(07-01-2019 01:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  People are always saying that nobody in the P5 will be kicked out. That's true. But the push in California for compensation for players, whether on or off the field, will be another push to move toward an above board compensatory system. That system, should it come into play, will abnegate the need of the NCAA and winnow the field of participants in college football, and to a much lesser extent college basketball. So we are talking now about perhaps 58 programs that don't subsidize above a 10% figure (hard to say about the privates included in that number). And at least seven programs that do with several of them higher than 15%.

The California bill that's in the legislature now would require schools to permit athletes to get and keep their own NIL (name-image-likeness, i.e., endorsement) revenue, like Olympic athletes do. Would not authorize schools to pay their athletes like employees.

It would still winnow things down, as you say, because some schools would not want to compete in sports against teams featuring athletes paid above board by Nike or adidas or whomever. And there would be many more athletes willing to come off the bench for Duke hoops or Ohio State football instead of starring for a non-power program, because of the additional money and exposure, which will widen the talent gaps that already exist.

I knew that the crux of the California push is for image payments, but off field revenue includes that. But yeah, IMO it is how existing major conferences like the SEC and Big 10 will winnow their numbers down and having the push come from California simply helps those conferences with PR. They can remain silent, not object openly to what California is pushing for, and wait for the outcome.

We've experienced a variety of ways the camel has been trying to get its proverbial nose under the NCAA's tent. This is the next one, the most understandable one, and the one in which schools and the NCAA have profited the most at the player's expense. I like it's chances.

The California bill takes this into account, because as written it only goes into effect in 2023, giving other states four years to pass similar bills if they choose.

From a sports perspective 2023 is going to be majorly pivotal. Maybe the date was random, but if not, it was well played.

(07-01-2019 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  Even two years ago, UConn was the most subsidized athletic program among all reporting schools (almost exclusively public schools - private schools are not required to report this) - to the tune of >$42MM and roughly 50% of their total athletic budget. Only 5 other schools were subsidized > $30MM. Makes a pretty compelling case that something needed to stop.

By the way, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that being in the P5 is some magical path to making these go away.

Two points:

1) I think UConn's deficit has been under-appreciated as a cause of its Big East move. Sure, it's been mentioned, but not so prominently.

Bigger picture, it makes you wonder if other G5 schools will reach a "breaking point" about their athletics, and football in particular. UConn was different, in that they were among perhaps a handful of such schools that did have an "out" in the form of the Big East - arguably maybe the only one.

But, what are other G5s going to do when they reach their breaking point? They don't have a Big East to go to, so the result might be a collapse of the athletic program as it is currently known - abolishment of football, movement down to FCS, etc.

2) While it is true that being in a P5 isn't 100% proof against relying on subsidies, it obviously makes a dramatic difference. Only a handful of P5s have big subsidies, while all G5 do.

In fact, UCF's subsidy of $27 million, which is also about 50% of its total "revenue" is greater than the sum-total of the top 20 revenue schools in that USA today list. And many of them, like Alabama and Georgia, which each have $3m subsidies, obviously don't need them.

So P5 may not be a literal panacea, but it comes awfully close to being one.

I've long expected it to happen. But it hasn't yet. There are a number of MAC schools with negligible student attendance. Eventually I do think a number of the current FCS schools drop football. But I don't think its imminent.

(07-01-2019 12:23 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  Since it's been coming up in a few threads, seems timely to repost (I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't find the thread with it) USA Today's compilation of athletic budgets for the 2016-17 year:

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

where "Total Allocated" includes "The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)"

Even two years ago, UConn was the most subsidized athletic program among all reporting schools (almost exclusively public schools - private schools are not required to report this) - to the tune of >$42MM and roughly 50% of their total athletic budget. Only 5 other schools were subsidized > $30MM. Makes a pretty compelling case that something needed to stop.

By the way, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that being in the P5 is some magical path to making these go away. Virginia, Rutgers ($33MM!), Minnesota, Maryland, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah all have more than $10MM in subsidies/state support. But there's no escaping notice that every AAC, MWC and MAC school also receives at least $10MM as well. In 2019 with greater attention being paid to student debt, this will eventually get scrutinized and is almost certainly unsustainable.

