Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Athletic Subsidies
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,827
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 667
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #81
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 05:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 02:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 12:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 11:31 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't think that universities should have athletic programs which exist on the backs of their students, but that is just me.

If they disclose those fees to incoming and current students and their parents, then those who attend can't ***** too much, even if someone like me finds the idea repugnant.

All athletic departments existed on the back of the students until the last couple decades.

You keep saying this, but where's the evidence for it?

What kind of athletic fees did Notre Dame charge its students in 1980?

I'm curious. 07-coffee3

Get you a pay subscription to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to hit their archives and read the articles about Hogs being one of five I-A to be in the black which proved a lie when the state started to crack down on funding in 1989.

What was the lie - that the Hogs were in the black, or that they were one of only 5?

In the black. When the state wanted to crack down on AState and UALR for getting too uppity about their athletics (UALR had beaten Notre Dame and lost in triple OT to NCST in the Dance and made "UALR, Arkansas' NCAA Team" bumper stickers and AState had become a top I-AA and took UA to OT in the NIT) the state legislature was going to ban athletic expenditures that weren't privately funded and had to amend it to keep UA from having to cut their budget.

Net result, AState goes I-A to get under the expenditure cap and the NAIA state schools moved Division II and several jucos dropped athletics.
04-10-2018 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,014
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #82
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  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?

You answered your own question. 1 in 4 male undergraduates is there because of football.
04-10-2018 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,521
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 407
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #83
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 09:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-10-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  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?

You answered your own question. 1 in 4 male undergraduates is there because of football.

That wasn't my question.
04-11-2018 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,521
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 407
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #84
RE: Athletic Subsidies
What I would love to see is a list of schools that shows how much revenue they generate on their own, without being subsidized through higher tuition or student fees. The Equity in Athletics data is nice, but it is designed to keep schools from having to show how profitable or costly they really are. For most schools reporting, the revenue numbers are highly suspect, and the expenses are as well. It would be great if all athletic porograms had to account for costs and revenues the same way, and had to be transparent in reporting those figures.
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2018 05:25 PM by ken d.)
04-11-2018 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,827
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 667
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #85
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-11-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  What I would love to see is a list of schools that shows how much revenue they generate on their own, without being subsidized through higher tuition or student fees. The Equity in Athletics data is nice, but it is designed to keep schools from having to show how profitable or costly they really are. For most schools reporting, the revenue numbers are highly suspect, and the expenses are as well. It would be great if all athletic porograms had to account for costs and revenues the same way, and had to be transparent in reporting those fifures.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be consistency in reporting.

There isn't even consistency in how you deal with student trainers in the budget. Per diem for travel is sometimes recorded as travel and sometimes reported as a student benefit.

If you are lucky schools in the same state will be consistent with each other but that's about as far as standardization goes.
04-11-2018 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,204
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 491
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #86
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-10-2018 09:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

Presbyterian has been an FCS scholarship program, but after 2017 they started transitioning to non-scholarship football, and their football team will join the Pioneer League (a football-only FCS non-scholarship conference) in 2020, after all of their football players on scholarship have left school.

http://www.wspa.com/sports/college-sport...1008993529
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2018 04:55 PM by Wedge.)
04-11-2018 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,521
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 407
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #87
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-11-2018 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  What I would love to see is a list of schools that shows how much revenue they generate on their own, without being subsidized through higher tuition or student fees. The Equity in Athletics data is nice, but it is designed to keep schools from having to show how profitable or costly they really are. For most schools reporting, the revenue numbers are highly suspect, and the expenses are as well. It would be great if all athletic porograms had to account for costs and revenues the same way, and had to be transparent in reporting those fifures.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be consistency in reporting.

There isn't even consistency in how you deal with student trainers in the budget. Per diem for travel is sometimes recorded as travel and sometimes reported as a student benefit.

If you are lucky schools in the same state will be consistent with each other but that's about as far as standardization goes.

