ULM needs to go to a bowl and have a student vote for more student funds which I think will happen soon, if not this year, use all 3% allowed, and at least get over 20 million.

(06-29-2018 12:16 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 09:03 PM)Golota76 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:18 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:30 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  % subsidized by student fees

1. Coastal Carolina....83.82%
2. Georgia State....74.18%
3. Troy....72.46%
4. Texas State....72.28%
5. South Alabama....67.33%
6. App State....60.63%
7. Georgia Southern....57.96%
8. UL-Lafayette....45.19%
9. UL-Monroe....44.71%
10. Arkansas State....31.99%

I’m assuming you mean direct institutional support. Because ULM nor Louisiana has student athletic fees. Both universities are allowed to use up to 3% of the universities General Fund to fund athletics. ULM nor Louisiana use close to the full 3% allowed.

I have no clue how the school money towards athletics works. Can you give me the dummy version and how far are you guys from the full amount the school can give?

The last I saw of it, the Cajuns use about 1.5% instead of the full 3% and ULM uses roughly 1%. For the Cajuns I think the full 3% would be around $18M, I’m not sure what ULM would be at.

I do know that LaTurd uses the full 3% allowed by the state.

La Turd lol

(06-29-2018 07:38 PM)Arrowhead Wrote:  ULM needs to go to a bowl and have a student vote for more student funds which I think will happen soon, if not this year, use all 3% allowed, and at least get over 20 million.

Like the quote I posted. I think winning produces money much more than money produces wins. Freeze was one of the lowest paid coaches in the league think there were maybe two making less.

3 pages and not one WKYG chart or spreadsheet.

I'm disappointed. We got our typical ODU "We Virginians report everything perfectly" complaints, but no spreadsheets.

at UTA, the athletics portion of the 50$ per hour fee for 2018 is 8.50$. the fact that a large portion of the sports budget is represented by that money is in large part because we have no big revenue producing sport such as football.

(06-30-2018 01:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  3 pages and not one WKYG chart or spreadsheet.

I'm disappointed. We got our typical ODU "We Virginians report everything perfectly" complaints, but no spreadsheets.

Why after this many years we both know Ark St is using fuzzy math

As the ODU fan pointed out....ARK St is using building funds in their AD budget where most schools (probably all but Ark St but that just a guess) puts those type of projects in the general fund budget. Just like Western got a 3 million dollar donation to replace the video boards in football and basketball.

Even with that money geared for sports upgrades, that money is listed in the general fund budget. One reason is to keep the AD budget from looking larger than it is....

keeps those professors from arguing as much about athletics and their small raise. Plus every building on the Western campus is considered a "state owned building". So it should come out of the general fund budget/capital funds donation.

I understand why Ark St is throwing the whole pot of dollars into their AD budget....

trying to make Ark St look good when the big12 comes for Ark St

But it's still fuzzy math and anyone with half a brain can see that. I actually just try to limit my time on this board to reading the going ons of former conference members. Today was my first time clicking on a link in over two months. Had a feeling you would put me in this thread LOL

Hope Ark St has a better year in football than we are expecting at Western....

looks like we are now back to being a basketball school. Stuck with this dumb*** fb coach for 2 more years

(07-01-2018 12:47 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 01:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  3 pages and not one WKYG chart or spreadsheet.

I'm disappointed. We got our typical ODU "We Virginians report everything perfectly" complaints, but no spreadsheets.

Why after this many years we both know Ark St is using fuzzy math

As the ODU fan pointed out....ARK St is using building funds in their AD budget where most schools (probably all but Ark St but that just a guess) puts those type of projects in the general fund budget. Just like Western got a 3 million dollar donation to replace the video boards in football and basketball.

Even with that money geared for sports upgrades, that money is listed in the general fund budget. One reason is to keep the AD budget from looking larger than it is....

keeps those professors from arguing as much about athletics and their small raise. Plus every building on the Western campus is considered a "state owned building". So it should come out of the general fund budget/capital funds donation.

