(07-06-2019 06:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  a pretty poor article in general

you could take away 100% of the student fees and university funds and UConn would still have a $41 million dollar budget and that puts them way up at the top of G5 programs and that is with all those other G5 programs keeping 100% of their (often very large) subsidies

so saying UConn is "broke" is a bit of a joke they clearly had very poor cost controls and an athletics department that thought they could spend their way into the P5 (as many G5s think) and they woke up and realized that in the process they were in a conference that was terrible for their programs (especially the revenue producing ones) and they realized to protect that $41 million in unsubsidized revenue they needed to make a change

the warning should be to those that do not understand what UConn is doing and that still think they can impress the P5 with massive subsidies

no P5 conference is going to do G5 expansion math where they take the current highly subsidized budget, do not remove any of the money from the current conference distributions, and then add on a full P5 conference distribution to try and claim that a program would be way up in P5 budgets at that point and thus able to easily compete

never mind ignoring that facilities would need to be expanded to match what most P5 programs have and those G5 programs usually already have a massive debt load they accumulated to get the current (often very small) venues compared to P5 programs

then you tack on the highly unimpressive "we will sell more tickets if "our fans" can see us play better teams" and "our big donors will give lots of money if you just let us in"

no P5 conference cares to take that risk it is just not worth it to them......even if that G5 program was willing to keep their top 5 (if compared to other P5 programs) academic side subsidy for a long number of years no P5 conference really wants to be saddled with that because you never know when that willingness will change and many P5 conferences are moving to reduce their academic subsidies and there is no reason to go against that and get a program that could reverse that momentum

There seems to be something different between a school like Boise State and a school like UConn. Boise State does have a deep pockets sugar daddy to donate money. Their football stadium is named after that sugar daddy. They do have plans in place to expand the stadium, and that sugar daddy, and other donors would raise the cash to make it happened that Boise state does not really depend on subsidies. UConn do not have a deep pocket sugar daddy to bail them out.

Boise has some other things going for them too

the California PAC 12 schools are all very difficult academically and even SDSU and Fresno are quality schools and SDSU was not great at football for a long time

and SJSU is a quality school and their football sucks

UW is a tough school as well and Oregon can only take so many players

Boise is in a really nice location, they were not hard to get into or stay in and they took the attitude of winning matters over prideful losses and built from there

so they are able to recruit a lot of players out of California that were not looking to play PAC 12 academics and that did not want to play D1-AA football

UConn does not have near that talent pool to draw from and there are already long standing pipelines to various universities for the talent anywhere close to UConn

I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

I wouldn't count on a lot of the G5 privates making it in the long haul. As selective as they have to be, it doesn't pay very much to drop a lot of money on exposing your brand to new students.

(07-06-2019 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I mean. yeah---its a cautionary tale for schools that use an 80+ million dollar budget to play G5 football. Thats a category with one member.

I doesnt have to be that way. S MIss and LaTech may not be Alabama---but they field perfectly respectable teams in a number of sports---for only about 25 million a year---and they typically have a pretty darn good football team. It can be done.

Frankly, Im not one that is all that big on athletics needing to break even or deliver a profit. To me, its a student amenity and a marketing device. Both are expense items---not profit centers. I see them as the front porch of the university. I think there is value in that. So, if they lose 5, 10, or even 20 million---you can probably make a reasonable argument that they are still a benefit to the school. Once you break that 20 million mark---I think that argument gets substantially harder to make.

Here's where I am---I dont think any school should be spending 80 million on sports unless they have the ticket sales and donor base to keep the school subsidy in that 20 million or below range. A 40 million dollar athletic deficit is just too large to reasonably defend---especially when the current performance of the 2 big revenue sports is so far below expectations.

Given that we have often clashed over the "front porch" concept, I am surprised to say we almost agree. E.g., concerning your $20m subsidy rule of thumb, if we look at the AAC, excluding the departing UConn, we see (from USA Today) these subsidies:

Cincy ..... $27m

UCF ....... $27m

Houston ... $26m

USF ......... $21m

And this is with the private schools like Tulsa, Temple, SMU, and Tulane not reporting.

And beyond the AAC, we see many other schools well above the $20m mark. E.g., four MAC schools are at $23m or above, two MWC schools are, four CUSA schools are, and two Sun Belt schools are.

That's an awful lot of G5 schools burning through very large subsidies chasing the dream.

