Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Athletic Subsidies
Author Message
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 378
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 04:37 PM)Bogg Wrote:  This is a little disingenuous - UConn's the only public research university in the state, so if you're a student looking for certain qualities in a school and you don't have private school money they're the only game in town. At least with Cincinnati they're one of ten public research universities available to in-state students, so you actually do have options. I'm not one of those "tear down the nanny state!" firebrand conservatives, but at a certain point I do think it's fair to demand some accountability from the government and its institutions.

(04-09-2018 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UConn is a probably a better school than those schools, and might have superior academic resources, professors, etc. Or maybe it just has a major I prefer.

Why should I have to give that up to avoid paying a stupid athletic fee? That doesn't make sense.

I suppose my school preferences may be biasing my opinion on athletic fees.

I knew I wanted to go to a well-regarded research university that offered DI FBS athletics, was reasonably affordable and close to home. As long as it offered those things, I was willing to pay for athletics.

My top choices came down to UMass, UConn, Syracuse, and Rutgers. UConn didn't offer my major. The closest they offered to my discipline was Mechanical Engineering with a concentration in Manufacturing Management, something like that... and given my preference for the service sector it wasn't really a good fit. Rutgers and Syracuse were at least twice the price the price of UMass and all three programs were ranked about the same.

So I picked UMass and I really don't mind paying the athletics fee, because I knew that would be the case coming into the situation. Plus I think I got my money's worth out of it when looking at cost per game.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2018 05:49 PM by McKinney.)
04-09-2018 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,875
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 464
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #42
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 05:29 PM)McKinney Wrote:  So I picked UMass and I really don't mind paying the athletics fee

The athletics fee at UMass for the current school year is only $65.50 per semester. That's peanuts compared to the fees charged to students at some of the other schools mentioned in this thread.
04-09-2018 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,016
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 46
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 05:29 PM)McKinney Wrote:  So I picked UMass and I really don't mind paying the athletics fee

The athletics fee at UMass for the current school year is only $65.50 per semester. That's peanuts compared to the fees charged to students at some of the other schools mentioned in this thread.

Yea, there's a whole lot of grey area between doing away with athletic fees altogether and someone having to borrow something like an extra seven thousand dollars in student loans for the opportunity to purchase six football tickets a year.
04-09-2018 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
debragga Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 213
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 4
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 12:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 11:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 04:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 04:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Huh? High school kids don't pay a fee to fund the football or basketball teams. That funding comes from the school district. So the athletic fees at college are totally different.

Second, in high school, the regular students aren't paying fees to fund "scholarships" for the athletes. They aren't being asked to pay for their own tuition, PLUS pay a fee on top to help defray the cost of an athlete's tuition. Think about how dumb and unfair that is.

If college students are paying a fee to fund intramural athletics on campus, that is appropriate, as it provides a recreational benefit every student can participate in if they want to. Of course, those fees are nothing compared to the fees charged to fund the school's intercollegiate sports teams.

What do you mean. huh? High school students dont pay a fee period. They do pay taxes that support both the academic and athletic parts of the school district. Furthermore, those that attend private schools pay for the athletic programs as part of their tuition (as well as taxes to support a public school district they dont attend at all---talk about unfair). Bottom line---The cost of maintaining and running a modern primary public school district includes a cost for athletics. That money is not going to academics---which I assume is your argument at the university level. As far as college goes---If mandatory, the athletic fees are simply part of the cost of attendance---no different than building use fees.

My point is---we accept athletic spending that is not self supporting at the local school district level. Not sure why there should be an expectation that programs that are not self sustaining at the HS level will be at the college level.

-------------------

The reality is----if this issue is a priority with the student---the decision to attend a school with low or no athletic fee is completely and totally within their control.

First, there's a huge quantitative difference between HS students, whose "fees" for athletics takes the form of the taxes their parents pay, and the taxes everyone else in the school district pays even if they have no kids in school, and the specific tacked-on fees that we are talking about for G5 and FCS schools. The former are tiny and diffuse, probably pennies per student per year, the latter, significant.

