(01-14-2019 01:01 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't think UALR/UTA get a full share, but I can see them getting a partial share. There seems to be a lot of disagreements here from sources in terms of who gets what.

I was under the assumption that they didn’t. But do get the other portion of money from basketball and other things who knows though. Trying to remember but they didn’t vote on the kicking out of Idaho and New Mexico State so I’d assume no.

(01-11-2019 03:15 PM)ComeBackShack Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:08 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:03 PM)lnlogauge Wrote:  "The Sun Belt will disperse the CFP money evenly among its member schools. Athletics departments can use that money for anything, such as increasing assistant coach salary pools or balancing Title IX obligations."

Bottom feeders, you're welcome.

(01-11-2019 02:51 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  Each Sun Belt program will receive about $615k more than each CUSA school.

I don't think that's right. If sunbelt gets 2mil more than CUSA, and its divided equally...

our money gets split 10 ways. CUSA money gets split 14 ways.

17.2 million among 10 schools is $1,720,000 each.

15.6 million among 14 schools is $1,110,000 each.

The difference is $615,000.

That's App Business School at work for you.

(01-11-2019 04:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:33 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Why the hell would they get a share from a sport they do not sponsor?

It's a partnership, they are equity members. UTA paid the same amount to join as App and GaSo

Are their total athletic expenditures on par with those who sponsor football?

Let me help here.

The money is split ten ways. UTA and LR do NOT receive any of the CFP money. I am positive of this.

(01-15-2019 10:00 AM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Let me help here.

The money is split ten ways. UTA and LR do NOT receive any of the CFP money. I am positive of this.

Does this clear it up?
https://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/so...c849b.html

It seems to indicate that all SB schools will receive shares, but then the story says,

"The Journal obtained an email sent to Sun Belt member schools’ chancellors and athletics directors from Benson. In the note, Benson pointed out that the financial outcome also means the schools with football programs will also receive an additional bonus in July following year-end reviews."

Sounds like two bonuses.

(01-14-2019 01:59 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:15 PM)ComeBackShack Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:08 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:03 PM)lnlogauge Wrote:  "The Sun Belt will disperse the CFP money evenly among its member schools. Athletics departments can use that money for anything, such as increasing assistant coach salary pools or balancing Title IX obligations."

Bottom feeders, you're welcome.

(01-11-2019 02:51 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  Each Sun Belt program will receive about $615k more than each CUSA school.

I don't think that's right. If sunbelt gets 2mil more than CUSA, and its divided equally...

our money gets split 10 ways. CUSA money gets split 14 ways.

17.2 million among 10 schools is $1,720,000 each.

15.6 million among 14 schools is $1,110,000 each.

The difference is $615,000.

That's App Business School at work for you.

Can we talk about how that difference is actually $610,000?

If the Sun Belt was to equally split among the 12 members it comes to $1,433,333.33. Which is still higher than CUSA by $319,047.62 more than the adjusted split calculated below. Either way, the SBC comes out ahead.

15.6 million among 14 schools is actually $1,114,285.71 each; or $605,714.29 less than the 10 team SBC split.

Sorry, I tend to be a little exacting when it comes to numbers.

Our loss to GaSou cost the SBC many more millions and an inside the Top 20 finish. Southern Miss bailing out of our game most likely cost a Top 20-25 finish.

Sorry guys.

(01-15-2019 10:20 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  Our loss to GaSou cost the SBC many more millions and an inside the Top 20 finish. Southern Miss bailing out of our game most likely cost a Top 20-25 finish.

Sorry guys.

Only way you lost that much money was by not getting the Access Bowl.

And that was UCF's to lose, so that loss only cost App's ranking. It didn't lose anything for the conference.

(01-14-2019 02:01 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:33 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Why the hell would they get a share from a sport they do not sponsor?

It's a partnership, they are equity members. UTA paid the same amount to join as App and GaSo

Are their total athletic expenditures on par with those who sponsor football?