I understand why Ark St is throwing the whole pot of dollars into their AD budget....

trying to make Ark St look good when the big12 comes for Ark St

But it's still fuzzy math and anyone with half a brain can see that. I actually just try to limit my time on this board to reading the going ons of former conference members. Today was my first time clicking on a link in over two months. Had a feeling you would put me in this thread LOL

Hope Ark St has a better year in football than we are expecting at Western....

looks like we are now back to being a basketball school. Stuck with this dumb*** fb coach for 2 more years

Keep in mind that this years numbers are WITHOUT those crazy large donations for capital projects. We're going to have wild budget swings, but we've hit the stated goal of maintaining an Athletic Budget between 35-40 Million.

Thankfully, the "Athletic spends too much money" here crowd are all Razorback fans, and no one honestly cares what they think. Even if they went to school here. They lost their right to complain when they became a pig fan.

(06-29-2018 11:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 10:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 07:51 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 07:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Some large gifts (as much as $5 million at a time) have caused spikes.

I read your blog post on the other link. It seems ark st is including contributions for capital campaigns.

Have you troubled yourself to read the methodology (ie. the steps taken to standardize the reporting)?

Debt service for facilities construction is included in the expenses. If that is an expense then how do you account for how you PAID for the expense? The gift may be tagged for facilities but it is up to the school how they do that. The school can throw it in a bank account and hold it until the construction begins. They can put it in a bank account and use it as part of the declining fund to pay off the debt.

Not sure why you CUSA guys get so bent. The specific reporting period involved, Forget about the expense side of the balance sheet, AState had no major gifts the revenue is the revenue for the period.

Not like we are assessing the marching band cost as an athletic expense.

Appendix A: Category 8 - Contributions

"Do not report:
• Pledges until funds are provided to athletics for use.
• Contributions to be used in other reporting years. "

Uh so what's your problem if a school gets a check and uses it that same year?

Man you AState guys are pretty sensitive about this subject. I guess you've fielded a lot of inquiries about why certain figures have jumped so much the last few years and lacking good answers revert to diversionary tactics. So I'm going to ignore all the rest of your post, I assure you I don't feel threatened by A States growth but I also feel pretty safe in assuming there's been a change in accounting methods and you're including capital expenditures in your budget. So if you want to have an actual conversation about athletic budget reporting and the pitfalls of comparing these USA Today figures I'm glad to respond and I'll respond to your question above. If a school receives a check and spends it in the same year on operations then that's what should be included. But not on capital expenditures.

(06-28-2018 04:56 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:33 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:08 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:59 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  didn't read the fine print. fixed it for ya.

Right but the majority of that is student fees. Of the 22M that Georgia State allocated, 19.2M of it was student fees.

oh, was your post meant to be loaded for Georgia State only? silly me. Here I thought ppl would be confused because the percentages dont compute with student fees only.

I was using your school as an example since you know....you're a Georgia State fan and all, but be offended if you want to. It's your school's numbers. I'm just typing them out.

huh?
1) you said the subsidized percentages are from students fees
2) your claim didn't make sense for a lot of the schools, which left me confused (ex. Troy brought in $1mil from student fees yet its revenue was 72% subsidized)
3) I went back and read the fine prints on USA Today
4) I corrected your mistake here to help others who might have had the same confusion (like the ULM fan above)
5) then you said "right but the majority of that is student fees."....went onto used Georgia State as your example...missing my point entirely
6) then I finally realized that the list was a sham and you just wanted to post a loaded comment for Georgia State. It's cool no problem. carry on

Like I said, all I did was type out the numbers from USA Today. You responded so I used your school as an example of why I made the list in the first place. If you want to be upset about it, that's on you.

(07-02-2018 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 10:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 07:51 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I read your blog post on the other link. It seems ark st is including contributions for capital campaigns.

Have you troubled yourself to read the methodology (ie. the steps taken to standardize the reporting)?

Debt service for facilities construction is included in the expenses. If that is an expense then how do you account for how you PAID for the expense? The gift may be tagged for facilities but it is up to the school how they do that. The school can throw it in a bank account and hold it until the construction begins. They can put it in a bank account and use it as part of the declining fund to pay off the debt.

Not sure why you CUSA guys get so bent. The specific reporting period involved, Forget about the expense side of the balance sheet, AState had no major gifts the revenue is the revenue for the period.

Not like we are assessing the marching band cost as an athletic expense.