USFFan

Contained within this report is the reason for the distinction between the G5 and the P5. P5=<20% subsidy. G5=>25% subsidy. And off the P5 schools only 3 or 4 had a subsidy > 10%. Athletic fees for students accounted for a good portion of those subsidized under 5% and I think they must have been the ones highlighted in red.

*cough* Rutgers *cough*

USFFan

Because the "egalitarian" Big 10 has Rutgers making a quarter of what the 12 earliest members are making, Rutgers is really not far ahead of the G5 in conference revenue. With the new contract, the AAC probably catches up until Rutgers gets closer to full membership in the Big 10.

(07-02-2019 10:25 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:23 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  Since it's been coming up in a few threads, seems timely to repost (I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't find the thread with it) USA Today's compilation of athletic budgets for the 2016-17 year:

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

where "Total Allocated" includes "The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)"

Even two years ago, UConn was the most subsidized athletic program among all reporting schools (almost exclusively public schools - private schools are not required to report this) - to the tune of >$42MM and roughly 50% of their total athletic budget. Only 5 other schools were subsidized > $30MM. Makes a pretty compelling case that something needed to stop.

By the way, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that being in the P5 is some magical path to making these go away. Virginia, Rutgers ($33MM!), Minnesota, Maryland, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah all have more than $10MM in subsidies/state support. But there's no escaping notice that every AAC, MWC and MAC school also receives at least $10MM as well. In 2019 with greater attention being paid to student debt, this will eventually get scrutinized and is almost certainly unsustainable.

USFFan

Contained within this report is the reason for the distinction between the G5 and the P5. P5=<20% subsidy. G5=>25% subsidy. And off the P5 schools only 3 or 4 had a subsidy > 10%. Athletic fees for students accounted for a good portion of those subsidized under 5% and I think they must have been the ones highlighted in red.

*cough* Rutgers *cough*

USFFan

Because the "egalitarian" Big 10 has Rutgers making a quarter of what the 12 earliest members are making, Rutgers is really not far ahead of the G5 in conference revenue. With the new contract, the AAC probably catches up until Rutgers gets closer to full membership in the Big 10.

Yes, Rutgers and Maryland are probably on that list because they have been getting a slight fraction of the B1G payouts.

Starting with next year, they will be raking in the full $55m share, so the need for subsidies will be gone.

But there is an old truism in administration, that once a tax is in place, it's hard to get rid of, so it will be interesting to see what they do about those subsidies.

(07-02-2019 11:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:25 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:23 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  Since it's been coming up in a few threads, seems timely to repost (I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't find the thread with it) USA Today's compilation of athletic budgets for the 2016-17 year:

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

where "Total Allocated" includes "The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)"

Even two years ago, UConn was the most subsidized athletic program among all reporting schools (almost exclusively public schools - private schools are not required to report this) - to the tune of >$42MM and roughly 50% of their total athletic budget. Only 5 other schools were subsidized > $30MM. Makes a pretty compelling case that something needed to stop.

By the way, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that being in the P5 is some magical path to making these go away. Virginia, Rutgers ($33MM!), Minnesota, Maryland, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah all have more than $10MM in subsidies/state support. But there's no escaping notice that every AAC, MWC and MAC school also receives at least $10MM as well. In 2019 with greater attention being paid to student debt, this will eventually get scrutinized and is almost certainly unsustainable.

USFFan

Contained within this report is the reason for the distinction between the G5 and the P5. P5=<20% subsidy. G5=>25% subsidy. And off the P5 schools only 3 or 4 had a subsidy > 10%. Athletic fees for students accounted for a good portion of those subsidized under 5% and I think they must have been the ones highlighted in red.

*cough* Rutgers *cough*

USFFan

Because the "egalitarian" Big 10 has Rutgers making a quarter of what the 12 earliest members are making, Rutgers is really not far ahead of the G5 in conference revenue. With the new contract, the AAC probably catches up until Rutgers gets closer to full membership in the Big 10.

Yes, Rutgers and Maryland are probably on that list because they have been getting a slight fraction of the B1G payouts.

Starting with next year, they will be raking in the full $55m share, so the need for subsidies will be gone.