The best online info I could find about total athletic expenditures was from a story in USAToday about the 2016-17 expenses. In Millions of dollars:
ASU 39.5
TSU 35.9
App 35.0
CCU 33.7
Troy 29.9
GaSt 29.8
GaSo 28.7
SAL 27.9
LaLa 27.4
LaMo 15.5
UTA 14.1
LtRk 11.9

So, depending on what you mean by "on par" the Little Rock and Arlington budgets are about right, considering the lack of football. What's shocking is how much ULM gets done on such a small budget, or how much Texas State spends for rather meager results. As an added note, UTA only collects $8.50 per semester hour in student athletics fees, versus $20 to $30 at other places. Raising the fees to $25 would increase revenue by $20 million or more, given the current enrollment. If it were up to me, we would do it tomorrow....

(01-17-2019 01:04 AM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:01 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:33 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Why the hell would they get a share from a sport they do not sponsor?

It's a partnership, they are equity members. UTA paid the same amount to join as App and GaSo

Are their total athletic expenditures on par with those who sponsor football?

The best online info I could find about total athletic expenditures was from a story in USAToday about the 2016-17 expenses. In Millions of dollars:
ASU 39.5
TSU 35.9
App 35.0
CCU 33.7
Troy 29.9
GaSt 29.8
GaSo 28.7
SAL 27.9
LaLa 27.4
LaMo 15.5
UTA 14.1
LtRk 11.9

So, depending on what you mean by "on par" the Little Rock and Arlington budgets are about right, considering the lack of football. What's shocking is how much ULM gets done on such a small budget, or how much Texas State spends for rather meager results. As an added note, UTA only collects $8.50 per semester hour in student athletics fees, versus $20 to $30 at other places. Raising the fees to $25 would increase revenue by $20 million or more, given the current enrollment. If it were up to me, we would do it tomorrow....

And the two lowest football playing schools have no student athletic fees. I think UL is supposed to cross the $30M threshold this year but we'll have to wait to see on that one.

(01-17-2019 10:04 AM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:04 AM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:01 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:33 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Why the hell would they get a share from a sport they do not sponsor?

It's a partnership, they are equity members. UTA paid the same amount to join as App and GaSo

Are their total athletic expenditures on par with those who sponsor football?

The best online info I could find about total athletic expenditures was from a story in USAToday about the 2016-17 expenses. In Millions of dollars:
ASU 39.5
TSU 35.9
App 35.0
CCU 33.7
Troy 29.9
GaSt 29.8
GaSo 28.7
SAL 27.9
LaLa 27.4
LaMo 15.5
UTA 14.1
LtRk 11.9

So, depending on what you mean by "on par" the Little Rock and Arlington budgets are about right, considering the lack of football. What's shocking is how much ULM gets done on such a small budget, or how much Texas State spends for rather meager results. As an added note, UTA only collects $8.50 per semester hour in student athletics fees, versus $20 to $30 at other places. Raising the fees to $25 would increase revenue by $20 million or more, given the current enrollment. If it were up to me, we would do it tomorrow....

And the two lowest football playing schools have no student athletic fees. I think UL is supposed to cross the $30M threshold this year but we'll have to wait to see on that one.

Back when we were in the Southland Conference, I often heard snarky remarks about how Louisiana state schools used "alternative accounting" methods, and that we could not necessarily trust their published numbers. Nichols, McNeese, Northwestern State and Southeastern La. always claimed what seemed to be implausibly low budget numbers. Either they were hiding "institutional" funding, or perhaps were undervaluing the cost of athletic scholarships. Bottom line: without alleging illegality, it appeared that Louisiana schools' dollars, compared to other states' schools dollars was not apples versus apples.

(01-17-2019 10:41 AM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:04 AM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:04 AM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:01 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It's a partnership, they are equity members. UTA paid the same amount to join as App and GaSo

Are their total athletic expenditures on par with those who sponsor football?

The best online info I could find about total athletic expenditures was from a story in USAToday about the 2016-17 expenses. In Millions of dollars:
ASU 39.5
TSU 35.9
App 35.0
CCU 33.7
Troy 29.9
GaSt 29.8
GaSo 28.7
SAL 27.9
LaLa 27.4
LaMo 15.5
UTA 14.1
LtRk 11.9

So, depending on what you mean by "on par" the Little Rock and Arlington budgets are about right, considering the lack of football. What's shocking is how much ULM gets done on such a small budget, or how much Texas State spends for rather meager results. As an added note, UTA only collects $8.50 per semester hour in student athletics fees, versus $20 to $30 at other places. Raising the fees to $25 would increase revenue by $20 million or more, given the current enrollment. If it were up to me, we would do it tomorrow....