Appendix A: Category 8 - Contributions

"Do not report:
• Pledges until funds are provided to athletics for use.
• Contributions to be used in other reporting years. "

Uh so what's your problem if a school gets a check and uses it that same year?

Man you AState guys are pretty sensitive about this subject. I guess you've fielded a lot of inquiries about why certain figures have jumped so much the last few years and lacking good answers revert to diversionary tactics. So I'm going to ignore all the rest of your post, I assure you I don't feel threatened by A States growth but I also feel pretty safe in assuming there's been a change in accounting methods and you're including capital expenditures in your budget. So if you want to have an actual conversation about athletic budget reporting and the pitfalls of comparing these USA Today figures I'm glad to respond and I'll respond to your question above. If a school receives a check and spends it in the same year on operations then that's what should be included. But not on capital expenditures.

No it is because every year it comes up. I've even shown people the numbers from the booster club tax return. The bottom line is there are some people who think that the patch on the jersey determines how much money you can raise.

Arkansas State is in its own television market, a market that is understated in size because the local ABC affiliate is typically the highest rated TV station in some counties that are in the Memphis and Little Rock markets.

A-State happens to be in the strongest economic market in the area, the third strongest in the state.

We are one of two FBS schools in the entire state and we are having a nice run of success. More than 600,000 people live within an hour drive.

Football stadium naming rights had two bidders and one company who had a CEO who wanted to bid and couldn't get his board to agree because they had a small presence in the area, solved that by buying the successful bidder. There were two companies bidding for the basketball naming rights.

Louisiana Tech signed with Learfield for $650,000 a year.
https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports.../85938836/

North Texas signed with them for $500,000 per year over 10 years.
https://www.ntdaily.com/north-texas-anno...ia-rights/

Arkansas State signed with Learfield for $1.6 million per year.
https://talkbusiness.net/2016/04/asu-ath...learfield/

Strong local market willing to spend and if Learfield secures more in sponsorships, the number (for any of the schools) can go up, the signed for amount is the dollar figure Learfield promises to pay no matter what.

(07-02-2018 04:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 10:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Have you troubled yourself to read the methodology (ie. the steps taken to standardize the reporting)?

Debt service for facilities construction is included in the expenses. If that is an expense then how do you account for how you PAID for the expense? The gift may be tagged for facilities but it is up to the school how they do that. The school can throw it in a bank account and hold it until the construction begins. They can put it in a bank account and use it as part of the declining fund to pay off the debt.

Not sure why you CUSA guys get so bent. The specific reporting period involved, Forget about the expense side of the balance sheet, AState had no major gifts the revenue is the revenue for the period.

Not like we are assessing the marching band cost as an athletic expense.

Appendix A: Category 8 - Contributions

"Do not report:
• Pledges until funds are provided to athletics for use.
• Contributions to be used in other reporting years. "

Uh so what's your problem if a school gets a check and uses it that same year?

Man you AState guys are pretty sensitive about this subject. I guess you've fielded a lot of inquiries about why certain figures have jumped so much the last few years and lacking good answers revert to diversionary tactics. So I'm going to ignore all the rest of your post, I assure you I don't feel threatened by A States growth but I also feel pretty safe in assuming there's been a change in accounting methods and you're including capital expenditures in your budget. So if you want to have an actual conversation about athletic budget reporting and the pitfalls of comparing these USA Today figures I'm glad to respond and I'll respond to your question above. If a school receives a check and spends it in the same year on operations then that's what should be included. But not on capital expenditures.

No it is because every year it comes up. I've even shown people the numbers from the booster club tax return. The bottom line is there are some people who think that the patch on the jersey determines how much money you can raise.

Arkansas State is in its own television market, a market that is understated in size because the local ABC affiliate is typically the highest rated TV station in some counties that are in the Memphis and Little Rock markets.

A-State happens to be in the strongest economic market in the area, the third strongest in the state.

We are one of two FBS schools in the entire state and we are having a nice run of success. More than 600,000 people live within an hour drive.

Football stadium naming rights had two bidders and one company who had a CEO who wanted to bid and couldn't get his board to agree because they had a small presence in the area, solved that by buying the successful bidder. There were two companies bidding for the basketball naming rights.