But there is an old truism in administration, that once a tax is in place, it's hard to get rid of, so it will be interesting to see what they do about those subsidies.

First the Big 10 made 54 million and they have escalators as well so perhaps the Maryland and Rutgers share will be 55 when they get a full share but it could be a little bit more.

Second, if we move to any kind of pay for play the profits go down slightly and the overhead goes up. I still think that schools which are heavily subsidized are poorly positioned moving forward, even within the Big 10. Will the extra 25 million or so help them? Sure! But what are the deficits they are running now? I think Maryland makes it, I'm not so sure about Rutgers.

And yes, I look for the next decade to slowly winnow out a reasonable % of FBS programs. FCS programs can operate on much much less and I'm sure they'll suffer casualties due to declining enrollment, fewer recruits to pull from, and higher costs. But there are going to be some FBS programs that drop back down to FCS levels and some that may simply pull the plug on football.

I look for these not to be located in the Southeast and Texas. But I do expect some FBS programs in the Southeast and Texas drop down a level.

Whether for their image, or in some other more direct pay for play, I look for significant contraction in the FBS. USF and UCF I don't see dropping down. Houston, East Carolina, Memphis, Cincinnati, Brigham Young, etc, I fully expect to see hang around.

If they want a seat at the big table then their goals should be these: 50,000 minimum attendance, 90 million in total revenue generated, and relatively competitive facilities. They are in high viewer areas of the South where football players are still in good supply.

The greatest thing hurting these kinds of schools are not Florida and Florida State and Miami. They are FIU and FAU, and FAMU, and others who broke into the FBS. Competition for donors and eyeballs are too divided within a relatively small region of Florida and this impedes the development of the programs with the most on the ball. Texas suffers the same. Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia to a much lesser degree even though they have the same kind of competition those population bases are older than those in Florida and the brand loyalty has been locked in longer.

I wouldn't be surprised if by 2030 we had 80 or so FBS programs. And none of this takes into consideration a major downturn in the economy which IMO is just a matter of time. We are already in the longest running Bull market and a few weeks ago the FED and ECB were beginning to question the veracity of the ledger sheets of the entities who back them up. That has been partially responsible for the run up in precious metals.

Should we suffer a major correction, suffer a recession, or have a lock down due to tariffs which globally bring a downturn the abandonment of football at smaller institutions could certainly be accelerated to levels that would surprise many on this board.

It may be just past my lifetime, but contraction in the P5 to four dozen or so schools is also likely IMO.

(07-02-2019 04:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And yes, I look for the next decade to slowly winnow out a reasonable % of FBS programs. FCS programs can operate on much much less and I'm sure they'll suffer casualties due to declining enrollment, fewer recruits to pull from, and higher costs. But there are going to be some FBS programs that drop back down to FCS levels and some that may simply pull the plug on football.

I look for these not to be located in the Southeast and Texas. But I do expect some FBS programs in the Southeast and Texas drop down a level.

I don't know where these statistics are located, but if we're looking for declining college enrollment in the future, we should look at the elementary school age populations in each state and region. That's the pool of potential college students in 10-15 years. States and regions that have a lot fewer people in that age group than in today's 17-23 age group are going to have more college capacity than they can fill.

Bloomberg had a pretty good write up on higher ed demographics about a month ago. The decline is pretty steep, but it’s also pretty regional. Lower tier public and private schools, and 2-year colleges will be hit particularly hard.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...ay-by-2026

(07-01-2019 11:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 11:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 10:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  Why should it matter how individual schools choose to finance their athletic programs? What business is it to anyone but the people who have a legitimate stake in the individual school?

If the taxpayers in Connecticut are OK with the amount of their money that goes to support UConn athletics, why should I care - or have a say in the matter?

I don't think many of those who criticize student-soaking subsidies think they should have a literal say in the matter. E.g., I don't think I should get to vote on whether Memphis soaks its students with $18m in fees. As you say, I'm not a stakeholder.

But, a lot of people are stakeholders, so the possible audience of critics who meet your 'standing' definition is usually pretty large. E.g., in the case of Memphis, the entire state of Tennessee is a stakeholder, because they are public universities.

