Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Athletic subsidies
Author Message
usffan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,980
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 307
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #1
Athletic subsidies
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
07-01-2019 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

GoldenWarrior11 Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,539
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 220
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #2
RE: Athletic subsidies
Every institution and how they fund their athletic programs is different, even in the case of how it is subsidized. To those numbers, Houston's athletic budget was subsidized by 45%; however, I don't think that is should be grouped together with the other near-50% subsidized athletic budgets because they have a huge supporter in billionaire Tilman Fertitta (who I believe had tremendous influence in getting Dana Holgerson to leave West Virginia for Houston in the Winter). Now, this is most certainly an exception, and not the rule, but it still carries the same lesson: unless you have resources (in whatever form) that can finance and support your athletic program against the top-level of college athletics, attempting to artificially inflate your budgets to try and compete with them is a losing proposition. Unfortunately, the individuals that are normally tasked with cleaning up the mess are are at least two hires down the pipeline in most cases.

Personally, I do think it is wrong to stick the bill to current students (raising fees and costs for them); if an institution does not have the financial support from alumni, TV revenue or fan interest, it should not be left up to the student body to fill the gap.
07-01-2019 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,487
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 744
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #3
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.
07-01-2019 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,539
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 220
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #4
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.

Quo, I'd like to highlight this point you made. UConn is, arguably, the other current G5 program with a legitimate alternative to its present conference affiliation. This point has been made since 2013, and was referenced repeatedly by fans and members of the media. It was always a strong possibility, especially since UConn's AAC membership simply was not sustainable.

For the rest of the G5, I do not think dropping down to FCS is the likely "course correction" either; instead, I think we have already entered into a second separate division within FBS (we casually refer to it as the P5/G5 today). Many on here like to refer to a potential "split" in college football due to the growing disparities in revenues and payouts over the years; that time has already come, but many just haven't realized it. When Big East Football was plucked apart, that was the top-tier of college football snatching the last available value adds to add to their collective. The G5 has had not one, but two, undefeated G5 programs that did not come close to sniffing an opportunity for a CFP bid (UCF/WMU); the 2015 Houston Cougars, had they not lost to UConn and gone undefeated, would not have in the CFP either. Next year's bowl games, unless I am miscounting, only guarantees five P5/G5 match-ups. The TV revenue is its own topic, but that is a glaring disparity as well.

The biggest question is how G5 programs will continue supporting football, given it is not part of the top division and the resources are simply not there to continue funding and treating it as one. I'm sure that there are many that will continue sponsoring it at their highest capabilities against other like-minded programs, but would not be shocked to see interest/support weaken for others (especially the longer term programs that are used to being in the top-tier and expect to be treated as such).
07-01-2019 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,208
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 464
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #5
RE: Athletic subsidies
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? Especially when few of us, including me, really understand all the factors that entered into the decision. What if a part of UConn's deficits are a result of paying exorbitant rents to use stadiums built with taxpayer money? If those overpayments are going back to the City of Hartford, who is being subsidized - UConn or Hartford?

Regardless, if Connecticut voters are willing to pay for this, or if UConn students and their parents are willing to pay athletic fees, that's their decision - nobody else's.
07-01-2019 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,980
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 307
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Athletic subsidies
(07-01-2019 10:34 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(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.

Quo, I'd like to highlight this point you made. UConn is, arguably, the other current G5 program with a legitimate alternative to its present conference affiliation. This point has been made since 2013, and was referenced repeatedly by fans and members of the media. It was always a strong possibility, especially since UConn's AAC membership simply was not sustainable.

For the rest of the G5, I do not think dropping down to FCS is the likely "course correction" either; instead, I think we have already entered into a second separate division within FBS (we casually refer to it as the P5/G5 today). Many on here like to refer to a potential "split" in college football due to the growing disparities in revenues and payouts over the years; that time has already come, but many just haven't realized it. When Big East Football was plucked apart, that was the top-tier of college football snatching the last available value adds to add to their collective. The G5 has had not one, but two, undefeated G5 programs that did not come close to sniffing an opportunity for a CFP bid (UCF/WMU); the 2015 Houston Cougars, had they not lost to UConn and gone undefeated, would not have in the CFP either. Next year's bowl games, unless I am miscounting, only guarantees five P5/G5 match-ups. The TV revenue is its own topic, but that is a glaring disparity as well.

The biggest question is how G5 programs will continue supporting football, given it is not part of the top division and the resources are simply not there to continue funding and treating it as one. I'm sure that there are many that will continue sponsoring it at their highest capabilities against other like-minded programs, but would not be shocked to see interest/support weaken for others (especially the longer term programs that are used to being in the top-tier and expect to be treated as such).