Louisiana Tech signed with Learfield for $650,000 a year.
https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/sports.../85938836/

North Texas signed with them for $500,000 per year over 10 years.
https://www.ntdaily.com/north-texas-anno...ia-rights/

Arkansas State signed with Learfield for $1.6 million per year.
https://talkbusiness.net/2016/04/asu-ath...learfield/

Strong local market willing to spend and if Learfield secures more in sponsorships, the number (for any of the schools) can go up, the signed for amount is the dollar figure Learfield promises to pay no matter what.

I'm not questioning your growth in licensing revenues or ticket revenue. As you've said AState has had a good run of success, kudos. The things that stick out to my accounting mind and frankly send red flags up that something is strange with the reporting is the jump from 3 million to almost 19 million in "Other" revenue last year and the large fluctuations in contribution income. Other Revenue categories typically includes Bowl Game revenues, guarantees, camp revenue, etc. The contribution income fluctuations could be explained by large one time donations but typically those don't just get spent in current year operating revenue. It's either banked or put towards capital projects. From reading comments from your AD it seems that those donations for capital expenditures are being included.

ArkSt must have some projects being donated to inflating their numbers temporarily three year as numbers are worthless for them. Last normal year was 2014 and about half their budget came from allocated funds.

Total revenue is a misleading stat as it gets, as where it comes from matters just as much when judging stability or non dependent growth. From recruiting discussions I know we have some stats deficient folks on here so to provide context.

NOT INCLUDING ARKST THIS YEAR GEORGIA SOUTHERN IS:
3rd best in allocated funds % (ULM-UL) Worst Football GSU 74%
3rd best in ticket sales and % of revenue coming from ticket sales (App-UL) Worst Football ULM
2nd in contributions and 2nd and in % of budget (UL) Worst Football GSU
7th in rights and licensing (including ArkSt) and 6th in % of budget (not including ArkSt) ((ArkSt)-App-UL-GSU-TXST-ULM) Worst Football Troy
6th (tied with ARKLR) lowest in % of budget coming from student fees (UL-ULM-Troy-CCSU-USA) Worst Football GSU I believe UL and ULM are not allowed to gather but minimal student fees as they are both at 2%. So For those that are allowed to gather standard FBS fees we would be 4th.
3rd in money coming from school (GSU-TXST) Worst Football CCSU


UL is by far the most non dependent stable school in the conference. I would put GS, ArkSt and App 2A, B. and C with little difference in normal years.

GS rights and licensing is the most obvious needs improvement and dependence on allocated funds (school and students) has decreased every year since 2014.

GS is trending up in all positive areas overall and trending down in all negative ones outside of school funds being allocated but down from last year.

(06-28-2018 04:33 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:08 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:59 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:30 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  % subsidized by student fees + direct/indirect school funds + money from state
1. Coastal Carolina....83.82%
2. Georgia State....74.18%
3. Troy....72.46%
4. Texas State....72.28%
5. South Alabama....67.33%
6. App State....60.63%
7. Georgia Southern....57.96%
8. UL-Lafayette....45.19%
9. UL-Monroe....44.71%
10. Arkansas State....31.99%

didn't read the fine print. fixed it for ya.

Right but the majority of that is student fees. Of the 22M that Georgia State allocated, 19.2M of it was student fees.

oh, was your post meant to be loaded for Georgia State only? silly me. Here I thought ppl would be confused because the percentages dont compute with student fees only.

We are bringing in $20mil purely from student fees....while charging only $270/semester for full-time students...think about that. Enrollment also continues to trend upward. That sounds like a good problem to have.

Having well over half your budget come from allocated funds and or students fees is absolutely a horrible thing to have as the state can take them away and they already tried. GaSt currently is not one of the leaders in the conference in producing actual revenue.

LEADERS IN TICKET SALES + CONTRIBUTIONS + RIGHTS / LICENSING ArkSt left out your budgets are weird, I think you guys are the only ones that include big project donations as contributions. In a normal year looks like you would be 2nd or 3rd though.

UL $13,587123
APP $10,975,429
GS $9,529,624
TXST $7,840,764
GSU $6,091,246
TROY $6,035,120
USA $5,798,614
ULM $5,740,254
CCSU $5,099,615
ARKLR $3,685,436
UTSA $2,722,020

(07-02-2018 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 10:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 07:51 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I read your blog post on the other link. It seems ark st is including contributions for capital campaigns.

