What comes out of Chinese derrières? Rice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(02-07-2019 09:47 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  New rule states if you are in a FBS conference? You need to have football, or you get demoted to an FCS or 1AAA non-football conference. Goodbye UTA, Little Rock and Wichita State. This would put pressure on these 3 schools because they are extra mouths like hogs at feeding time getting football money when they do not have football.

Also, if a new rule states that if you want to be an FBS conference, you need to sponsor men's volleyball, that would put tremendous pressure on schools that don't have men's volleyball programs to start them up.

Imagining new rules, it's a fun game anyone can play for fun{+} and profit{++}!

{+ No explicit or implicit warranty is given that you will have fun playing this game.}

{++ This is according to external analysis of the Underpants Gnomes Consulting LLC, which has of yet not been vetted.}

(02-07-2019 05:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 02:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
USA Today listing of college sports revenues sorting by "allocation" which is basically the subsidy.

I don't see the point. In many cases, the only sports bringing in any revenue are football and basketball, with football being the primary revenue source in most cases. The proper way to analyze this, is how much is football subsidized? How much is basketball subsidized?

Every school is different. Boise State had a subsidy of 27%, yet they made a profit of $10 million in 2016-2017 from football. What would the subsidy be with FCS football? My school, Texas State, had a $33 million dollar athletic budget for 2018-2019:

Athletics Revenue Projection $7,373,000
Athletics Fee $19,160,000
Designated Transfer $4,853,000
Auxiliary Enterprises Transfer $1,714,000
Total Sources of Athletics Funds $33,100,000

The Bobcats had a budget of around $7 million in football in 2016. The money they are getting from the student athletic fee is really not going to football, it is really going to other sports and administrative costs.

The students voted to double the athletic fee in 2008, by a vote of 79.6% to 20.4%. The vote was contingent on the school moving up to FBS football. With over 38,000 students, the money adds up quickly. Since the students voted to pay for the move up to FBS football, the students will decide if the school is going to drop down to FCS. That is never going to happen because there is so much invested in the move up to FBS.

Moving up means upgrading facilities. For example, there was a $33 million expansion to the Bobcat football stadium in 2012 and a recent $62 million expansion to the basketball arena and university events center. There is too much invested to drop down from FBS. So if the question is about dropping from FBS, then you have to know what the subsidy is for football, if any, and how dropping down effects other sports and effects the investments made by the school in the athletic facilities. The USA Today revenue listing with subsidies does not answer that. It is pointless.

You already know you drop 22 scholarships in football and probably a similar number of women's scholarships. You don't have to pay coaches and assistant coaches nearly as much. And you don't have to constantly spend on facilities.

It doesn't specifically identify football revenue, but the huge subsidy is overwhelmingly the FBS schools. Hardly any basketball schools other than those in California were in the top 75 in subsidy. Few FCS schools were near the top in subsidy. Clearly, FBS, non-P5 football is the common thread.

That is incorrect. By percentage of subsidy, this is the top 50 schools:

1. California-Riverside (Big West) 87.97
2. New Jersey Tech (Atl Sun) 87.81
3. Northern Kentucky (Horizon) 87.52
4. Towson (CAA) 87.35
5. Morehead State (Ohio Valley) 85.17
6. Massachusetts-Lowell (Am East) 84.92
7. Texas-Rio Grande Valley (WAC) 84.91
8. Cleveland State (Horizon) 84.66
9. Longwood (Big South) 84.08
10. South Carolina Upstate (Atl Sun) 84.07
11. Radford (Big South) 83.86
12. Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt) 83.82
13. Indiana-Purdue Indianapolis (Summit) 83.54
14. Stony Brook (Am East) 82.57
15. North Carolina Greensboro (Southern) 82.48
16. California State-Fullerton (Big West) 82.38
17. Texas Southern (SWAC) 82.22
18. Stephen F. Austin (Southland) 82.07
19. California State-Northridge (Big West) 81.80
20. Lamar (Southland) 81.80
21. Central Connecticut (Northeast) 81.48
22. James Madison (CAA) 81.14
23. Morgan State (MEAC) 81.06
24. Maryland-Baltimore Cty (Am East) 80.95
25. Chicago State (WAC) 80.93
26. Delaware (CAA) 80.87
27. Sacramento State (Big Sky) 80.51
28. Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (Southland) 80.15
29. Winthrop (Big South) 79.01 165
30. Indiana State (Mo. Valley) 78.92
31. Tennessee State (Ohio Valley) 78.80
32. Wright State (Horizon) 78.54
33. Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne (Summit) 78.11
34. Oakland (Horizon) 77.72
35. Massachusetts (A-10) 77.52
36. Missouri-Kansas City (WAC) 77.37
37. Albany (Am East) 77.33
38. Utah Valley (WAC) 77.01
39. Eastern Kentucky (Ohio Valley) 76.98
40. California-Irvine (Big West) 76.84
41. Kennesaw State (Atl Sun) 76.79
42. College of Charleston (CAA) 76.61
43. California-Santa Barbara (Big West) 76.59
44. Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Horizon) 76.58
45. California-Davis (Big West) 76.33
46. Norfolk State (MEAC) 76.19
47. Delaware State (MEAC) 75.94
48. Northern Arizona (Big Sky) 75.62
49. Rhode Island (A-10) 75.46
50. Maryland-Eastern Shore (MEAC) 75.32

There are no FBS schools in this list. Coastal Carolina in 2016-2017 was still an FCS school. Sure, there are the reductions in scholarships of 22 in dropping down to FCS and salary reductions for coaches, but the revenue loss is more significant.

(02-08-2019 10:49 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 02:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
USA Today listing of college sports revenues sorting by "allocation" which is basically the subsidy.

I don't see the point. In many cases, the only sports bringing in any revenue are football and basketball, with football being the primary revenue source in most cases. The proper way to analyze this, is how much is football subsidized? How much is basketball subsidized?

Every school is different. Boise State had a subsidy of 27%, yet they made a profit of $10 million in 2016-2017 from football. What would the subsidy be with FCS football? My school, Texas State, had a $33 million dollar athletic budget for 2018-2019:

Athletics Revenue Projection $7,373,000
Athletics Fee $19,160,000
Designated Transfer $4,853,000
Auxiliary Enterprises Transfer $1,714,000
Total Sources of Athletics Funds $33,100,000

The Bobcats had a budget of around $7 million in football in 2016. The money they are getting from the student athletic fee is really not going to football, it is really going to other sports and administrative costs.

The students voted to double the athletic fee in 2008, by a vote of 79.6% to 20.4%. The vote was contingent on the school moving up to FBS football. With over 38,000 students, the money adds up quickly. Since the students voted to pay for the move up to FBS football, the students will decide if the school is going to drop down to FCS. That is never going to happen because there is so much invested in the move up to FBS.

Moving up means upgrading facilities. For example, there was a $33 million expansion to the Bobcat football stadium in 2012 and a recent $62 million expansion to the basketball arena and university events center. There is too much invested to drop down from FBS. So if the question is about dropping from FBS, then you have to know what the subsidy is for football, if any, and how dropping down effects other sports and effects the investments made by the school in the athletic facilities. The USA Today revenue listing with subsidies does not answer that. It is pointless.

You already know you drop 22 scholarships in football and probably a similar number of women's scholarships. You don't have to pay coaches and assistant coaches nearly as much. And you don't have to constantly spend on facilities.

It doesn't specifically identify football revenue, but the huge subsidy is overwhelmingly the FBS schools. Hardly any basketball schools other than those in California were in the top 75 in subsidy. Few FCS schools were near the top in subsidy. Clearly, FBS, non-P5 football is the common thread.