Some of the reported data I came across in examing the financial condition of all D-I schools seemed so out of line as to be startling. UConn, for example, reported some $8 million a year revenue from women's basketball. While that sounded high, their ability to get TV coverage due to their dominance of their sport at least seemed plausible.

To get a comparison to see how plausible, I looked at Stanford's report. I was amazed that they report that they have 1,001 students participating in sports. But I was stunned to see that they report revenue from WBB at $21 million! How is that possible? For MBB they report about $7 million.

But stunned wasn't the word I would use to describe the most interesting part of UConn's report. I couldn't find them listed with the AAC schools, because they were shown as being in the Big East. I could only guess whether that's because whoever put the report together didn't know they had left the BE or because they have inside info that UConn is moving to the BE. 07-coffee3
04-12-2018 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,797
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 355
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #88
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-12-2018 01:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  What I would love to see is a list of schools that shows how much revenue they generate on their own, without being subsidized through higher tuition or student fees. The Equity in Athletics data is nice, but it is designed to keep schools from having to show how profitable or costly they really are. For most schools reporting, the revenue numbers are highly suspect, and the expenses are as well. It would be great if all athletic porograms had to account for costs and revenues the same way, and had to be transparent in reporting those fifures.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be consistency in reporting.

There isn't even consistency in how you deal with student trainers in the budget. Per diem for travel is sometimes recorded as travel and sometimes reported as a student benefit.

If you are lucky schools in the same state will be consistent with each other but that's about as far as standardization goes.

Some of the reported data I came across in examing the financial condition of all D-I schools seemed so out of line as to be startling. UConn, for example, reported some $8 million a year revenue from women's basketball. While that sounded high, their ability to get TV coverage due to their dominance of their sport at least seemed plausible.

To get a comparison to see how plausible, I looked at Stanford's report. I was amazed that they report that they have 1,001 students participating in sports. But I was stunned to see that they report revenue from WBB at $21 million! How is that possible? For MBB they report about $7 million.

But stunned wasn't the word I would use to describe the most interesting part of UConn's report. I couldn't find them listed with the AAC schools, because they were shown as being in the Big East. I could only guess whether that's because whoever put the report together didn't know they had left the BE or because they have inside info that UConn is moving to the BE. 07-coffee3

Hmmmm..what was the date on Uconns report saying BE?
04-12-2018 02:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,521
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 407
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #89
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-12-2018 02:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  What I would love to see is a list of schools that shows how much revenue they generate on their own, without being subsidized through higher tuition or student fees. The Equity in Athletics data is nice, but it is designed to keep schools from having to show how profitable or costly they really are. For most schools reporting, the revenue numbers are highly suspect, and the expenses are as well. It would be great if all athletic porograms had to account for costs and revenues the same way, and had to be transparent in reporting those fifures.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be consistency in reporting.

There isn't even consistency in how you deal with student trainers in the budget. Per diem for travel is sometimes recorded as travel and sometimes reported as a student benefit.

If you are lucky schools in the same state will be consistent with each other but that's about as far as standardization goes.

Some of the reported data I came across in examing the financial condition of all D-I schools seemed so out of line as to be startling. UConn, for example, reported some $8 million a year revenue from women's basketball. While that sounded high, their ability to get TV coverage due to their dominance of their sport at least seemed plausible.

To get a comparison to see how plausible, I looked at Stanford's report. I was amazed that they report that they have 1,001 students participating in sports. But I was stunned to see that they report revenue from WBB at $21 million! How is that possible? For MBB they report about $7 million.

But stunned wasn't the word I would use to describe the most interesting part of UConn's report. I couldn't find them listed with the AAC schools, because they were shown as being in the Big East. I could only guess whether that's because whoever put the report together didn't know they had left the BE or because they have inside info that UConn is moving to the BE. 07-coffee3

Hmmmm..what was the date on Uconns report saying BE?