E.g., in my district here in Baton Rouge, I pay about $150 a year in property taxes that go to fund public schools. That's for funding the entirety of the public school system, all aspects of it. The fraction of this that goes to buy uniforms for football players is probably a dollar or two at most. Contrast that with the hundreds of dollars a semester students at some colleges pay.

Second, there's a major qualitative difference as well. At colleges, regular students are soaked to actually fund the attendance of the athletes. E.g., at UConn, a student pays for their own tuition and books, and then is socked with a fee to help pay for an athlete's tuition and books. So regular students are incurring extra costs and debt to pay for free rides for other students. That doesn't happen in middle school.

Third, the "choice" argument is disingenuous, because it forces a student to make choices they shouldn't have to. A Houston or USF student who thinks their business or engineering program is the best fit for them shouldn't have to choose between that and paying an athletic fee, because athletics isn't a proper part of the mission of a university. It's a false-choice situation. Bad.

As for the comments about "self-sustaining": This is a damning indictment. At public grade and high schools, athletics is touted as fun, recreation activity for students, part of the Platonic ideal of developing mind and body. At colleges, intercollegiate athletics is supposed to BRING IN money. It's touted as an investment that pays off in marketing and other benefits for the university. Truth is, of course, at 90% of all FCS and FBS schools, it obviously costs way more than it brings in, which is why fees are needed. The claims about "front porch" and the like don't pan out, if they did, no fees would be needed.

I am happy to find out that USF's athletic fee is relatively low compared to some other G5 schools, but until it is down to zero, it's a bad thing.

Gotta say---I'd be absolutely shocked if your able to run a local school district on $150 per household. I know my school property taxes are right around $2K and that doesnt include the big chunk of funding that the district gets from the state (about 40% of the budget comes from state sales taxes if I remember correctly). I suspect the tax bite to run your school district is bigger than you think--as is the pro-rata cost of athletics and non-academic functions at the municipal school district level. In terms of size, collegiate athletic budgets are about 2-3% of total spending and about half of those budgets are self funding---so really, only about 1-1.5% is actually being "spent" by the typical G5 university If I remember correctly, my area's school district spends about 2% on athletics---so very similar numbers.

FWIW, my state income tax and local property taxes are about $1,500 total. There is sales tax as well, so maybe I spend about $10 a day on that, that's maybe $1,900 in overall state and local taxes combined per year, and that's to fund everything that state and local government spends on. So no way am I paying anywhere near $2k for public school alone.

Your area spends 2% on athletics? That seems strange. E.g., I just looked up New York City. Their public school budget is approximately $24 Billion per year, spending on athletics is about $27 million per year, or about 1/8 of one percent of spending.

Now athletics can cost more than that, so how is it paid for? Often, USER FEES.

In many places, if a kid wants to play high school football, it might cost $400 in registration and insurance and equipment fees to do so. BUT, who pays that? The KID does, the athlete does. He or his parents have to come up with that money, other kids and their parents - nor the general taxpayer - do not.

So while yes, high school athletics can be costly, those costs are overwhelmingly borne not by the school district, but by the athlete himself. Other students aren't socked a fee to pay those costs for the athlete, they have to pay it themselves. You don't play, you don't pay.

Contrast that with Houston, USF, or UConn, where *other students* are drained of fees to pay for the athlete's uniform, insurance, AND, not just their athletic costs, but their regular student costs like books and tuition!

Huge difference there.