That is incorrect. By percentage of subsidy, this is the top 50 schools:

1. California-Riverside (Big West) 87.97
2. New Jersey Tech (Atl Sun) 87.81
3. Northern Kentucky (Horizon) 87.52
4. Towson (CAA) 87.35
5. Morehead State (Ohio Valley) 85.17
6. Massachusetts-Lowell (Am East) 84.92
7. Texas-Rio Grande Valley (WAC) 84.91
8. Cleveland State (Horizon) 84.66
9. Longwood (Big South) 84.08
10. South Carolina Upstate (Atl Sun) 84.07
11. Radford (Big South) 83.86
12. Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt) 83.82
13. Indiana-Purdue Indianapolis (Summit) 83.54
14. Stony Brook (Am East) 82.57
15. North Carolina Greensboro (Southern) 82.48
16. California State-Fullerton (Big West) 82.38
17. Texas Southern (SWAC) 82.22
18. Stephen F. Austin (Southland) 82.07
19. California State-Northridge (Big West) 81.80
20. Lamar (Southland) 81.80
21. Central Connecticut (Northeast) 81.48
22. James Madison (CAA) 81.14
23. Morgan State (MEAC) 81.06
24. Maryland-Baltimore Cty (Am East) 80.95
25. Chicago State (WAC) 80.93
26. Delaware (CAA) 80.87
27. Sacramento State (Big Sky) 80.51
28. Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (Southland) 80.15
29. Winthrop (Big South) 79.01 165
30. Indiana State (Mo. Valley) 78.92
31. Tennessee State (Ohio Valley) 78.80
32. Wright State (Horizon) 78.54
33. Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne (Summit) 78.11
34. Oakland (Horizon) 77.72
35. Massachusetts (A-10) 77.52
36. Missouri-Kansas City (WAC) 77.37
37. Albany (Am East) 77.33
38. Utah Valley (WAC) 77.01
39. Eastern Kentucky (Ohio Valley) 76.98
40. California-Irvine (Big West) 76.84
41. Kennesaw State (Atl Sun) 76.79
42. College of Charleston (CAA) 76.61
43. California-Santa Barbara (Big West) 76.59
44. Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Horizon) 76.58
45. California-Davis (Big West) 76.33
46. Norfolk State (MEAC) 76.19
47. Delaware State (MEAC) 75.94
48. Northern Arizona (Big Sky) 75.62
49. Rhode Island (A-10) 75.46
50. Maryland-Eastern Shore (MEAC) 75.32

There are no FBS schools in this list. Coastal Carolina in 2016-2017 was still an FCS school. Sure, there are the reductions in scholarships of 22 in dropping down to FCS and salary reductions for coaches, but the revenue loss is more significant.

A lot of those have pretty small budgets in general and it's mostly subsidized. If you look at total dollar amount subsidized then you'll see some FBS schools.

(02-08-2019 10:49 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 05:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 02:38 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
USA Today listing of college sports revenues sorting by "allocation" which is basically the subsidy.

I don't see the point. In many cases, the only sports bringing in any revenue are football and basketball, with football being the primary revenue source in most cases. The proper way to analyze this, is how much is football subsidized? How much is basketball subsidized?

Every school is different. Boise State had a subsidy of 27%, yet they made a profit of $10 million in 2016-2017 from football. What would the subsidy be with FCS football? My school, Texas State, had a $33 million dollar athletic budget for 2018-2019:

Athletics Revenue Projection $7,373,000
Athletics Fee $19,160,000
Designated Transfer $4,853,000
Auxiliary Enterprises Transfer $1,714,000
Total Sources of Athletics Funds $33,100,000

The Bobcats had a budget of around $7 million in football in 2016. The money they are getting from the student athletic fee is really not going to football, it is really going to other sports and administrative costs.

The students voted to double the athletic fee in 2008, by a vote of 79.6% to 20.4%. The vote was contingent on the school moving up to FBS football. With over 38,000 students, the money adds up quickly. Since the students voted to pay for the move up to FBS football, the students will decide if the school is going to drop down to FCS. That is never going to happen because there is so much invested in the move up to FBS.

Moving up means upgrading facilities. For example, there was a $33 million expansion to the Bobcat football stadium in 2012 and a recent $62 million expansion to the basketball arena and university events center. There is too much invested to drop down from FBS. So if the question is about dropping from FBS, then you have to know what the subsidy is for football, if any, and how dropping down effects other sports and effects the investments made by the school in the athletic facilities. The USA Today revenue listing with subsidies does not answer that. It is pointless.