There doesn't appear to be a specific date associated with these reports. They are updated annually. The specific report I cited did mention that the football expense figures for the current reporting period included some $4 million severance pay as a result of terminating their coach in January of 2017, so I'm assuming it's for the most recent year - that is, the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2018 10:32 AM by ken d.)
04-12-2018 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,797
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 355
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #90
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-12-2018 02:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  What I would love to see is a list of schools that shows how much revenue they generate on their own, without being subsidized through higher tuition or student fees. The Equity in Athletics data is nice, but it is designed to keep schools from having to show how profitable or costly they really are. For most schools reporting, the revenue numbers are highly suspect, and the expenses are as well. It would be great if all athletic porograms had to account for costs and revenues the same way, and had to be transparent in reporting those fifures.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be consistency in reporting.

There isn't even consistency in how you deal with student trainers in the budget. Per diem for travel is sometimes recorded as travel and sometimes reported as a student benefit.

If you are lucky schools in the same state will be consistent with each other but that's about as far as standardization goes.

Some of the reported data I came across in examing the financial condition of all D-I schools seemed so out of line as to be startling. UConn, for example, reported some $8 million a year revenue from women's basketball. While that sounded high, their ability to get TV coverage due to their dominance of their sport at least seemed plausible.

To get a comparison to see how plausible, I looked at Stanford's report. I was amazed that they report that they have 1,001 students participating in sports. But I was stunned to see that they report revenue from WBB at $21 million! How is that possible? For MBB they report about $7 million.

But stunned wasn't the word I would use to describe the most interesting part of UConn's report. I couldn't find them listed with the AAC schools, because they were shown as being in the Big East. I could only guess whether that's because whoever put the report together didn't know they had left the BE or because they have inside info that UConn is moving to the BE. 07-coffee3

Hmmmm..what was the date on Uconns report saying BE?

There doesn't appear to be a specific date associated with these reports. They are updated annually. The specific report I cited did mention that the football expense figures for the current reporting period included some $4 million severance pay as a result of terminating their coach in January of 2017, so I'm assuming it's for the most recent year - that is, the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

I'm assuming the Big East reference was an error made by people at UCONN who simply don't follow sports like we do. We sports heads represent about 15% of the country. I have 3 brothers, all college grads and one an athlete (Iowa, Oklahoma, New Mexico) and only one of them knows what I'm referring to when I say "Cartel 5" or "Access 5". And these are all typical American sports fans. Most people I meet at happy hour bars watching games don't even know this stuff. So it wouldn't be surprising to me at all if a non-sports fanatic at UCONN didn't know that UCONN was in the big east or AAC...(probably doesnt know what the AAC is)
04-13-2018 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,521
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 407
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #91
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-13-2018 12:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-11-2018 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for there to be consistency in reporting.

There isn't even consistency in how you deal with student trainers in the budget. Per diem for travel is sometimes recorded as travel and sometimes reported as a student benefit.

If you are lucky schools in the same state will be consistent with each other but that's about as far as standardization goes.

Some of the reported data I came across in examing the financial condition of all D-I schools seemed so out of line as to be startling. UConn, for example, reported some $8 million a year revenue from women's basketball. While that sounded high, their ability to get TV coverage due to their dominance of their sport at least seemed plausible.

To get a comparison to see how plausible, I looked at Stanford's report. I was amazed that they report that they have 1,001 students participating in sports. But I was stunned to see that they report revenue from WBB at $21 million! How is that possible? For MBB they report about $7 million.

But stunned wasn't the word I would use to describe the most interesting part of UConn's report. I couldn't find them listed with the AAC schools, because they were shown as being in the Big East. I could only guess whether that's because whoever put the report together didn't know they had left the BE or because they have inside info that UConn is moving to the BE. 07-coffee3

Hmmmm..what was the date on Uconns report saying BE?