That depends on where you are, in my experience (Texas) athletes/parents pay no fees. Also many school districts pass bonds for new facilities, which are paid off by, you guessed it, the taxpayers.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2018 06:40 PM by debragga.)
04-09-2018 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHG722 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,192
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 143
I Root For: Temple
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post: #45
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-08-2018 05:42 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ECU will be fine. The school has never had to tax the heck out of its students or the locals to have a football program. The attendance/support is great and not artificial. The locals come to the games in CUSA, AAC etc. whatever circumstances. The schools that will struggle are the ones where there’s never been a sustained local interest in college football:
What athletics cost each student in 2017:
1. UConn $1,784 per student
2. Cincinnati $1,238
3. Wichita St $561
4. Houston $508
Temple’s numbers aren’t listed; I’m assuming they’d be top 3.
ECU: $160
USF: $132- attendance issues and $ for a stadium are issues that loom large though
UCF: $109- in pretty good shape

We are the least subsidized state school athletics program outside of the P5, and at 29,800 undergrads, I highly doubt we're anywhere near the top 3.

Might want to look at USF and UH, because their subsidies are particularly large.
04-09-2018 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,586
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 443
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #46
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-08-2018 11:37 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  
(04-08-2018 11:15 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  http://www.newsrecord.org/news/soaring-s...06336.html

Cincinnati's student newspaper provided some excellent research into the AAC's athletic subsidies from the student body at each school. Between 2014 and 2017, Cincinnati's athletic department’s deficit totaled almost $102 million — a 33 percent increase over the prior four years.

As high as each student's athletic subsidy was at Cincinnati ($1,238), UConn's was the highest ($1,784). UCF and USF had some of the lowest in the AAC (only a little bit over $100). For UC, it is estimated that athletic fees are rising 13 percent faster than the growth of tuition.

For the OBE programs in UC and UConn, it is pivotal, absolutely pivotal, that the next AAC contract is much more lucrative than the paltry $1.7 million it currently gets from ESPN - especially with the war chest drying up from the Big East severance ending. The rate of these school's athletic subsidy spending in order to play catch up is not only not sustainable, but it is arguably irresponsible to continue spending this amount on athletics while footing the bill to the students. It is very wrong to force even more debt to college students for the potential of "big time" college athletics.

It would be interesting to see if students had the option of paying for these athletic fees, what the percentage would be if they opted into paying them.

No one is forced to attend UC or any AAC school. So the fees are optional for all AAC students and they are opting in at a rate of 100%.

These are PUBLIC schools, supported by the taxpayers. Nope. Try again. Now if the taxpayers want to duplicate all of the programs provided by UC and UConn without an athletic program, then you'd have an argument there.
04-09-2018 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,095
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 369
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #47
RE: Athletic Subsidies
In all of the research I have done regarding the reporting of athletic revenues, all I can conclude is that you can't believe any of them. Every school has some agenda that works its way into how they report their data.

When it comes to athletic fees/subsidies, it's a shell game for most conferences. If a school is running a deficit they have to subsidize (and the majority of schools are), it really doen't matter to the student if his school calls the money he pays to subsidize athletics an "athletics fee" or "tuition". It's still the same amount of money out of his pocket.

For smaller schools at the lower end of the (reported) revenue spectrum who are playing D-I football, those subsidies can amount to as much as $6-10K per student every year. Is that really worth it?
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2018 09:25 PM by ken d.)
04-09-2018 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 378
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Athletic Subsidies
What about the subsidies needed for the service academies? Those are the most concerning in my opinion because they don't come out of the pocket of, for all intents and purposes, "willing" students but rather directly out of the pocket of taxpayers.

I say this as a big fan of Army football, a brother of a cadet, and a member of family with many active servicemembers and veterans across every branch of the military - including five grads from the Military, Naval, and Coast Guard Academies and an OCS Air Force officer. Despite that bias I have to acknowledge that the service academies are a boondoggle. At $300k+ per officer they cost four times as much per officer compared to ROTC and OCS (ROTC and OCS produce 80% of officers and to the same quality). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...53ba2a7eaf

Surely sponsoring Division I FBS programs at three of the academies is a part of this cost. Especially when you consider since they're all G5 programs, they probably aren't making that much money (even though Army and Navy are some of the most storied football programs). Not to mention as members of the Patriot League, Army and Navy certainly aren't making any money in basketball. Air Force might be a bit better off as a member of Mountain West.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2018 10:33 PM by McKinney.)
04-09-2018 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,016
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 46
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 09:47 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What about the subsidies needed for the service academies? Those are the most concerning in my opinion because they don't come out of the pocket of, for all intents and purposes, "willing" students but rather directly out of the pocket of taxpayers.