I think the Orlando writer is right, this is unsustainable in the long run. UConn was just the first domino to fall.

IMO, "amenity" and "marketing" are both hard to justify in terms of immense subsidies. E.g., if football is an amenity, you don't need to be playing Florida or Georgia to be entertained. Many FCS schools provide their students with entertainment playing other FCS schools they have rivalries with. In Baton Rouge, sure, we have LSU, and they fill their stadium playing Alabama and Florida and Texas A/M. But across town, at HBCU Southern University, they have three days of intense tailgating before their home games vs schools like Jackson State, Alcorn State, and Texas Southern. Football is as big a part of their campus culture as it is at LSU.

As for marketing, schools like USF and UCF were booming their enrollment before football became a thing for them, so not sure what the connection is.

Yeah, ideally I'd like to see that subsidy get below 20. That said---I'd be more concerned if I thought this was a long term thing---but I dont think it is. Im pretty sure its about possible mid-2020 realignment and new revenue streams that are soon coming on line this year and next. Basketball has not pulled it weight as a revenue sport at UH---that is now changing. Additionally, Im pretty sure those figures are from before the opening of the new basketball arena. Basketball season ticket sales are up and the new Fertitta Center is now getting bookings as a venue for concerts a events we were not getting before. TDECU is going to be the home of an XFL team, so that will help. And of course, the new tv deal will help as well. Taken together---with the steady increase in student population this year and next, I suspect that will all get us below the 20 million subsidy if spending remains steady. Either way---the ability to get under that 20 million mark is available to the administration in the short term (although--they may grow spending a bit to stay in the mid 2020 realignment race).

My guess is if we see 2023-2027 come and go with no P5 golden tickets--the administration will almost certainly get that subsidy below the 20 million mark (at a minimum).

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

*If* the school's alumni are interested in funding football with donations.

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

Also depends on whether the university needs the specific exposure of D-I athletics or FBS football to attract students. IMO a large public university with a lot of seats to fill year after year, and a 70% acceptance rate, is in a different situation from a small private university that has a 20% acceptance rate.

At any rate, if someone calls FBS football a marketing expense, it has to be justified as an effective and cost-effective expense in the same way as any other such expense. If a marketing director at a large university spent $20 million/year (or even $1 million/year) on traditional media advertising, that expense would be scrutinized for its effectiveness in increasing applications, increasing the quality of applications, increasing donations, etc., and administrators would try to determine if increases in those metrics were directly related to the advertising. It wouldn't just be blindly accepted as, "Hey, we want to increase our visibility."

(07-06-2019 08:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

*If* the school's alumni are interested in funding football with donations.

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

Also depends on whether the university needs the specific exposure of D-I athletics or FBS football to attract students. IMO a large public university with a lot of seats to fill year after year, and a 70% acceptance rate, is in a different situation from a small private university that has a 20% acceptance rate.

At any rate, if someone calls FBS football a marketing expense, it has to be justified as an effective and cost-effective expense in the same way as any other such expense. If a marketing director at a large university spent $20 million/year (or even $1 million/year) on traditional media advertising, that expense would be scrutinized for its effectiveness in increasing applications, increasing the quality of applications, increasing donations, etc., and administrators would try to determine if increases in those metrics were directly related to the advertising. It wouldn't just be blindly accepted as, "Hey, we want to increase our visibility."

You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

I, like the North Texas administration, view football and basketball as marketing for the university. North Texas had the numbers run and the fake punt return (Peter Pan) we ran in our win over Arkansas last season had an "ad value equivalency" of $19.5 million. An article on CBS Sports stated that around 600 million people were exposed to the University of North Texas from all the media reports, social media posts, and print publications. When you add in the money Arkansas paid us for that game, UNT received over $20,000,000 in cash and media exposure from just that game. That is why a large public university like North Texas pays their coach $1.8 million a year, when our C-USA media deal is almost nothing. It's just good marketing.



https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...mans-path/

I thought research was also tied into exposure the school gets
Alumni returning to campus helps students with networking
Opponents fans coming is tourist money
Now it's funding a class IF students are doing production work

If I remember correctly, my daughter student fee's
Got her to every game free, 24 hr sick bay, intramural sports
Health ins, library, work out equipment,

Complain to spell check

(07-06-2019 06:23 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tulsa, Tulane and Oral Roberts need to join a conference that are not flung out like the AAC and Summit. Would like to see the AAC west break away and reforms the SWC.