There doesn't appear to be a specific date associated with these reports. They are updated annually. The specific report I cited did mention that the football expense figures for the current reporting period included some $4 million severance pay as a result of terminating their coach in January of 2017, so I'm assuming it's for the most recent year - that is, the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

I'm assuming the Big East reference was an error made by people at UCONN who simply don't follow sports like we do. We sports heads represent about 15% of the country. I have 3 brothers, all college grads and one an athlete (Iowa, Oklahoma, New Mexico) and only one of them knows what I'm referring to when I say "Cartel 5" or "Access 5". And these are all typical American sports fans. Most people I meet at happy hour bars watching games don't even know this stuff. So it wouldn't be surprising to me at all if a non-sports fanatic at UCONN didn't know that UCONN was in the big east or AAC...(probably doesnt know what the AAC is)

I think it's more likely that some numbers nerd at EADA didn't catch it if they were just entering data on a spreadsheet that at one time had UConn in the Big East. FWIW, when you look at the SEC listings, it shows Concordia College of Selma, AL as a member. Apparently, the pressure of big time football got to Concordia, because they announced this spring that they weren't just dropping down in sports, they were closing the entire school due to poor enrollment (below 300 students).
04-13-2018 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,521
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 407
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #92
RE: Athletic Subsidies
If my faith in the usefulness of EADA data was weak before, one thing I noticed in digging deeper into the numbers was that entire conferences were apparently consistent in having their members claim revenues from Women's basketball to be exactly equal to that sport's costs. Both the AAC and the Big East seem to follow this reporting strategy. I stopped looking after I noticed this, so other conferences could be doing the same thing, for some reason.

A lot of these numbers seem to be purely arbitrary, and therefore pretty useless.
04-13-2018 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,797
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 355
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #93
RE: Athletic Subsidies
(04-13-2018 12:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-13-2018 12:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 02:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-12-2018 01:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  Some of the reported data I came across in examing the financial condition of all D-I schools seemed so out of line as to be startling. UConn, for example, reported some $8 million a year revenue from women's basketball. While that sounded high, their ability to get TV coverage due to their dominance of their sport at least seemed plausible.

To get a comparison to see how plausible, I looked at Stanford's report. I was amazed that they report that they have 1,001 students participating in sports. But I was stunned to see that they report revenue from WBB at $21 million! How is that possible? For MBB they report about $7 million.

But stunned wasn't the word I would use to describe the most interesting part of UConn's report. I couldn't find them listed with the AAC schools, because they were shown as being in the Big East. I could only guess whether that's because whoever put the report together didn't know they had left the BE or because they have inside info that UConn is moving to the BE. 07-coffee3

Hmmmm..what was the date on Uconns report saying BE?

There doesn't appear to be a specific date associated with these reports. They are updated annually. The specific report I cited did mention that the football expense figures for the current reporting period included some $4 million severance pay as a result of terminating their coach in January of 2017, so I'm assuming it's for the most recent year - that is, the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

I'm assuming the Big East reference was an error made by people at UCONN who simply don't follow sports like we do. We sports heads represent about 15% of the country. I have 3 brothers, all college grads and one an athlete (Iowa, Oklahoma, New Mexico) and only one of them knows what I'm referring to when I say "Cartel 5" or "Access 5". And these are all typical American sports fans. Most people I meet at happy hour bars watching games don't even know this stuff. So it wouldn't be surprising to me at all if a non-sports fanatic at UCONN didn't know that UCONN was in the big east or AAC...(probably doesnt know what the AAC is)

I think it's more likely that some numbers nerd at EADA didn't catch it if they were just entering data on a spreadsheet that at one time had UConn in the Big East. FWIW, when you look at the SEC listings, it shows Concordia College of Selma, AL as a member. Apparently, the pressure of big time football got to Concordia, because they announced this spring that they weren't just dropping down in sports, they were closing the entire school due to poor enrollment (below 300 students).

The pressure of big time sports got to Concordia....Hahahahaha....
04-13-2018 01:48 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.