I say this as a big fan of Army football, a brother of a cadet, and a member of family with many active servicemembers and veterans across every branch of the military - including five grads from the Military, Naval, and Coast Guard Academies and an OCS Air Force officer. Despite that bias I have to acknowledge that the service academies are a boondoggle. At $300k+ per officer they cost four times as much per officer compared to ROTC and OCS. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...53ba2a7eaf

Surely sponsoring Division I FBS programs at three of the academies is a part of this cost. Especially when you consider since they're all G5 programs, they probably aren't making that much money (even though Army and Navy are some of the most storied football programs). Not to mention as members of the Patriot League, Army and Navy certainly aren't making any money in basketball. Air Force might be a bit better off as a member of Mountain West.

They're federal institutions, supported by the federal government. Spread out among the entire population of the United States, the sum total subsidy going to all three academies' football programs probably comes out to fractions of a cent per person. Non-factor.
04-09-2018 10:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 378
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 10:02 PM)Bogg Wrote:  They're federal institutions, supported by the federal government. Spread out among the entire population of the United States, the sum total subsidy going to all three academies' football programs probably comes out to fractions of a cent per person. Non-factor.

So is the problem the cost per person, or the concept of a non-self-sufficient (dependent?) athletics program?

And if the problem is the cost per person, in the case of public schools why not just bill the athletics subsidies to the state government? (or at least across a university system) 07-coffee3

Oh also, I don't know about the cost of the athletic subsidies, but the total cost of the service academies would roughly come out to $65 per household.

($411,102 per cadet ($300k 2003 dollars in 2018 dollars)*4000 cadets per academy*5 academies)/126.22 million households = $65.14
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2018 10:32 PM by McKinney.)
04-09-2018 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,016
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 46
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 10:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  So is the problem the cost per person, or the concept of a non-self-sufficient (dependent?) athletics program?

The problem is new graduates leaving college with thousands of dollars in additional student loans attributable directly to the athletic department needing to keep up with the Joneses. I absolutely get the idea that certain people would prefer to have (including interest over the life of a loan) something like 10k extra in their pocket at the end of the day for a down payment on a home versus building a new strength and conditioning center for the football program. Like all things, there's an upper bound on what you're willing to put your money towards before you start questioning the bill.

(04-09-2018 10:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  And if the problem is the cost per person, in the case of public schools why not just bill the athletics subsidies to the state government? (or at least across a university system) 07-coffee3

This is already also a thing - I believe it's grouped under "institutional subsidy" or some such and is usually counted separately from athletics-specific fees.

(04-09-2018 10:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  Oh also, I don't know about the cost of the athletic subsidies, but the total cost of the service academies would roughly come out to $65 per household.

($411,102 per cadet ($300k 2003 dollars in 2018 dollars)*4000 cadets per academy*5 academies)/126.22 million households = $65.14

Yes, a standing military is very expensive. Don't do the math on what you'll wind up paying on their latest family of jets if you want to sleep well.
04-09-2018 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,586
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 443
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #52
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 05:29 PM)McKinney Wrote:  So I picked UMass and I really don't mind paying the athletics fee

The athletics fee at UMass for the current school year is only $65.50 per semester. That's peanuts compared to the fees charged to students at some of the other schools mentioned in this thread.

How does UMass make up the other 30 million a year of deficit in their athletic budget? Does it come from the taxpayers or is it baked into other required tuition and fee charges.
04-09-2018 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,477
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 654
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Athletic Subsidies
Here's the thing.

We totally screwed the pooch in funding higher education.