I think that, in a climate of tight state budgets, where universities are often asking the public to boost their allocations for their academics, or at least not cut them, many members of the public are concerned to find out that students are being socked with big fees that go entirely to athletics, and not to fund academics. That's why it is controversial and attracts attention.

Also, just in terms of the mission of this forum, realignment, it is relevant to discuss because funding can impact on conference choices. It played an impact with UConn, it probably played an impact with Maryland going to the B1G, etc.

Many of us have been saying for a while now that the current G5 system of hitting students with big fees to fund a big chunk of their striver-athletic programs as they try to stay within shouting (really, texting) distance of the P5 is not long-run sustainable. With UConn, we may be seeing the first crack in a bigger iceberg. IMO that is worth discussing too.

If something isn't sustainable, then more or less by definition it will eventually cease. In many cases with G5 schools, they are trying to catch up to and level the playing field with flagships who have themselves been beneficiaries of hidden or overt subsidies in one form or another for generations. To the extent those flagships can flex their political muscles to sustain the privileged status those subsidies gave them, that's a local matter. And only the naive among us will expect fairness to play a major role in how it's resolved.

Eight California schools in the Big West are propped up to the tune of $140 million (76%).
The six Ohio schools in the MAC recieve $109 million (65%).
These people must reeeally like their football.

The number one problem with you guys is that most of you don't understand the budgets at all.

The "athletic budget" number should be thought of as a total outlay rather than a reflection of how much currency is actually spent.

Scholarships/Stipends
Game Day Costs
Student Activity Fee
Band Costs (some cases)
Salaries/Administration
NCAA Money
CFP Money
Conference Money
Ticket Sales/Concessions
Marketing Revenue
Donations/Pledges
Debt Service
Operations & Maintenance

All of this is stacked together to make the outlay (budget) appear as large as possible.

AAC schools are pulling in 5-10 million more revenue than the typical G5 and also in an attempt to position for a P5 invite have issued debt to facilities adding 10-20 million onto the budget in some cases.

In the MAC they don't build anything unless a big donor is there to kick off a fundraising drive to foot the first 50% of cost if not 75%. The exception might be Akron's new FB stadium where its put the school into $100 million dollars in debt.

MAC schools by and large are not "regional universities" where everyone is from a 20 mile radius of campus. They are not as susceptible to local economic trends like Youngstown St or a Wright St. The exception again here might be Akron which prior to the MAC was considered to be on regional university tier.

MAC schools then don't have too much of a enrollment threat like you find at regional university or a community college where an economic cycle can make or break a university. Therefore the $200 or $300 per year of the student activity fee that helps to cover operations is sustainable.

Then also with the TV money $30 million in a season for the MAC doesn't seem like a whole lot but relative to what the P5 is spending its worth x4 or x5 times that. Its significant relative to their budgets so there is no pressure to move down, with the exception of Akron which is retreating back to its historically regional level.

Quote:Because universities rely on students to help pay back debts, they’re counting on student enrollment numbers to stay steady in coming years.

Funding sources from the state government are limited, said Jeannie Reifsnyder, senior associate vice president for finance and administration at Kent State University.

“The only way to try to raise our revenue streams for operating costs and debt payment is through enrollment,” Reifsnyder said.

Student enrollments haven’t been a problem for the state’s larger universities — such as Cincinnati, Ohio University, Miami and Ohio State, where enrollment numbers have continued to climb.

But overall, some of the state’s public universities are showing signs of a struggle to lure students into classrooms. The number of students who attended a four-year public college dropped from 338,300 students in 2010 to 331,156 students in 2013, according to Ohio Board of Regents.

“I wouldn’t make the assumption that enrollments will keep growing and growing,” Vedder said. “I would be ultra cautious about borrowing huge sums for huge constructions. I think we’re getting carried away.”

Kent State’s enrollment has tapered off from 42,513 students in fall 2012 to 41,214 last fall.“

We’ve obviously been focusing on outside Ohio as well as inside in order to try to grow that enrollment,” Reifsnyder said. “The other thing we have been focused on is the retention of our students as well.”

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/deb...qmdLAMzOI/

Some of you would be pretty surprised as to who is doing well and who is not. Ohio State and Cincinnati by themselves combine for over 50 percent of the 6.5 billion dollar university debt in Ohio.