Have you troubled yourself to read the methodology (ie. the steps taken to standardize the reporting)?

Debt service for facilities construction is included in the expenses. If that is an expense then how do you account for how you PAID for the expense? The gift may be tagged for facilities but it is up to the school how they do that. The school can throw it in a bank account and hold it until the construction begins. They can put it in a bank account and use it as part of the declining fund to pay off the debt.

Not sure why you CUSA guys get so bent. The specific reporting period involved, Forget about the expense side of the balance sheet, AState had no major gifts the revenue is the revenue for the period.

Not like we are assessing the marching band cost as an athletic expense.

Appendix A: Category 8 - Contributions

"Do not report:
• Pledges until funds are provided to athletics for use.
• Contributions to be used in other reporting years. "

Uh so what's your problem if a school gets a check and uses it that same year?

Man you AState guys are pretty sensitive about this subject. I guess you've fielded a lot of inquiries about why certain figures have jumped so much the last few years and lacking good answers revert to diversionary tactics. So I'm going to ignore all the rest of your post, I assure you I don't feel threatened by A States growth but I also feel pretty safe in assuming there's been a change in accounting methods and you're including capital expenditures in your budget. So if you want to have an actual conversation about athletic budget reporting and the pitfalls of comparing these USA Today figures I'm glad to respond and I'll respond to your question above. If a school receives a check and spends it in the same year on operations then that's what should be included. But not on capital expenditures.

Absolutely nothing for us to be defensive about. Use any method you want but the bottom line is:

ASU was near the bottom 8 years ago in most areas that mattered. Now it is competitive in salaries, paying full stipends to all athletes, bringing in more media revenue than ever and upgrading facilities to be as good as pretty much anyone in the G5. Those are the things that matter, not what accounting procedures you use. All of that while winning and relying on less institutional support than most of our peers.

We made some great hires at the top of the University and they are not done upgrading athletics or academics.

(07-03-2018 12:38 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:27 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 11:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 10:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Have you troubled yourself to read the methodology (ie. the steps taken to standardize the reporting)?

Debt service for facilities construction is included in the expenses. If that is an expense then how do you account for how you PAID for the expense? The gift may be tagged for facilities but it is up to the school how they do that. The school can throw it in a bank account and hold it until the construction begins. They can put it in a bank account and use it as part of the declining fund to pay off the debt.

Not sure why you CUSA guys get so bent. The specific reporting period involved, Forget about the expense side of the balance sheet, AState had no major gifts the revenue is the revenue for the period.

Not like we are assessing the marching band cost as an athletic expense.

Appendix A: Category 8 - Contributions

"Do not report:
• Pledges until funds are provided to athletics for use.
• Contributions to be used in other reporting years. "

Uh so what's your problem if a school gets a check and uses it that same year?

Man you AState guys are pretty sensitive about this subject. I guess you've fielded a lot of inquiries about why certain figures have jumped so much the last few years and lacking good answers revert to diversionary tactics. So I'm going to ignore all the rest of your post, I assure you I don't feel threatened by A States growth but I also feel pretty safe in assuming there's been a change in accounting methods and you're including capital expenditures in your budget. So if you want to have an actual conversation about athletic budget reporting and the pitfalls of comparing these USA Today figures I'm glad to respond and I'll respond to your question above. If a school receives a check and spends it in the same year on operations then that's what should be included. But not on capital expenditures.

Absolutely nothing for us to be defensive about. Use any method you want but the bottom line is:

ASU was near the bottom 8 years ago in most areas that mattered. Now it is competitive in salaries, paying full stipends to all athletes, bringing in more media revenue than ever and upgrading facilities to be as good as pretty much anyone in the G5. Those are the things that matter, not what accounting procedures you use. All of that while winning and relying on less institutional support than most of our peers.

We made some great hires at the top of the University and they are not done upgrading athletics or academics.

Great. I have no doubt the growth there is real.