Politicians who didn't like that some nut wad professor would go on TV or radio or get interviewed by the newspaper and say something they didn't like wanted to improve the quality of higher education or maybe their motivation was to help kids attend private colleges or wanted to address the rising costs of education or whatever came up with an idea.

College education could be improved by competition rather than oversight.

So we began a transition in how we funded colleges. Instead of government funding two-thirds or more of the cost of a college education by directly funding state schools, they would move that money into the hand of the consumer, the student.

The student and the student's parents quit paying mostly out-of-pocket at the time of enrollment each semester and began relying on grants, broad scholarships (lottery funded in many states) and loans.

Schools needing to replace the flat or declining direct support needed to attract students. To attract students schools began replacing two to a room, bathroom and shower down the hall, dorms with apartment like dorms. They started building student unions with food courts, built big rec centers, etc., etc., and had to raise prices to fund those student attractive features.

Athletics became one of those amenities and a well liked amenity because alums liked it. We saw a new phenomena. Instead of a school being a Division II football or basketball power and then moving to Division and FCS or an FCS power moving to FBS, we started seeing schools with with no particularly notable success choosing to move because most schools their size had moved up or because they were in a large metro.

If we had stayed with a funding system where schools were relying primarily on direct funding and prices were paid out-of-pocket immediately by price sensitive consumers there would be fewer Division I schools now.
04-10-2018 12:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 162
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 07:09 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Institutions which aren't self sufficient should scale back spending or drop to a more reasonable division instead of spending millions of dollars of student money to lose in the first round of the NCAA tournament or play in the Frisco Bowl in a good year.

So Kanasas State long ago should have scaled back their athletic spending or joined a more financially compatible conference or division?

Uh...yes?

Institutions of higher learning ought not to try to chase their false dreams on the back of the student.
04-10-2018 05:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,095
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 369
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #55
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 09:47 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What about the subsidies needed for the service academies? Those are the most concerning in my opinion because they don't come out of the pocket of, for all intents and purposes, "willing" students but rather directly out of the pocket of taxpayers.

I say this as a big fan of Army football, a brother of a cadet, and a member of family with many active servicemembers and veterans across every branch of the military - including five grads from the Military, Naval, and Coast Guard Academies and an OCS Air Force officer. Despite that bias I have to acknowledge that the service academies are a boondoggle. At $300k+ per officer they cost four times as much per officer compared to ROTC and OCS (ROTC and OCS produce 80% of officers and to the same quality). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...53ba2a7eaf

Surely sponsoring Division I FBS programs at three of the academies is a part of this cost. Especially when you consider since they're all G5 programs, they probably aren't making that much money (even though Army and Navy are some of the most storied football programs). Not to mention as members of the Patriot League, Army and Navy certainly aren't making any money in basketball. Air Force might be a bit better off as a member of Mountain West.

There is, IMO, a huge difference between subsidizing athletics at our service academies and doing so at civilian institutions. The service academies don't use sports to entice students to enrol. They aren't doing it to keep up with the Joneses.

Sports at the service academies are an integral part of the training of future combat leaders. Lessons about teamwork and learning to persevere in the face of adversity aren't just platitudes here. Physical conditioning of all academy students is essential to every future Lieutenant or Ensign.

And, frankly, I doubt you will find many private lounges for athletes at the academies. Or plush dorm rooms, private bowling alleys or all of the excesses we see at "high resource" universities. The subsidies the service academies provide are all ones I can live with - in fact, we can't live without them.
04-10-2018 07:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,477
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 654
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 05:01 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 07:09 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Institutions which aren't self sufficient should scale back spending or drop to a more reasonable division instead of spending millions of dollars of student money to lose in the first round of the NCAA tournament or play in the Frisco Bowl in a good year.

So Kanasas State long ago should have scaled back their athletic spending or joined a more financially compatible conference or division?

Uh...yes?

Institutions of higher learning ought not to try to chase their false dreams on the back of the student.