University Debt in 2014:

Ohio St. $2,605,528,000
Cincinnati $1,236,000,000
Akron $487,101,792
Bowling Green $147,100,000

Then you have Ohio which restructured its bonds into a credit line to tap into for future university renovations. Now they aren't spending money on a new stadium (at least yet) but scheduled all the building replacement out by retirement date.

Other universities are getting more creative with how they borrow.

Quote:Rather than pay to borrow new money every year or two, Ohio University this budget year turned to investors to borrow $250 million over 100 years, said Beth Green, OU’s director of debt management.

By borrowing $250 million now, the university estimates it will be able to recycle it and invest a total $1.3 billion before the bill is due in year 2115.

Almost like a line of credit, the university will lend portions of the $250 million for a project, repay it and spend it again before the debt expires 100 years from now, Green said.

“We realized that we could lock in an extremely attractive interest rate over the next 100 years,” Green said. “The idea is we want to put a significant dent in our deferred maintenance backlog so we don’t become at a point where we are today in the future.”

(07-02-2019 11:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:25 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:23 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  Since it's been coming up in a few threads, seems timely to repost (I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't find the thread with it) USA Today's compilation of athletic budgets for the 2016-17 year:

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

where "Total Allocated" includes "The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)"

Even two years ago, UConn was the most subsidized athletic program among all reporting schools (almost exclusively public schools - private schools are not required to report this) - to the tune of >$42MM and roughly 50% of their total athletic budget. Only 5 other schools were subsidized > $30MM. Makes a pretty compelling case that something needed to stop.

By the way, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that being in the P5 is some magical path to making these go away. Virginia, Rutgers ($33MM!), Minnesota, Maryland, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah all have more than $10MM in subsidies/state support. But there's no escaping notice that every AAC, MWC and MAC school also receives at least $10MM as well. In 2019 with greater attention being paid to student debt, this will eventually get scrutinized and is almost certainly unsustainable.

USFFan

Contained within this report is the reason for the distinction between the G5 and the P5. P5=<20% subsidy. G5=>25% subsidy. And off the P5 schools only 3 or 4 had a subsidy > 10%. Athletic fees for students accounted for a good portion of those subsidized under 5% and I think they must have been the ones highlighted in red.

*cough* Rutgers *cough*

USFFan

Because the "egalitarian" Big 10 has Rutgers making a quarter of what the 12 earliest members are making, Rutgers is really not far ahead of the G5 in conference revenue. With the new contract, the AAC probably catches up until Rutgers gets closer to full membership in the Big 10.

Yes, Rutgers and Maryland are probably on that list because they have been getting a slight fraction of the B1G payouts.

Starting with next year, they will be raking in the full $55m share, so the need for subsidies will be gone.

But there is an old truism in administration, that once a tax is in place, it's hard to get rid of, so it will be interesting to see what they do about those subsidies.

Its still a few years for Rutgers. They only got $11 million last year. I think the AAC distribution was about $7 million. Maryland gets to a full share quicker, but I think they have to pay off loans from the conference for a few years, so they won't bring home as much as Purdue.

(07-02-2019 09:12 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The number one problem with you guys is that most of you don't understand the budgets at all.

The "athletic budget" number should be thought of as a total outlay rather than a reflection of how much currency is actually spent.

Scholarships/Stipends
Game Day Costs
Student Activity Fee
Band Costs (some cases)
Salaries/Administration
NCAA Money
CFP Money
Conference Money
Ticket Sales/Concessions
Marketing Revenue
Donations/Pledges
Debt Service
Operations & Maintenance

All of this is stacked together to make the outlay (budget) appear as large as possible.

AAC schools are pulling in 5-10 million more revenue than the typical G5 and also in an attempt to position for a P5 invite have issued debt to facilities adding 10-20 million onto the budget in some cases.

In the MAC they don't build anything unless a big donor is there to kick off a fundraising drive to foot the first 50% of cost if not 75%. The exception might be Akron's new FB stadium where its put the school into $100 million dollars in debt.

