They are planning on just pocketing the money from this TV contract and therefore DECREASE their own investments in their athletics? Instead of taking all of the increased revenue and investing it in their athletics to further improve them on top of what they've already been doing... they're going to cut back what they've been investing out of their own pockets and using the TV contract as a subsidy?

https://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/c...cl...3c79e.html

“This is the most significant day in TU sports history as it relates to economics,” University of Tulsa athletic director Derrick Gragg said. “It’s what we call in the business a game-changer. It’s a difference-making thing that a lot of people dream of experiencing in their career.”

During a financially stressful time at the university that resulted in eliminated positions and various cutbacks, the TU athletic department can breathe a sigh of relief knowing the TV contract will alleviate budget problems.

“This will allow us to decrease the amount of monetary support we get from the institution as a whole,” Gragg said. “Our subsidy from the institution is already one of the lowest if not the lowest in the conference, but still this allows us to further reduce that.”

Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

(03-27-2019 02:53 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  They are planning on just pocketing the money from this TV contract and therefore DECREASE their own investments in their athletics? Instead of taking all of the increased revenue and investing it in their athletics to further improve them on top of what they've already been doing... they're going to cut back what they've been investing out of their own pockets and using the TV contract as a subsidy?

https://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/c...cl...3c79e.html

“This is the most significant day in TU sports history as it relates to economics,” University of Tulsa athletic director Derrick Gragg said. “It’s what we call in the business a game-changer. It’s a difference-making thing that a lot of people dream of experiencing in their career.”

During a financially stressful time at the university that resulted in eliminated positions and various cutbacks, the TU athletic department can breathe a sigh of relief knowing the TV contract will alleviate budget problems.

“This will allow us to decrease the amount of monetary support we get from the institution as a whole,” Gragg said. “Our subsidy from the institution is already one of the lowest if not the lowest in the conference, but still this allows us to further reduce that.”

I think Memphis mentioned something similar in their budget briefing. Like Tulsa, I think they've been taking money from general university funds to balance the athletics budget. With the increased income, they don't have to do that anymore...or not as much.

"Taking into account the additional conference distribution, contractual
guarantees for royalties & licensing, game contracts and conservative
estimates in student athletic fees and ticket sales, a new AAC Media Rights
Distribution could result in reduced Institutional Support needed for
Athletics."

So basically the athletic department can now stand on its own.

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

Not our problem we have that ability. Either commit to high level athletics or slide to a league that doesn't. Nothing wrong playing in the c-usa or Sunbelt and I mean that respectfully. We want to be a p6 so we should be pumping money in and not stopping.

SMU President got asked by a professor if this meant money would be flowing back to the school (or at least less of a subsidy from the school) and he said no.

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

I thought they were staying afloat because of the $2.5b social media engagement check they're supposed to receive on a Tuesday.

(03-27-2019 03:14 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

The point isn’t that $400 is a lot for each individual student to pay out of pocket, it’s just that every school uses different tools to balance the books. Tulsa has apparently been using their general fund because they don’t have 65000 students they can charge a small “fee” to.

Schools can’t lose money forever on sports. Particularly at private schools, there is going to be some pushback. Using some of this money to keep the budget hawks away *is* a productive use of that money.

(03-27-2019 03:26 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:14 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

The point isn’t that $400 is a lot for each individual student to pay out of pocket, it’s just that every school uses different tools to balance the books. Tulsa has apparently been using their general fund because they don’t have 65000 students they can charge a small “fee” to.

Schools can’t lose money forever on sports. Particularly at private schools, there is going to be some pushback. Using some of this money to keep the budget hawks away *is* a productive use of that money.

AAC sports are a marketing and entertainment line item. They are never supposed to turn a profit, and should have a structural deficit at the end of each year.

I don't want to see Tulane make a profit on the athletic dept. I want to see a functional one that continuously competes and puts the school into the limelight.