And the two lowest football playing schools have no student athletic fees. I think UL is supposed to cross the $30M threshold this year but we'll have to wait to see on that one.

Back when we were in the Southland Conference, I often heard snarky remarks about how Louisiana state schools used "alternative accounting" methods, and that we could not necessarily trust their published numbers. Nichols, McNeese, Northwestern State and Southeastern La. always claimed what seemed to be implausibly low budget numbers. Either they were hiding "institutional" funding, or perhaps were undervaluing the cost of athletic scholarships. Bottom line: [b]without alleging illegality, it appeared that Louisiana schools' dollars, compared to other states' schools dollars was not apples versus apples.
[/b]

The Huey P Long School of Accounting at it's finest!

(01-17-2019 10:52 AM)Green Menace Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:41 AM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:04 AM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:04 AM)wewererebels Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:01 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  Are their total athletic expenditures on par with those who sponsor football?

The best online info I could find about total athletic expenditures was from a story in USAToday about the 2016-17 expenses. In Millions of dollars:
ASU 39.5
TSU 35.9
App 35.0
CCU 33.7
Troy 29.9
GaSt 29.8
GaSo 28.7
SAL 27.9
LaLa 27.4
LaMo 15.5
UTA 14.1
LtRk 11.9

So, depending on what you mean by "on par" the Little Rock and Arlington budgets are about right, considering the lack of football. What's shocking is how much ULM gets done on such a small budget, or how much Texas State spends for rather meager results. As an added note, UTA only collects $8.50 per semester hour in student athletics fees, versus $20 to $30 at other places. Raising the fees to $25 would increase revenue by $20 million or more, given the current enrollment. If it were up to me, we would do it tomorrow....

And the two lowest football playing schools have no student athletic fees. I think UL is supposed to cross the $30M threshold this year but we'll have to wait to see on that one.

Back when we were in the Southland Conference, I often heard snarky remarks about how Louisiana state schools used "alternative accounting" methods, and that we could not necessarily trust their published numbers. Nichols, McNeese, Northwestern State and Southeastern La. always claimed what seemed to be implausibly low budget numbers. Either they were hiding "institutional" funding, or perhaps were undervaluing the cost of athletic scholarships. Bottom line: [b]without alleging illegality, it appeared that Louisiana schools' dollars, compared to other states' schools dollars was not apples versus apples.
[/b]

The Huey P Long School of Accounting at its finest!

(Grammatically corrected)

i hate to quote myself, but since you're from UNT, "I find it ironic and humorous that UNT stands to get less as a CUSA member than they would've gotten by staying in the 'belt. They really screwed the pooch with that move!"

Are you still happy to be in the CUSA?

(01-15-2019 09:36 PM)AZcats Wrote:  If the Sun Belt was to equally split among the 12 members it comes to $1,433,333.33. Which is still higher than CUSA by $319,047.62 more than the adjusted split calculated below. Either way, the SBC comes out ahead.

15.6 million among 14 schools is actually $1,114,285.71 each; or $605,714.29 less than the 10 team SBC split.

Sorry, I tend to be a little exacting when it comes to numbers.

Which actually goes further for the program because the Sun Belt membership's overall costs are lower including coaches, staff, and logistics.

(01-15-2019 09:36 PM)AZcats Wrote:  If the Sun Belt was to equally split among the 12 members it comes to $1,433,333.33. Which is still higher than CUSA by $319,047.62 more than the adjusted split calculated below. Either way, the SBC comes out ahead.

15.6 million among 14 schools is actually $1,114,285.71 each; or $605,714.29 less than the 10 team SBC split.

Sorry, I tend to be a little exacting when it comes to numbers.

Honest question....way back when (10 years or so) I feel like that when revenue distribution was always discussed that the conference office (regardless of conference) also got a cut/share of the money. Not sure if that is still true today or not????

I was curious how the MWC could be #1 but it looks like that does not include the 4.5 million dollar Access Bowl payout from the CFP to the AAC.

(01-18-2019 01:59 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I was curious how the MWC could be #1 but it looks like that does not include the 4.5 million dollar Access Bowl payout from the CFP to the AAC.

correct. Those numbers do not include bowl money for any team.