MAC schools by and large are not "regional universities" where everyone is from a 20 mile radius of campus. They are not as susceptible to local economic trends like Youngstown St or a Wright St. The exception again here might be Akron which prior to the MAC was considered to be on regional university tier.

MAC schools then have too much of a enrollment threat like you find at regional university or a community college where an economic cycle can make or break a university. Therefore the $200 or $300 per year of the student activity fee that helps to cover operations is sustainable.

Then also with the TV money $30 million in a season for the MAC doesn't seem like a whole lot but relative to what the P5 is spending its worth x4 or x5 times that. Its significant relative to their budgets so there is no pressure to move down, with the exception of Akron which is retreating back to its historically regional level.

I was surprised Akron didn't close down shop for football when they had to replace the stadium. The MAC schools have to deal with declining enrollment and negligible student interest. About 10 years ago, I read that the state of Ohio had 25% fewer high school seniors than they did in 1980. That trend is probably accelerating. Michigan and Illinois are in worse shape than Ohio.

(07-01-2019 11:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  If something isn't sustainable, then more or less by definition it will eventually cease. In many cases with G5 schools, they are trying to catch up to and level the playing field with flagships who have themselves been beneficiaries of hidden or overt subsidies in one form or another for generations.

For sure they are overspending to try and catch up, but your "hidden or overt subsidies for generations" are overstated because the cost of everything in college sports was far, far less "back in the day".

No school was paying millions to subsidize a football coach's salary in 1951 when Woody Hayes made $12,500 at Ohio State. Today, five-star QBs and basketball stars "allegedly" get more than 10 times that amount under the table, never mind what coaches make above the table, and schools spend 50 to 100 times that amount on recruiting expenses each year. No school went $20 million/year into the red to subsidize college football in the 1950s; coaches were making as much as normal university employees.

Bear Bryant made $450,000 in his last year at Alabama in 1982, most of which came from outside sources. Even if you translate the latter amount to today's dollars, and even if we pretend all of that $450,000 was university money and that Alabama didn't have football revenue to cover any of it (ha ha), it's still about $1.2 million in today's dollars. There are about two dozen G5 teams paying their head football coach more than that today. There are a few dozen assistants in CFB making more than that.

(source for old salaries: https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ry-highest )

Facilities were also built for pennies on the dollar compared to today and were bare bones compared to even brand-new G5 stadiums, let alone two-billion-dollar NFL palaces.

The head starts on branding and fan loyalty provided by a long history in college sports are far more important than the $12,500/year Ohio State paid Woody Hayes way back when.

(07-02-2019 10:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:12 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The number one problem with you guys is that most of you don't understand the budgets at all.

The "athletic budget" number should be thought of as a total outlay rather than a reflection of how much currency is actually spent.

Scholarships/Stipends
Game Day Costs
Student Activity Fee
Band Costs (some cases)
Salaries/Administration
NCAA Money
CFP Money
Conference Money
Ticket Sales/Concessions
Marketing Revenue
Donations/Pledges
Debt Service
Operations & Maintenance

All of this is stacked together to make the outlay (budget) appear as large as possible.

AAC schools are pulling in 5-10 million more revenue than the typical G5 and also in an attempt to position for a P5 invite have issued debt to facilities adding 10-20 million onto the budget in some cases.

In the MAC they don't build anything unless a big donor is there to kick off a fundraising drive to foot the first 50% of cost if not 75%. The exception might be Akron's new FB stadium where its put the school into $100 million dollars in debt.

MAC schools by and large are not "regional universities" where everyone is from a 20 mile radius of campus. They are not as susceptible to local economic trends like Youngstown St or a Wright St. The exception again here might be Akron which prior to the MAC was considered to be on regional university tier.

MAC schools then have too much of a enrollment threat like you find at regional university or a community college where an economic cycle can make or break a university. Therefore the $200 or $300 per year of the student activity fee that helps to cover operations is sustainable.

Then also with the TV money $30 million in a season for the MAC doesn't seem like a whole lot but relative to what the P5 is spending its worth x4 or x5 times that. Its significant relative to their budgets so there is no pressure to move down, with the exception of Akron which is retreating back to its historically regional level.