You already know you drop 22 scholarships in football and probably a similar number of women's scholarships. You don't have to pay coaches and assistant coaches nearly as much. And you don't have to constantly spend on facilities.

It doesn't specifically identify football revenue, but the huge subsidy is overwhelmingly the FBS schools. Hardly any basketball schools other than those in California were in the top 75 in subsidy. Few FCS schools were near the top in subsidy. Clearly, FBS, non-P5 football is the common thread.

That is incorrect. By percentage of subsidy, this is the top 50 schools:

1. California-Riverside (Big West) 87.97
2. New Jersey Tech (Atl Sun) 87.81
3. Northern Kentucky (Horizon) 87.52
4. Towson (CAA) 87.35
5. Morehead State (Ohio Valley) 85.17
6. Massachusetts-Lowell (Am East) 84.92
7. Texas-Rio Grande Valley (WAC) 84.91
8. Cleveland State (Horizon) 84.66
9. Longwood (Big South) 84.08
10. South Carolina Upstate (Atl Sun) 84.07
11. Radford (Big South) 83.86
12. Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt) 83.82
13. Indiana-Purdue Indianapolis (Summit) 83.54
14. Stony Brook (Am East) 82.57
15. North Carolina Greensboro (Southern) 82.48
16. California State-Fullerton (Big West) 82.38
17. Texas Southern (SWAC) 82.22
18. Stephen F. Austin (Southland) 82.07
19. California State-Northridge (Big West) 81.80
20. Lamar (Southland) 81.80
21. Central Connecticut (Northeast) 81.48
22. James Madison (CAA) 81.14
23. Morgan State (MEAC) 81.06
24. Maryland-Baltimore Cty (Am East) 80.95
25. Chicago State (WAC) 80.93
26. Delaware (CAA) 80.87
27. Sacramento State (Big Sky) 80.51
28. Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (Southland) 80.15
29. Winthrop (Big South) 79.01 165
30. Indiana State (Mo. Valley) 78.92
31. Tennessee State (Ohio Valley) 78.80
32. Wright State (Horizon) 78.54
33. Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne (Summit) 78.11
34. Oakland (Horizon) 77.72
35. Massachusetts (A-10) 77.52
36. Missouri-Kansas City (WAC) 77.37
37. Albany (Am East) 77.33
38. Utah Valley (WAC) 77.01
39. Eastern Kentucky (Ohio Valley) 76.98
40. California-Irvine (Big West) 76.84
41. Kennesaw State (Atl Sun) 76.79
42. College of Charleston (CAA) 76.61
43. California-Santa Barbara (Big West) 76.59
44. Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Horizon) 76.58
45. California-Davis (Big West) 76.33
46. Norfolk State (MEAC) 76.19
47. Delaware State (MEAC) 75.94
48. Northern Arizona (Big Sky) 75.62
49. Rhode Island (A-10) 75.46
50. Maryland-Eastern Shore (MEAC) 75.32

There are no FBS schools in this list. Coastal Carolina in 2016-2017 was still an FCS school. Sure, there are the reductions in scholarships of 22 in dropping down to FCS and salary reductions for coaches, but the revenue loss is more significant.

#35 is an FBS school. Not in a conference and therefore not getting any conference revenue to help support anything, but still.

(02-07-2019 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Imagine a large prestigious firm (law, accounting, medical practice, whatever).

Looking to put someone on the partner track considering several candidates that are fairly equal you are better off being the candidate from an Ivy or an elite school in the field than to be from some mid-tier state school.

If you are a rainmaker and play by the rules then the distaste for putting the graduate of a small rural open admission state school can be overcome.

Academics matter, not just prestige, but philosophy you want to hang out with people like you or people who bolster your reputation by association.

But all that can be overlooked if you can make a huge change in your potential partner's bank account.

Good explanation. But, since basically nobody at the G5 level is that kind of "rainmaker" for any potential conference, that implies that academics will be pretty important, eh?

Absolutely
B.Y.U.

By most any measure one would expect BYU had more value to Pac-12 than Utah but BYU is incompatible with the Pac-10's vision of who it is as academic institutions so Utah thanks to busting the BCS is taken over a BYU that draws more fans and more eyeballs.

