https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes....ports/amp/

Take a look at these numbers and you might get a better picture of how college athletics works.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

(06-19-2018 01:19 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That said, 23 million or 20 + 4 million has gotten us to empty stadiums with no fans, no path forward and no revenue potential. So adding 4 million isn't going to fundamentally change this equation. The university spends less, which is good, but then the question becomes is 20 million (vs 23 million) too much to pay for the near zero return we get?

In summary, 4 million is nice to have, but it is on the lines of changing the brand of coffee in the office to save money when you lost a quarter billion dollars in a quarter (this is a true story). The dent it makes will not result in a paradigm shift. So while the Rice spend drops to 20 million from 23 now.. it will be back up to 23 million in a few years anyways as costs rise and our revenue stays the same (or drops)

- No revenue potential? You'll have to explain your definition of revenue.
- Saying we get a "near zero return" is just arm waving. The revenue numbers speak for themselves but it's simply not correct to say that the university gets nothing from athletics. The school would be vastly different without D1 athletics.
- There is no reason to think that revenue has to stay the same.

1. No revenue potential - no potential for revenue to approach cost. The conference TV contract collapse ensures that while our small fan base means streaming is not a viable revenue get either

2. Saying the university gets something from athletics is arm waving too. What are the benefits? We get no exposure, the tiny student turnout shows that athletics isn't and wasn't a deciding or key factor in most Rice students decisions while the average season ticket holder at Rice being 60+ also shows that this isn't a recent phenomenon.

3. The school would be vastly different without D1 athletics. - Maybe, maybe not. The university has spent roughly a quarter BILLION on athletic subsidy in the last 12 years. Think what else a quarter billion could get Rice. Different maybe.. better even?

3. "There is no reason to think that revenue has to stay the same." See point 1. also how do we get more?

You realize “athletic subsidy” means scholarships right? I wouldn’t be surprised if Rice athletes on average are “more successful” than non-athlete alums by some metrics. I’d also guess that athletes give more to the university on average than non-athletes.

(06-19-2018 01:15 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  I’d say the athletes think of it as a benefit.

What do you mean it’s clearly not for the students? I wouldn’t have gone to Rice if there weren’t D1 athletics (and I wasn’t an athlete).

Again what is non-viable? Athletic departments aren’t meant to make $. I’d wager a guess and say athletic departments never turned a profit until 10, maybe 15 years ago. There are something like 128 schools that play D1 football and only 20ish turn a profit (UT, A&M, Bama, Ohio state). Does that mean everyone else should drop athletics?

23 million a year is 390 FULL scholarships. Do we have that many?

You are a small minority in this regard. rice cannot have a median season ticket holder age of 61 if there was a sizable contingent of young alum supporters.

Athletic departments aren’t meant to make $ - I disagree. This is an oft touted reason to justify absurd spending. Regardless, if we take this as a fact - They are meant to do something. get exposure etc., do something. Rice's does none of this.

a quarter of a BILLION USD gets Rice a lot. What have we gotten in the last 12 years?

(06-19-2018 01:29 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:15 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  I’d say the athletes think of it as a benefit.

What do you mean it’s clearly not for the students? I wouldn’t have gone to Rice if there weren’t D1 athletics (and I wasn’t an athlete).

Again what is non-viable? Athletic departments aren’t meant to make $. I’d wager a guess and say athletic departments never turned a profit until 10, maybe 15 years ago. There are something like 128 schools that play D1 football and only 20ish turn a profit (UT, A&M, Bama, Ohio state). Does that mean everyone else should drop athletics?

23 million a year is 390 FULL scholarships. Do we have that many?

You are a small minority in this regard. rice cannot have a median season ticket holder age of 61 if there was a sizable contingent of young alum supporters.

Athletic departments aren’t meant to make $ - I disagree. This is an oft touted reason to justify absurd spending. Regardless, if we take this as a fact - They are meant to do something. get exposure etc., do something. Rice's does none of this.

a quarter of a BILLION USD gets Rice a lot. What have we gotten in the last 12 years?

If we fully fund our sports we have 212.3 athletic scholarships. I remember reading we spend something like $80k+ per football player(a non-athlete cost of attendance is $63,458 according to google). If the football number is true that’s close to $17M per year on scholarships. The remaining funding wouldn’t even pay Saban’s contract.