I was surprised Akron didn't close down shop for football when they had to replace the stadium. The MAC schools have to deal with declining enrollment and negligible student interest. About 10 years ago, I read that the state of Ohio had 25% fewer high school seniors than they did in 1980. That trend is probably accelerating. Michigan and Illinois are in worse shape than Ohio.

The overall drop in the number of 4 year college students has only been about 2% so far.

That enrollment drop is concentrated in the lower tier publics of Ohio, not the MAC schools sans Akron. They have to compete with online programs at a lower price point for some who don't see the value in a CC or a lower tier public.

U of Akron at the time was booming when they built the new stadium. It was all part of the master plan to try an elevate the school from being thought as lower tier like Youngstown St to more on the level of Toledo and BGSU.

IMO student fees are fine. That is part of the cost of being a student, and comes with your bill. Buyer beware.

What is not OK are Institutional transfers, which are tax money. This should absolutely be illegal, as it amounts to institutionalized fraud, the use of money from plumbers and maids and others in their State payroll taxes, which are meant for classroom instruction, not to subsidized athletics which only a few participate in.

it will probably start slowly then rapidly move to where states take action

Virginia passed a bill to limit their student athletics fees and Texas has limited theirs to $20 per credit hour for a long time.....but at least in Texas schools still simply transfer more money from general academics even if their student fees are at the $20 per credit hour limit

eventually when more states start to pass limits students at schools in other states and law makers will start to look and see that even with fee limits universities are simply transferring money anyway and they will start to place limits

while money is "fungible" in Texas you cannot spend state funds on athletics and since most state funding (pretty much all) is formula based and centered on faculty and staff (I&O) and buildings (Infrastructure) it is pretty easy to track where the money goes (well except at north Texas state where they stole about $65 million over several years)

that leaves tuition and proceeds from endowments as the money that universities can transfer and most endowment dollars will be marked for specific things.....so that pretty much leaves tuition and it is hard to argue you are not exceeding the $20 per credit hour limit when you are at that limit and transferring millions if not tens of millions more that can pretty much be traced right back to tuition

(07-02-2019 11:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  IMO student fees are fine. That is part of the cost of being a student, and comes with your bill. Buyer beware.

What is not OK are Institutional transfers, which are tax money. This should absolutely be illegal, as it amounts to institutionalized fraud, the use of money from plumbers and maids and others in their State payroll taxes, which are meant for classroom instruction, not to subsidized athletics which only a few participate in.

I think we should set a cap on all athletic spending but set it equal to what the top school earns now, so say 200 million. Then that becomes the permanent cap for all Division 1 schools. If a school exceeds that in earnings the overage goes to the general fund. The money does not flow out of the general fund to athletics period. If the athletic department runs a deficit the need to make that up by budget reduction.

I think that would be fair, doesn't limit anyone at implementation, and would allow for a bit more sanity in sports. Building projects would not be part of the A.D. budget. Those may be offset by direct apportionment or by pledge.

(07-02-2019 09:38 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:Because universities rely on students to help pay back debts, they’re counting on student enrollment numbers to stay steady in coming years.

Funding sources from the state government are limited, said Jeannie Reifsnyder, senior associate vice president for finance and administration at Kent State University.

“The only way to try to raise our revenue streams for operating costs and debt payment is through enrollment,” Reifsnyder said.

Student enrollments haven’t been a problem for the state’s larger universities — such as Cincinnati, Ohio University, Miami and Ohio State, where enrollment numbers have continued to climb.

But overall, some of the state’s public universities are showing signs of a struggle to lure students into classrooms. The number of students who attended a four-year public college dropped from 338,300 students in 2010 to 331,156 students in 2013, according to Ohio Board of Regents.

“I wouldn’t make the assumption that enrollments will keep growing and growing,” Vedder said. “I would be ultra cautious about borrowing huge sums for huge constructions. I think we’re getting carried away.”

Kent State’s enrollment has tapered off from 42,513 students in fall 2012 to 41,214 last fall.“

We’ve obviously been focusing on outside Ohio as well as inside in order to try to grow that enrollment,” Reifsnyder said. “The other thing we have been focused on is the retention of our students as well.”

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/deb...qmdLAMzOI/

Some of you would be pretty surprised as to who is doing well and who is not. Ohio State and Cincinnati by themselves combine for over 50 percent of the 6.5 million dollar university debt in Ohio.