I've been thinking about this very thing for a while. Schools have been disbanding football teams for a long time (see Pacific, Wichita State, Long Beach State, Santa Clara...). So this isn't something new. And schools have been competing at "the highest level" for decades without having a realistic chance at winning a national championship for a long time as well. This notion that only only a handful of teams have a realistic chance at making the CFP is nothing new - the last real upstarts to get into this discussion were Miami and BYU in the mid-80's, and only the former has a realistic shot today. That certainly didn't stop most of the schools in the current G5 from competing.

But back in the day, those schools were sustained in part because the only way to watch college football was largely by going to the games. That prompted alumni to trek back to campus to see their alma maters play and reconnect with old classmates. In 2019, all those games are on TV, and people are connected by social media, so there's no pressing need to go to the games any more. And you aren't required to root for the local team/alma mater, since you can watch Bama and Clemson play every week. So I do think that this time it's different. I'm not sure there will be any official split between P5 and G5, but the gap is only going to get wider. And some schools, presumably starting in states where populations/enrollments are dropping, will almost certainly opt out of this unending game of playing catch-up.

USFFan
07-01-2019 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,487
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 744
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #7
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2019 11:09 AM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2019 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,487
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 744
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #8
RE: Athletic subsidies
(07-01-2019 10:55 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(07-01-2019 10:34 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(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.

Quo, I'd like to highlight this point you made. UConn is, arguably, the other current G5 program with a legitimate alternative to its present conference affiliation. This point has been made since 2013, and was referenced repeatedly by fans and members of the media. It was always a strong possibility, especially since UConn's AAC membership simply was not sustainable.

For the rest of the G5, I do not think dropping down to FCS is the likely "course correction" either; instead, I think we have already entered into a second separate division within FBS (we casually refer to it as the P5/G5 today). Many on here like to refer to a potential "split" in college football due to the growing disparities in revenues and payouts over the years; that time has already come, but many just haven't realized it. When Big East Football was plucked apart, that was the top-tier of college football snatching the last available value adds to add to their collective. The G5 has had not one, but two, undefeated G5 programs that did not come close to sniffing an opportunity for a CFP bid (UCF/WMU); the 2015 Houston Cougars, had they not lost to UConn and gone undefeated, would not have in the CFP either. Next year's bowl games, unless I am miscounting, only guarantees five P5/G5 match-ups. The TV revenue is its own topic, but that is a glaring disparity as well.

The biggest question is how G5 programs will continue supporting football, given it is not part of the top division and the resources are simply not there to continue funding and treating it as one. I'm sure that there are many that will continue sponsoring it at their highest capabilities against other like-minded programs, but would not be shocked to see interest/support weaken for others (especially the longer term programs that are used to being in the top-tier and expect to be treated as such).

I've been thinking about this very thing for a while. Schools have been disbanding football teams for a long time (see Pacific, Wichita State, Long Beach State, Santa Clara...). So this isn't something new. And schools have been competing at "the highest level" for decades without having a realistic chance at winning a national championship for a long time as well. This notion that only only a handful of teams have a realistic chance at making the CFP is nothing new - the last real upstarts to get into this discussion were Miami and BYU in the mid-80's, and only the former has a realistic shot today. That certainly didn't stop most of the schools in the current G5 from competing.

But back in the day, those schools were sustained in part because the only way to watch college football was largely by going to the games. That prompted alumni to trek back to campus to see their alma maters play and reconnect with old classmates. In 2019, all those games are on TV, and people are connected by social media, so there's no pressing need to go to the games any more. And you aren't required to root for the local team/alma mater, since you can watch Bama and Clemson play every week. So I do think that this time it's different. I'm not sure there will be any official split between P5 and G5, but the gap is only going to get wider. And some schools, presumably starting in states where populations/enrollments are dropping, will almost certainly opt out of this unending game of playing catch-up.

USFFan

Good points. And one other thing is that since the BCS era began, the money-ante for being "competitive" at the top level has risen dramatically.

For example, in 1996, when Florida won its first football national championship, their entire athletic budget was $14 million, or $22 million adjusted to today's money. And they were among the very biggest spenders. E.g., that same year, Baylor had an athletic budget of $7.5 million. Even adjusting for inflation, that Baylor budget would barely pay Nick Saban's salary today. And that was for the entire AD. That's the way things were around the time USF played our first football games.

So back then, a "non-AQ" school didn't need to generate as much money to stay in the competitive ballpark, because in absolute terms, even the elite of the elite weren't spending all that much.

Much different now, with no end in sight.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2019 11:16 AM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2019 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,208
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 464
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #9
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.
07-01-2019 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,487
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 744
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #10
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.

I never said a thing about fairness, so not sure where that came from.