(02-09-2019 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Imagine a large prestigious firm (law, accounting, medical practice, whatever).

Looking to put someone on the partner track considering several candidates that are fairly equal you are better off being the candidate from an Ivy or an elite school in the field than to be from some mid-tier state school.

If you are a rainmaker and play by the rules then the distaste for putting the graduate of a small rural open admission state school can be overcome.

Academics matter, not just prestige, but philosophy you want to hang out with people like you or people who bolster your reputation by association.

But all that can be overlooked if you can make a huge change in your potential partner's bank account.

Good explanation. But, since basically nobody at the G5 level is that kind of "rainmaker" for any potential conference, that implies that academics will be pretty important, eh?

Absolutely
B.Y.U.

By most any measure one would expect BYU had more value to Pac-12 than Utah but BYU is incompatible with the Pac-10's vision of who it is as academic institutions so Utah thanks to busting the BCS is taken over a BYU that draws more fans and more eyeballs.

Academics was just an excuse, the powers that be in the PAC are against any faith based school in the conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(02-09-2019 03:53 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Imagine a large prestigious firm (law, accounting, medical practice, whatever).

Looking to put someone on the partner track considering several candidates that are fairly equal you are better off being the candidate from an Ivy or an elite school in the field than to be from some mid-tier state school.

If you are a rainmaker and play by the rules then the distaste for putting the graduate of a small rural open admission state school can be overcome.

Academics matter, not just prestige, but philosophy you want to hang out with people like you or people who bolster your reputation by association.

But all that can be overlooked if you can make a huge change in your potential partner's bank account.

Good explanation. But, since basically nobody at the G5 level is that kind of "rainmaker" for any potential conference, that implies that academics will be pretty important, eh?

Absolutely
B.Y.U.

By most any measure one would expect BYU had more value to Pac-12 than Utah but BYU is incompatible with the Pac-10's vision of who it is as academic institutions so Utah thanks to busting the BCS is taken over a BYU that draws more fans and more eyeballs.

Academics was just an excuse, the powers that be in the PAC are against any faith based school in the conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Academics play an important factor in the Pac-12 but you’re correct about religious schools. The only reason why there’s not a Pac-16 is because of Baylor. That’s why Colorado was invited first......they didn’t want Baylor to sneak in like they did in the Big XII. The Pac-10 would’ve been perfectly fine with a school like Rice but not Baylor.

UMass. Subsidy could be going down since they are playing as Independents and not having issues getting P5 schools to play them. As long as they get the big paychecks from P5 schools? They could go in the right direction.

(02-09-2019 04:12 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 03:53 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-07-2019 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Imagine a large prestigious firm (law, accounting, medical practice, whatever).

Looking to put someone on the partner track considering several candidates that are fairly equal you are better off being the candidate from an Ivy or an elite school in the field than to be from some mid-tier state school.

If you are a rainmaker and play by the rules then the distaste for putting the graduate of a small rural open admission state school can be overcome.

Academics matter, not just prestige, but philosophy you want to hang out with people like you or people who bolster your reputation by association.

But all that can be overlooked if you can make a huge change in your potential partner's bank account.

Good explanation. But, since basically nobody at the G5 level is that kind of "rainmaker" for any potential conference, that implies that academics will be pretty important, eh?

Absolutely
B.Y.U.

By most any measure one would expect BYU had more value to Pac-12 than Utah but BYU is incompatible with the Pac-10's vision of who it is as academic institutions so Utah thanks to busting the BCS is taken over a BYU that draws more fans and more eyeballs.

Academics was just an excuse, the powers that be in the PAC are against any faith based school in the conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Academics play an important factor in the Pac-12 but you’re correct about religious schools. The only reason why there’s not a Pac-16 is because of Baylor. That’s why Colorado was invited first......they didn’t want Baylor to sneak in like they did in the Big XII. The Pac-10 would’ve been perfectly fine with a school like Rice but not Baylor.

They would also be fine with a Duke like institution. Duke is a religious university (seminary and everything) but the way it is run is vastly different than a BYU.