University Debt in 2014:

Ohio St. $2,605,528,000
Cincinnati $1,236,000,000
Akron $487,101,792
Bowling Green $147,100,000

Then you have Ohio which restructured its bonds into a credit line to tap into for future university renovations. Now they aren't spending money on a new stadium (at least yet) but scheduled all the building replacement out by retirement date.

Other universities are getting more creative with how they borrow.

Quote:Rather than pay to borrow new money every year or two, Ohio University this budget year turned to investors to borrow $250 million over 100 years, said Beth Green, OU’s director of debt management.

By borrowing $250 million now, the university estimates it will be able to recycle it and invest a total $1.3 billion before the bill is due in year 2115.

Almost like a line of credit, the university will lend portions of the $250 million for a project, repay it and spend it again before the debt expires 100 years from now, Green said.

“We realized that we could lock in an extremely attractive interest rate over the next 100 years,” Green said. “The idea is we want to put a significant dent in our deferred maintenance backlog so we don’t become at a point where we are today in the future.”

The debt is 6.5 billion, not million.

(07-03-2019 01:01 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:38 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

Quote:Because universities rely on students to help pay back debts, they’re counting on student enrollment numbers to stay steady in coming years.

Funding sources from the state government are limited, said Jeannie Reifsnyder, senior associate vice president for finance and administration at Kent State University.

“The only way to try to raise our revenue streams for operating costs and debt payment is through enrollment,” Reifsnyder said.

Student enrollments haven’t been a problem for the state’s larger universities — such as Cincinnati, Ohio University, Miami and Ohio State, where enrollment numbers have continued to climb.

But overall, some of the state’s public universities are showing signs of a struggle to lure students into classrooms. The number of students who attended a four-year public college dropped from 338,300 students in 2010 to 331,156 students in 2013, according to Ohio Board of Regents.

“I wouldn’t make the assumption that enrollments will keep growing and growing,” Vedder said. “I would be ultra cautious about borrowing huge sums for huge constructions. I think we’re getting carried away.”

Kent State’s enrollment has tapered off from 42,513 students in fall 2012 to 41,214 last fall.“

We’ve obviously been focusing on outside Ohio as well as inside in order to try to grow that enrollment,” Reifsnyder said. “The other thing we have been focused on is the retention of our students as well.”

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/deb...qmdLAMzOI/

Some of you would be pretty surprised as to who is doing well and who is not. Ohio State and Cincinnati by themselves combine for over 50 percent of the 6.5 million dollar university debt in Ohio.

University Debt in 2014:

Ohio St. $2,605,528,000
Cincinnati $1,236,000,000
Akron $487,101,792
Bowling Green $147,100,000

Then you have Ohio which restructured its bonds into a credit line to tap into for future university renovations. Now they aren't spending money on a new stadium (at least yet) but scheduled all the building replacement out by retirement date.

Other universities are getting more creative with how they borrow.

Quote:Rather than pay to borrow new money every year or two, Ohio University this budget year turned to investors to borrow $250 million over 100 years, said Beth Green, OU’s director of debt management.

By borrowing $250 million now, the university estimates it will be able to recycle it and invest a total $1.3 billion before the bill is due in year 2115.

Almost like a line of credit, the university will lend portions of the $250 million for a project, repay it and spend it again before the debt expires 100 years from now, Green said.

“We realized that we could lock in an extremely attractive interest rate over the next 100 years,” Green said. “The idea is we want to put a significant dent in our deferred maintenance backlog so we don’t become at a point where we are today in the future.”

The debt is 6.5 billion, not million.

Corrected it thanks.

(07-02-2019 09:12 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The number one problem with you guys is that most of you don't understand the budgets at all.

In the MAC they don't build anything unless a big donor is there to kick off a fundraising drive to foot the first 50% of cost if not 75%. The exception might be Akron's new FB stadium where its put the school into $100 million dollars in debt.

The total cost of Akron's 27,000 seat stadium was about $60M. Fundraising was kicked off with about $20M in naming rights from Infocision Mgmt. Corp., Summa Health Systems, and several banks.