Beyond that, yes, if something isn't sustainable, it will eventually cease, but that doesn't mean a school doesn't have options. E.g., when you are driving your car, you know the supply of gas isn't 'sustainable', but that doesn't mean you just drive it until the engine conks out and goes into a ditch. At a certain point, you take corrective action.

Also, even if something is sustainable, that doesn't mean it's a good thing to sustain it. E.g., if I am a Tennessee taxpayer, I may not like Memphis socking its students with high athletic fees, even if they can in fact keep funding athletics with that fee indefinitely, because I may think it is more important that a state school invest in academics.

So there's plenty to discuss here. 07-coffee3
07-01-2019 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,036
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 569
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #11
RE: Athletic subsidies
(07-01-2019 10:03 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Every institution and how they fund their athletic programs is different, even in the case of how it is subsidized. To those numbers, Houston's athletic budget was subsidized by 45%; however, I don't think that is should be grouped together with the other near-50% subsidized athletic budgets because they have a huge supporter in billionaire Tilman Fertitta (who I believe had tremendous influence in getting Dana Holgerson to leave West Virginia for Houston in the Winter).

No, any amount donated by Fertitta or anyone else is listed under the "Contributions" column for that school. Using Houston as an example: In the most recent year listed by USA Today, 2017, Houston received $9,923,994 in "Contributions".

What USA Today calls "subsidy" is separate from donations, it is money provided by the university itself, whether from the school's general fund, from taxing their own students ("Student Fees"), from state government, etc. Again using Houston's data from the USA Today table for the most recent year: "Subsidy" (or "Total Allocated") is the sum of "Student Fees", $8,094,424, and "School Funds", $17,609,027.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
07-01-2019 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,474
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1647
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.
07-01-2019 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,980
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 307
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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
07-01-2019 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,474
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1647
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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

Yes, Rutgers at 34%+. What does that tell you? It tells me you are looking at the poster child of market additions that were encouraged by the networks in 2010-2. The Big 10 folks will be chewing on this one for a long time to come.

It also tells me that Maryland, Colorado, Virginia, Arizona State, Utah, and Arizona will be casualties if we move to a pay for play situation. Those are the P5 that subsidize greater than 10%.

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%.

If realignment wasn't so geographical, and so many small privates hadn't been grandfathered in, we might already be at a P5 of 60 or less. Toss in the private schools that may opt out of compensating players and an upper tier of 48 or so isn't impractical at all.

Folks are always rushing to lay blame on this group or that about who gets in and who doesn't. This list and others like it tell the whole story. We have those who can afford to be there, and those going in the red to stay there, and those going way into the red trying to get there. But in the end it will be the business ledger's bottom line that makes the determination.

All of the stratification in college sports comes down to what you can afford. When USF can hit the 80 million revenue mark with less than 10% subsidy you will be in a P5 because that is what the P5 really is. It's just going to take a little time for some schools to grow into inclusion and for others to step aside when they are tired of pretending to be there and can no longer afford subsidizing the dream.

What will be an interesting test case to watch is what happens with the Rutgers finances once they start getting a full share of the Big 10 revenue. If their woes continue then shame on them. If their fortunes turn around then folks in the G5 will be able to rightfully say that if they were included in a top conference they could make it too. But my hunch says that the internal issues that led to that 34% subsidy will still be in place even when their earnings jump to 54 million or more.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2019 01:00 PM by JRsec.)
07-01-2019 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HyperDuke Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,138
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Athletic subsidies
04-rock
(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.

Shouldn’t you list all of the exceptions if you’re going to state that as a hard fact when it’s actually not? You know, to maintain credibility?
07-01-2019 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,474
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1647
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Athletic subsidies
(07-01-2019 12:50 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  04-rock
(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.

Shouldn’t you list all of the exceptions if you’re going to state that as a hard fact when it’s actually not? You know, to maintain credibility?
If you want to get into the nitty gritty then go to the Equity in Athletics site and look up the tax returns but, by and large, those who heavily subsidize probably can't afford the sports they are playing.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2019 01:01 PM by JRsec.)
07-01-2019 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,036
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 569
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #17
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.
07-01-2019 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HyperDuke Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,138
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Athletic subsidies
(07-01-2019 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-01-2019 12:50 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  04-rock
(07-01-2019 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

Shouldn’t you list all of the exceptions if you’re going to state that as a hard fact when it’s actually not? You know, to maintain credibility?
If you want to get into the nitty gritty then go to the Equity in Athletics site and look up the tax returns but, by and large, those who heavily subsidize probably can't afford the sports they are playing.

So...you just post inaccurate information because the larger point you’re attempting to make justifies that? Guess I’ll skip over your posts in the future unless you’re posting sources...
07-01-2019 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,474
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1647
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.
07-01-2019 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,036
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 569
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #20
RE: Athletic subsidies
(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.
07-01-2019 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.