(06-19-2018 01:19 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That said, 23 million or 20 + 4 million has gotten us to empty stadiums with no fans, no path forward and no revenue potential. So adding 4 million isn't going to fundamentally change this equation. The university spends less, which is good, but then the question becomes is 20 million (vs 23 million) too much to pay for the near zero return we get?

In summary, 4 million is nice to have, but it is on the lines of changing the brand of coffee in the office to save money when you lost a quarter billion dollars in a quarter (this is a true story). The dent it makes will not result in a paradigm shift. So while the Rice spend drops to 20 million from 23 now.. it will be back up to 23 million in a few years anyways as costs rise and our revenue stays the same (or drops)

- No revenue potential? You'll have to explain your definition of revenue.
- Saying we get a "near zero return" is just arm waving. The revenue numbers speak for themselves but it's simply not correct to say that the university gets nothing from athletics. The school would be vastly different without D1 athletics.
- There is no reason to think that revenue has to stay the same.

1. No revenue potential - no potential for revenue to approach cost.

It doesn't need to, for reasons already explained.

Quote:2. Saying the university gets something from athletics is arm waving too. What are the benefits? We get no exposure, the tiny student turnout shows that athletics isn't and wasn't a deciding or key factor in most Rice students decisions while the average season ticket holder at Rice being 60+ also shows that this isn't a recent phenomenon.

Yes, it's tough to attract interest when losing. That has to be fixed. But presumably you were a Rice Athletics fan at some point. Why? It wasn't because we were winning lots of championships and filling all of our venues with fans. You received some sort of benefit from your fandom. Can you see that the university may also receive a significant value from athletics (if run/executed well)?

I think the opinions here are boiling down to three arguments:
1. Do whatever you can and hope for the best, but keep trying regardless.
2. Do it right or don't do it at all.
3. Quit trying; it'll never work.

It appears you are at #3, and if that's the case I don't think you're going to get much agreement on a message board dedicated to Rice sports. But, you know, good luck with your advocacy!

(06-19-2018 01:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  If we fully fund our sports we have 212.3 athletic scholarships. I remember reading we spend something like $80k+ per football player(a non-athlete cost of attendance is $63,458 according to google). If the football number is true that’s close to $17M per year on scholarships. The remaining funding wouldn’t even pay Saban’s contract.

And this is where we get back to the fuzzy math re tuition/fees. If the admin keeps upping tuition at whatever crazy rate, we have the potential to end up with a terribly artificial subsidy.

(06-19-2018 01:46 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:40 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  If we fully fund our sports we have 212.3 athletic scholarships. I remember reading we spend something like $80k+ per football player(a non-athlete cost of attendance is $63,458 according to google). If the football number is true that’s close to $17M per year on scholarships. The remaining funding wouldn’t even pay Saban’s contract.

And this is where we get back to the fuzzy math re tuition/fees. If the admin keeps upping tuition at whatever crazy rate, we have the potential to end up with a terribly artificial subsidy.

Exactly. See OldOwl, athletes and foreign students have a lot in common. They’re the only students at Rice who get charged full tuition!

(06-19-2018 01:22 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  I’d also guess that athletes give more to the university on average than non-athletes.

That's not true at most private universities.

(06-19-2018 01:42 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:19 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That said, 23 million or 20 + 4 million has gotten us to empty stadiums with no fans, no path forward and no revenue potential. So adding 4 million isn't going to fundamentally change this equation. The university spends less, which is good, but then the question becomes is 20 million (vs 23 million) too much to pay for the near zero return we get?

In summary, 4 million is nice to have, but it is on the lines of changing the brand of coffee in the office to save money when you lost a quarter billion dollars in a quarter (this is a true story). The dent it makes will not result in a paradigm shift. So while the Rice spend drops to 20 million from 23 now.. it will be back up to 23 million in a few years anyways as costs rise and our revenue stays the same (or drops)

- No revenue potential? You'll have to explain your definition of revenue.
- Saying we get a "near zero return" is just arm waving. The revenue numbers speak for themselves but it's simply not correct to say that the university gets nothing from athletics. The school would be vastly different without D1 athletics.
- There is no reason to think that revenue has to stay the same.