Except they got to the point of self-sufficiency after 122 years.
04-10-2018 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,832
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 133
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #57
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 10:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 06:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2018 05:29 PM)McKinney Wrote:  So I picked UMass and I really don't mind paying the athletics fee

The athletics fee at UMass for the current school year is only $65.50 per semester. That's peanuts compared to the fees charged to students at some of the other schools mentioned in this thread.

How does UMass make up the other 30 million a year of deficit in their athletic budget? Does it come from the taxpayers or is it baked into other required tuition and fee charges.

It's complicate and do not know exactly, but it does come from the tax payers, who pay less than 50% of the cost to support higher education. Under $10 per tax payer. It'll take a while to show up but winning helps. The hockey program made the first round of Hockey East playoffs and had over 15k in attendance for the 3 games. UMass is doing some things with parking. Three years ago it was free. Last year lot 11 was free to season ticket holders. Now there is a $50 donation to the General Athletic Fund and lot 22 is free to STH.
04-10-2018 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,095
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 369
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #58
RE: Athletic Subsidies
An interesting example of heavy subsidies is Presbyterian College. They spend almost $15K per student on athletics, and average a little over 2K attendance in football and 510 in basketball. Other than body bag revenue, they can't be pulling in big dollars.

Nearly 1 in every 4 male undergraduate students is on the football team. I don't know if they award athletic scholarships, but if they do they would be costly, as tuition is over $45K per year.

I guess if you can afford tuition like that, you aren't too worried about how much subsidy is included in that number.

The question is, why are they in D-I?
04-10-2018 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 378
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  There is, IMO, a huge difference between subsidizing athletics at our service academies and doing so at civilian institutions. The service academies don't use sports to entice students to enrol. They aren't doing it to keep up with the Joneses.

Arguable. The Army-Navy football rivalry is a big part of the culture, but you can be sure there aren't any cadets/midshipmen attend because they want to be forced to watch the triple option a couple dozen times.

(04-10-2018 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  Sports at the service academies are an integral part of the training of future combat leaders. Lessons about teamwork and learning to persevere in the face of adversity aren't just platitudes here. Physical conditioning of all academy students is essential to every future Lieutenant or Ensign.

There is a higher percentage of DI athletes than most DI schools (simply because of their small enrollment). However, the vast majority of cadets are obviously not DI athletes and their physical conditioning is not centered around DI athletics.

(04-10-2018 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  And, frankly, I doubt you will find many private lounges for athletes at the academies. Or plush dorm rooms, private bowling alleys or all of the excesses we see at "high resource" universities.

They're not plush (well at least by civilian standards), but you could make the argument that they are keeping up with the Joneses. At West Point there are new barracks, the new library, a new sciences complex is being constructed, and there's the renovation of the Arvin gym that can simulate all kinds of climates seen in combat. For football there are conditioning facilities and the indoor practice facility that have been built in the past ten years.

The athletics facilities aren't anything like a recruit would see at Bama or whatever but they're also not straight out of the 1920s.

(04-10-2018 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  The subsidies the service academies provide are all ones I can live with - in fact, we can't live without them.

I still think the service academies play an important role, but if they shut down tomorrow I don't think there'd be much of a difference. The vast majority of officers no longer come from the service academies, the service academies cost four times as much per officer as ROTC and OCS, and it has not been demonstrated that officers from the service academies are in better standing.

Obviously I still think they have a role, if only for public relations and historical purposes... but in fact, we could live without them.
04-10-2018 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,875
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 464
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #60
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-09-2018 09:47 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What about the subsidies needed for the service academies?

The academies have gone to great lengths to keep that information private, even getting Congress to pass legislation allowing them to do so. There was a good article about that in USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...820114001/

Essentially, the academies got laws passed that allow them to reveal only as much information about athletic department finances as they want to reveal, much less than private universities with NCAA athletics have to reveal.
04-10-2018 10:27 AM
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.