(03-27-2019 03:14 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

It’s not “cutting money” — all of our athletic departments lose money; the budget gap is either made up from a tax on students or from the general fund. When you shrink the budget shortfall of the department, invariably the university subsidy will be smaller.

Schools pay for capital expenditures from fundraising, not from operating revenue. Making your athletic department sustainable on its own without a subsidy from the university gives you significant leverage to go get more of the donor pie.

(03-27-2019 03:29 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:26 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:14 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

The point isn’t that $400 is a lot for each individual student to pay out of pocket, it’s just that every school uses different tools to balance the books. Tulsa has apparently been using their general fund because they don’t have 65000 students they can charge a small “fee” to.

Schools can’t lose money forever on sports. Particularly at private schools, there is going to be some pushback. Using some of this money to keep the budget hawks away *is* a productive use of that money.

AAC sports are a marketing and entertainment line item. They are never supposed to turn a profit, and should have a structural deficit at the end of each year.

I don't want to see Tulane make a profit on the athletic dept. I want to see a functional one that continuously competes and puts the school into the limelight.

Various accounting tricks aside, none of us are at any risk of running a “profit” on athletics. We are all losing a ton. This makes us lose less. Which makes athletics more stable and poised for growth.

(03-27-2019 03:31 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:14 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

It’s not “cutting money” — all of our athletic departments lose money; the budget gap is either made up from a tax on students or from the general fund. When you shrink the budget shortfall of the department, invariably the university subsidy will be smaller.

Schools pay for capital expenditures from fundraising, not from operating revenue. Making your athletic department sustainable on its own without a subsidy from the university gives you significant leverage to go get more of the donor pie.

It's good that I am not working in the university system, then. Didn't think that's how donations work.

(03-27-2019 03:08 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

Not our problem we have that ability. Either commit to high level athletics or slide to a league that doesn't. Nothing wrong playing in the c-usa or Sunbelt and I mean that respectfully. We want to be a p6 so we should be pumping money in and not stopping.

Quote:The average college graduate with a bachelor’s degree left school with $28,446 in student debt in 2016, according to data from the Institute for College Access & Success. There are 44.5 million student loan borrowers in the U.S., and they owe a collective $1.5 trillion as of March 2018, according to the Federal Reserve.

Source

Students are struggling to make ends meet after college due to student loan payments. It is the duty of every higher education institution to lower the financial burden on their students as much as feasible.

The focus of athletic financial support from individuals should rest upon alumni and sidewalk fans with the means to do it.

In the 1990’s, Temple took the football Big East money ( we were a football only) and spent it on other sports and almost nothing on the football team. Result? Crap football for 20 years, expulsion from the Big East and still trying to win respect in our region. Good luck with your plans, Tulsa.

(03-27-2019 04:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:08 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

Not our problem we have that ability. Either commit to high level athletics or slide to a league that doesn't. Nothing wrong playing in the c-usa or Sunbelt and I mean that respectfully. We want to be a p6 so we should be pumping money in and not stopping.

Quote:The average college graduate with a bachelor’s degree left school with $28,446 in student debt in 2016, according to data from the Institute for College Access & Success. There are 44.5 million student loan borrowers in the U.S., and they owe a collective $1.5 trillion as of March 2018, according to the Federal Reserve.

Source

Students are struggling to make ends meet after college due to student loan payments. It is the duty of every higher education institution to lower the financial burden on their students as much as feasible.

The focus of athletic financial support from individuals should rest upon alumni and sidewalk fans with the means to do it.

Over borrowing is easily avoidable-go to a school you can afford.

(03-27-2019 04:38 PM)vick mike Wrote:  In the 1990’s, Temple took the football Big East money ( we were a football only) and spent it on other sports and almost nothing on the football team. Result? Crap football for 20 years, expulsion from the Big East and still trying to win respect in our region. Good luck with your plans, Tulsa.

Not what is happening, but good try.

(03-27-2019 04:39 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 04:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:08 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

Not our problem we have that ability. Either commit to high level athletics or slide to a league that doesn't. Nothing wrong playing in the c-usa or Sunbelt and I mean that respectfully. We want to be a p6 so we should be pumping money in and not stopping.