1. No revenue potential - no potential for revenue to approach cost.

It doesn't need to, for reasons already explained.

Quote:2. Saying the university gets something from athletics is arm waving too. What are the benefits? We get no exposure, the tiny student turnout shows that athletics isn't and wasn't a deciding or key factor in most Rice students decisions while the average season ticket holder at Rice being 60+ also shows that this isn't a recent phenomenon.

Yes, it's tough to attract interest when losing. That has to be fixed. But presumably you were a Rice Athletics fan at some point. Why? It wasn't because we were winning lots of championships and filling all of our venues with fans. You received some sort of benefit from your fandom. Can you see that the university may also receive a significant value from athletics (if run/executed well)?

I think the opinions here are boiling down to three arguments:
1. Do whatever you can and hope for the best, but keep trying regardless.
2. Do it right or don't do it at all.
3. Quit trying; it'll never work.

It appears you are at #3, and if that's the case I don't think you're going to get much agreement on a message board dedicated to Rice sports. But, you know, good luck with your advocacy!

I'm calling into question the revenue reasons, so to me, revenue potential is important. They aren't different than the last 10 years of reasons Air India supporters have trotted out to justify continued cash infusions.

Rice isn't doing 1,2 or 3 and doesn't seem interested in doing it. Does any aspect of what we have done in the last decade seem like we are doing what we can?

(06-19-2018 02:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:42 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:19 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 12:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  That said, 23 million or 20 + 4 million has gotten us to empty stadiums with no fans, no path forward and no revenue potential. So adding 4 million isn't going to fundamentally change this equation. The university spends less, which is good, but then the question becomes is 20 million (vs 23 million) too much to pay for the near zero return we get?

In summary, 4 million is nice to have, but it is on the lines of changing the brand of coffee in the office to save money when you lost a quarter billion dollars in a quarter (this is a true story). The dent it makes will not result in a paradigm shift. So while the Rice spend drops to 20 million from 23 now.. it will be back up to 23 million in a few years anyways as costs rise and our revenue stays the same (or drops)

- No revenue potential? You'll have to explain your definition of revenue.
- Saying we get a "near zero return" is just arm waving. The revenue numbers speak for themselves but it's simply not correct to say that the university gets nothing from athletics. The school would be vastly different without D1 athletics.
- There is no reason to think that revenue has to stay the same.

1. No revenue potential - no potential for revenue to approach cost.

It doesn't need to, for reasons already explained.

Quote:2. Saying the university gets something from athletics is arm waving too. What are the benefits? We get no exposure, the tiny student turnout shows that athletics isn't and wasn't a deciding or key factor in most Rice students decisions while the average season ticket holder at Rice being 60+ also shows that this isn't a recent phenomenon.

Yes, it's tough to attract interest when losing. That has to be fixed. But presumably you were a Rice Athletics fan at some point. Why? It wasn't because we were winning lots of championships and filling all of our venues with fans. You received some sort of benefit from your fandom. Can you see that the university may also receive a significant value from athletics (if run/executed well)?

I think the opinions here are boiling down to three arguments:
1. Do whatever you can and hope for the best, but keep trying regardless.
2. Do it right or don't do it at all.
3. Quit trying; it'll never work.

It appears you are at #3, and if that's the case I don't think you're going to get much agreement on a message board dedicated to Rice sports. But, you know, good luck with your advocacy!

I'm calling into question the revenue reasons, so to me, revenue potential is important. They aren't different than the last 10 years of reasons Air India supporters have trotted out to justify continued cash infusions.

Rice isn't doing 1,2 or 3 and doesn't seem interested in doing it. Does any aspect of what we have done in the last decade seem like we are doing what we can?

You do know Rice athletics isn’t an airline right?

I too remember these poignant words from JFK...

“Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because there is a financial incentive and it will result in a profitable situation that is a good return on investment for the university.”

(06-19-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too remember these poignant words from JFK...

“Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because there is a financial incentive and it will result in a profitable situation that is a good return on investment for the university.”

Well done.

(06-19-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too remember these poignant words from JFK...

“Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because there is a financial incentive and it will result in a profitable situation that is a good return on investment for the university.”

Unreal that words from 50 years ago are being used to justify a poor use of finances now.