So you keep stirring this up because we have better accountants than you do? :)

(07-03-2018 11:45 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:33 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:08 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:59 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:30 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  % subsidized by student fees + direct/indirect school funds + money from state
1. Coastal Carolina....83.82%
2. Georgia State....74.18%
3. Troy....72.46%
4. Texas State....72.28%
5. South Alabama....67.33%
6. App State....60.63%
7. Georgia Southern....57.96%
8. UL-Lafayette....45.19%
9. UL-Monroe....44.71%
10. Arkansas State....31.99%

didn't read the fine print. fixed it for ya.

Right but the majority of that is student fees. Of the 22M that Georgia State allocated, 19.2M of it was student fees.

oh, was your post meant to be loaded for Georgia State only? silly me. Here I thought ppl would be confused because the percentages dont compute with student fees only.

We are bringing in $20mil purely from student fees....while charging only $270/semester for full-time students...think about that. Enrollment also continues to trend upward. That sounds like a good problem to have.

Having well over half your budget come from allocated funds and or students fees is absolutely a horrible thing to have as the state can take them away and they already tried. GaSt currently is not one of the leaders in the conference in producing actual revenue.

LEADERS IN TICKET SALES + CONTRIBUTIONS + RIGHTS / LICENSING ArkSt left out your budgets are weird, I think you guys are the only ones that include big project donations as contributions. In a normal year looks like you would be 2nd or 3rd though.

UL $13,587123
APP $10,975,429
GS $9,529,624
TXST $7,840,764
GSU $6,091,246
TROY $6,035,120
USA $5,798,614
ULM $5,740,254
CCSU $5,099,615
ARKLR $3,685,436
UTSA $2,722,020

I didn’t know UTSA was in the Sun Belt

Get a $5 million gift, have a spike. Company buying naming rights chooses to give present value of the income stream in one year instead of paying a stream of payments, have a spike. Company signs a 5 year video board advertising deal and opts to take a discount by paying up front, spike. Get a contract buyout payment when you lose a coach, spike.

(07-03-2018 06:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Get a $5 million gift, have a spike. Company buying naming rights chooses to give present value of the income stream in one year instead of paying a stream of payments, have a spike. Company signs a 5 year video board advertising deal and opts to take a discount by paying up front, spike. Get a contract buyout payment when you lose a coach, spike.

Should still be amortized. Just saying.

(07-03-2018 11:45 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:33 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:08 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:59 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 03:30 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  % subsidized by student fees + direct/indirect school funds + money from state
1. Coastal Carolina....83.82%
2. Georgia State....74.18%
3. Troy....72.46%
4. Texas State....72.28%
5. South Alabama....67.33%
6. App State....60.63%
7. Georgia Southern....57.96%
8. UL-Lafayette....45.19%
9. UL-Monroe....44.71%
10. Arkansas State....31.99%

didn't read the fine print. fixed it for ya.

Right but the majority of that is student fees. Of the 22M that Georgia State allocated, 19.2M of it was student fees.

oh, was your post meant to be loaded for Georgia State only? silly me. Here I thought ppl would be confused because the percentages dont compute with student fees only.

We are bringing in $20mil purely from student fees....while charging only $270/semester for full-time students...think about that. Enrollment also continues to trend upward. That sounds like a good problem to have.

Having well over half your budget come from allocated funds and or students fees is absolutely a horrible thing to have as the state can take them away and they already tried. GaSt currently is not one of the leaders in the conference in producing actual revenue.

LEADERS IN TICKET SALES + CONTRIBUTIONS + RIGHTS / LICENSING ArkSt left out your budgets are weird, I think you guys are the only ones that include big project donations as contributions. In a normal year looks like you would be 2nd or 3rd though.

UL $13,587123
APP $10,975,429
GS $9,529,624
TXST $7,840,764
GSU $6,091,246
TROY $6,035,120
USA $5,798,614
ULM $5,740,254
CCSU $5,099,615
ARKLR $3,685,436
UTSA $2,722,020

You do realize that our numbers this year don't include a single large donation if I remember everything correctly...right?

Now next year's release? When we have naming rights for the basketball arena included, plus a gigantic North End Zone Project? Yeah, our numbers might look weird.

Also, why on earth are you taking our licensing stuff out? Those numbers are legit. the numbers that get crazy for us are the ones that include large capital donations.