out. Louisville did the same thing a decade ago and cashed in. We may not. Noone could ever know. If things shift in college athletics in a major way, it's going to be time to have some hard conversations about where we spend our money.

I do know it would be a lot easier on the budget to axe almost every sport UC sponsors except the revenue ones while having minimal impact on donations and marketing (obviously we can't do this because of Title IX, but hypothetically). I'd love to read the sensationalist article written after we did that one, especially after UC tried to save money by having teams play in Ursula's gym this past year.

The other game is to compare to other institutions which likely accounted the expenses and revenue differently enough to make a difference between highly negative and barely negative. Do you think the Linder College of Business is charged with the debt service on their new building? That change alone would make the revenue sports self-sufficient.

Wait, what? UC bent over for CarlIII & FCC and still has a large debt service on the new CHLjr CoB building?

It's a $120,000,000 facility...even if he gave $60,000,000, which is more than what Louise Nippert gave for CCM, we'd still have debt service on the project.

Correct. There are naming standards for buildings established by each institution. It's extremely rare for one donor to totally underwrite the cost of capital construction, especially for public universities.

Make no mistake though, UC is "elite" in terms of public university philanthropy with a $1.17 billion endowment and the most recent capital campaign that exceeded $1 billion. Many big brand name P5 schools haven't hit either of those benchmarks.
 
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2018 02:18 PM by OKIcat.)
04-05-2018 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Recluse1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,751
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation: 50
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #38
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
Quote:So.....Villanova and XU ....


Aren't reasonable facsimiles to UC.
I'm sorry, but the fact is dollars aren't what made either of them successful.
If cash inherently meant success in college basketball, Texas would have more championships than you could count.
Look at the coaches they've hired, look who they've recruited and look how much money they threw down a hole in the process.
Same with SEC schools that've gone nowhere, same with lesser ACC schools that have gone nowhere.

We're not a dinky little catholic school with a 4 digit enrollment. When football was still successful, people came out to see it. None of us complained, it drew crowds and money on a level Xavier basketball never could. I liked when we were kicking ass at football, I'd like to see us again at that point. But for ****'s sake, we're 61 and 11 the past two years. We just finished in the top 10 in the polls, we're sending a kid to the NBA and you people are still prattling on about football. At a certain point, you entitled, deluded, goofs, are going to have to face the fact that back when football had basically no relevance, UC basketball was still going one and done/two and through during the tournament. What about those years? Were we bad when we had the number 1 draft pick/best player in college basketball? No. And we aren't bad now. We lost by a basket, in 2012 we won by a basket and went to the second weekend. You know what the difference between those two years was? Luck. Dumb luck.

If you want to make a change in staff, fine. But to pretend that spending on football and facilities has **** all to do with our success is so pedantic, so myopic a perspective; that it leads me to believe some of you don't know anything about college basketball at all.
 
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2018 02:25 PM by Recluse1.)
04-05-2018 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Not Duane Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #39
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-05-2018 02:23 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  
Quote:So.....Villanova and XU ....


Aren't reasonable facsimiles to UC.
I'm sorry, but the fact is dollars aren't what made either of them successful.
If cash inherently meant success in college basketball, Texas would have more championships than you could count.
Look at the coaches they've hired, look who they've recruited and look how much money they threw down a hole in the process.
Same with SEC schools that've gone nowhere, same with lesser ACC schools that have gone nowhere.

We're not a dinky little catholic school with a 4 digit enrollment. When football was still successful, people came out to see it. None of us complained, it drew crowds and money on a level Xavier basketball never could. I liked when we were kicking ass at football, I'd like to see us again at that point. But for ****'s sake, we're 61 and 11 the past two years. We just finished in the top 10 in the polls, we're sending a kid to the NBA and you people are still prattling on about football. At a certain point, you entitled, deluded, goofs, are going to have to face the fact that back when football had basically no relevance, UC basketball was still going one and done/two and through during the tournament. What about those years? Were we bad when we had the number 1 draft pick/best player in college basketball? No. And we aren't bad now. We lost by a basket, in 2012 we won by a basket and went to the second weekend. You know what the difference between those two years was? Luck. Dumb luck.

If you want to make a change in staff, fine. But to pretend that spending on football and facilities has **** all to do with our success is so pedantic, so myopic a perspective; that it leads me to believe some of you don't know anything about college basketball at all.

I see...so good coaches cost less money? A larger scouting staff costs less money? Playing in front of a larger crowd costs less money?

I had no idea.....
 
04-05-2018 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Recluse1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,751
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation: 50
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #40
RE: TNR: UC's Four Year Athletic Defecit $102M
(04-05-2018 03:17 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  [I see...so good coaches cost less money? A larger scouting staff costs less money? Playing in front of a larger crowd costs less money?

I had no idea.....


Good coaches, don't guarantee results. Larger staffs, don't guarantee results. Money, doesn't guarantee results.
If the inverse were true, there wouldn't be schools with smaller staffs, smaller budgets, less resources and smaller fan bases that do better than schools which have all those things. Not sure what you aren't getting about this. We may have hit a wall with regard to basketball, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's a way around it. You might have to entertain the unpleasant thought, that there is nothing we can do that will guarantee success beyond what we have now.
We may be at the mercy of circumstances we have no control over and changing the staff, doing away with football or any of the other things you want to put behind it, are no assurance of anything. Further more, WE AREN'T ******* BAD AT BASKETBALL TO BEGIN WITH!!!!
 
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2018 03:41 PM by Recluse1.)
04-05-2018 03:40 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.