What next, we start holding the line on the words of the origjnal Rice charter?

Comical.

(06-19-2018 02:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too remember these poignant words from JFK...

“Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because there is a financial incentive and it will result in a profitable situation that is a good return on investment for the university.”

Unreal that words from 50 years ago are being used to justify a poor use of finances now.

What next, we start holding the line on the words of the origjnal Rice charter?

Comical.

I think putting an expiration date on using words, ideas, or lessons is comical...

You’re fixated on running athletics as a for-profit business. That’s cool, but it isn’t and when discussing it’s merits, we must look at the benefits outside of its profitability.

You’re completely off on the point I’m trying to make. Sorry, next time I’ll try and use an airplane analogy for you.

(06-19-2018 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too remember these poignant words from JFK...

“Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because there is a financial incentive and it will result in a profitable situation that is a good return on investment for the university.”

Unreal that words from 50 years ago are being used to justify a poor use of finances now.

What next, we start holding the line on the words of the origjnal Rice charter?

Comical.

I think putting an expiration date on using words, ideas, or lessons is comical...

You’re fixated on running athletics as a for-profit business. That’s cool, but it isn’t and when discussing it’s merits, we must look at the benefits outside of its profitability.

You’re completely off on the point I’m trying to make. Sorry, next time I’ll try and use an airplane analogy for you.

Please, by all means give some benefits outside of profitability. We have potential exposure (not realized in decades), maybe athletes donating more and a handful of prospective ideas. Absolutely nothing even remotely close to realization.

What we do have is an aging ticket base, empty stadiums and no TV or online exposure. So fine, we don't make a profit or come close.. what are we getting for the money then?

So whats your point? Other than trying to use JFKs words to continue making poor decisions on the grounds that they used to be made before?

(06-19-2018 03:10 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too remember these poignant words from JFK...

“Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because there is a financial incentive and it will result in a profitable situation that is a good return on investment for the university.”

Unreal that words from 50 years ago are being used to justify a poor use of finances now.

What next, we start holding the line on the words of the origjnal Rice charter?

Comical.

I think putting an expiration date on using words, ideas, or lessons is comical...

You’re fixated on running athletics as a for-profit business. That’s cool, but it isn’t and when discussing it’s merits, we must look at the benefits outside of its profitability.

You’re completely off on the point I’m trying to make. Sorry, next time I’ll try and use an airplane analogy for you.

Please, by all means give some benefits outside of profitability. We have potential exposure (not realized in decades), maybe athletes donating more and a handful of prospective ideas. Absolutely nothing even remotely close to realization.

What we do have is an aging ticket base, empty stadiums and no TV or online exposure. So fine, we don't make a profit or come close.. what are we getting for the money then?

So whats your point? Other than trying to use JFKs words to continue making poor decisions on the grounds that they used to be made before?

Benefits I can think of quickly that do not deal solely with profitability: providing a route to an elite higher education for many athletes, creation of community via a common element, exposure (as you mention), community outreach (look at how much volunteering our student athletes have done), alumni connection

My point is we can evaluate who well our athletics department is doing to achieve those goals, and if the costs are worth our achievements. But how profitable our athletic department is, is not a worthwhile metric, IMO, because there are numerous goals that don’t explicitly bring in revenue.

(06-19-2018 03:10 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Please, by all means give some benefits outside of profitability.

Well, if it wasn't for athletics at Rice, there wouldn't be a Parliament, and those of us here wouldn't have the benefit of your fascinating airline analogies.

I honestly think if the vast majority of our teams didn’t suck, we could sell an average of 500 season tickets for football per class. Now, that’s not to say it’s be 500 different ticket holders... Some would buy 4, some 10, some just 1... Multiply 500 x 40, and you’re at 20,000... That’s a pretty good number.

(06-19-2018 04:15 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 03:10 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Please, by all means give some benefits outside of profitability.

Well, if it wasn't for athletics at Rice, there wouldn't be a Parliament, and those of us here wouldn't have the benefit of your fascinating airline analogies.

(06-19-2018 03:10 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Please, by all means give some benefits outside of profitability.

Diversity

I don't have the figures anymore but I recall being shocked at how substantial a portion of our minority enrollment involves athletic scholarships.