Quote:The average college graduate with a bachelor’s degree left school with $28,446 in student debt in 2016, according to data from the Institute for College Access & Success. There are 44.5 million student loan borrowers in the U.S., and they owe a collective $1.5 trillion as of March 2018, according to the Federal Reserve.

Source

Students are struggling to make ends meet after college due to student loan payments. It is the duty of every higher education institution to lower the financial burden on their students as much as feasible.

The focus of athletic financial support from individuals should rest upon alumni and sidewalk fans with the means to do it.

Over borrowing is easily avoidable-go to a school you can afford.

And pick a major with marketability. However, my point remains.

I was blessed with the ability to work part-time and go to Memphis full-time and afford tuition and fees while meeting living expenses like food and shelter.

Fast forward 27 years and the situation was much more challenging for my daughter. Fortunately, my wife and I saved money for her schooling. Otherwise, she would have likely incurred debt or taken longer to graduate.

Lol, some of you simply have not been paying attention.

Tulsa is in the middle of a correction period. Our international students are not as high as they usually our, thanks to politics. Tulsa is closely aligned to the gas and oil industry which has experienced a lot of volatility. This all happened while we were in the middle of building across the university. Finally we have no state safety net to catch us, or point out we were misusing millions of tax dollars in the wrong places.

With our regular constant money (international full tuition students) and our up and down income (oil industry) getting crazy, the board and president took action to put us back on "safe" finacial footing. Given the changes and some hard work Tulsa will be back to where it feels comfortable in 2020-2021 financially.

It is the number one reason we still have Haith and an influence on Monty remaining. However I doubt either will survive another sub par season. The president is pro athletics from what I hear and has been looking at the Athletic Department with the same critical eye he has put to our finacial situation that he inherited.

Tulsa will maintain its budget currently, with to a certain extent more flexibility. There are also several areas we have improved (recent million+ dollar football locker room we just did) that will continue; but no big projects till we get all the ducks in a row.

We're private, we have to do it a little differently.

(03-27-2019 03:26 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:14 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

The point isn’t that $400 is a lot for each individual student to pay out of pocket, it’s just that every school uses different tools to balance the books. Tulsa has apparently been using their general fund because they don’t have 65000 students they can charge a small “fee” to.

Schools can’t lose money forever on sports. Particularly at private schools, there is going to be some pushback. Using some of this money to keep the budget hawks away *is* a productive use of that money.

If they are losing money from their sports and need this new TV deal just to stay afloat... then they don’t belong in this league. The top half of the league is just subsidizing and paying for those programs to stay afloat. For what benefit? Our conference is already so far behind the P5. The conference is giving every school a good amount of money. How does it benefit the conference when all that money isn’t reinvested to continue growth?

(03-27-2019 05:01 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:26 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:14 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:57 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  Yeah they don’t have 65,000 students paying a $400 each to subsidize the athletics budget ever year.

$400 isn't that much money at all. If UCF sports continues to elevate the University, then it's money well spent.

FWIW, I haven't heard about Tulane cutting money kicked from the school to the sports teams.

The point isn’t that $400 is a lot for each individual student to pay out of pocket, it’s just that every school uses different tools to balance the books. Tulsa has apparently been using their general fund because they don’t have 65000 students they can charge a small “fee” to.

Schools can’t lose money forever on sports. Particularly at private schools, there is going to be some pushback. Using some of this money to keep the budget hawks away *is* a productive use of that money.

If they are losing money from their sports and need this new TV deal just to stay afloat... then they don’t belong in this league. The top half of the league is just subsidizing and paying for those programs to stay afloat. For what benefit? Our conference is already so far behind the P5. The conference is giving every school a good amount of money. How does it benefit the conference when all that money isn’t reinvested to continue growth?

Lol, you won't be seeing anyones budget grow 7 million. Why don't you relax and let the school tied for most conference championships worry about figuring out how to compete?