Houston
SMU
Rice
Tulane
Tulsa
La. Tech
North Texas
Missouri State
Arkansas State
UTSA
Texas State
Lamar
Wichita State
Little Rock

UTEP goes to MWC.

This is kind of example that D1 should go to. There are D2 schools that could also help fill in spots that are needed to save money.
Would the Summit benefit if they add schools like Northern Colorado, Montana State-Billings, Central Oklahoma, Central Missouri, Missouri Western, Missouri Southern, UAFS, Augustana. Mankato State and others?
Could the Southland Conference go to 24? They grab Lone Star football schools, Texas Southern, Prairie View, Grambling, Southern, Delta State, Henderson State (largest football stadium in GAC), Arkansas Tech or Christian Brothers.

I actually read this and got a massive headache. This is probably the most ridiculous thing David has posted.

Arkansas State would never go for this because it is a huge increase in travel and they recruit the Alabama area too much and want to have conference games there.

The conference expansion proposal is just as far flung or worse than what we have now.

A 24-team Southland? That's not a money saver; that's a money loser.

And of course no DavidSt post is complete without a list of fantasy D2 call-ups.

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 08:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

*If* the school's alumni are interested in funding football with donations.

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

Also depends on whether the university needs the specific exposure of D-I athletics or FBS football to attract students. IMO a large public university with a lot of seats to fill year after year, and a 70% acceptance rate, is in a different situation from a small private university that has a 20% acceptance rate.

At any rate, if someone calls FBS football a marketing expense, it has to be justified as an effective and cost-effective expense in the same way as any other such expense. If a marketing director at a large university spent $20 million/year (or even $1 million/year) on traditional media advertising, that expense would be scrutinized for its effectiveness in increasing applications, increasing the quality of applications, increasing donations, etc., and administrators would try to determine if increases in those metrics were directly related to the advertising. It wouldn't just be blindly accepted as, "Hey, we want to increase our visibility."

You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

if you had a large alumni base to tap for funds then it would make sense to tap them for funds (like many other programs do) instead of tapping the students for funds and talking about the large alumni base you could tap for funds (but don't and instead tap the students for funds)

(07-06-2019 11:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 08:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

*If* the school's alumni are interested in funding football with donations.

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

Also depends on whether the university needs the specific exposure of D-I athletics or FBS football to attract students. IMO a large public university with a lot of seats to fill year after year, and a 70% acceptance rate, is in a different situation from a small private university that has a 20% acceptance rate.

At any rate, if someone calls FBS football a marketing expense, it has to be justified as an effective and cost-effective expense in the same way as any other such expense. If a marketing director at a large university spent $20 million/year (or even $1 million/year) on traditional media advertising, that expense would be scrutinized for its effectiveness in increasing applications, increasing the quality of applications, increasing donations, etc., and administrators would try to determine if increases in those metrics were directly related to the advertising. It wouldn't just be blindly accepted as, "Hey, we want to increase our visibility."

You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

if you had a large alumni base to tap for funds then it would make sense to tap them for funds (like many other programs do) instead of tapping the students for funds and talking about the large alumni base you could tap for funds (but don't and instead tap the students for funds)

Plus, I do not think a school like North Texas have a large sugar dady to donate to. Schools with smaller enrollment do get sugar daddies. Montana State-Billings with over 5000 students got a $1 million dollar donation towards restarting their football program which they have not said they would restart it.

(07-06-2019 04:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  It's definitely not sustainable. A correction will occur down the road, and probably not too far into the future.

The expense-relief correction will occur at the conference/G5-tier/NCAA level. So the struggling schools will try to hang in with their conference until that happens. UConn being an exception because they wanted to rebalance their emphases on football and basketball.

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

I, like the North Texas administration, view football and basketball as marketing for the university.

The problem with this thinking is that there isn't really much evidence to support it, which makes its prevalence on campuses rather odd, given these are universities dedicated to facts, logic, etc.

For example, at your North Texas, the six years from 2005 - 2010 were absolutely abysmal in football, you guys never won more than three games in any of those years. And yet institutionally, they were years of excellent growth in enrollment, facilities, quality of students, and quality of faculty. The presence of abysmal football didn't abate that.

And since moving to CUSA, your have had up and down years, with the last two being up, but regardless, that institutional growth has continued unabated.

So growth at UNT - the kind of growth we would expect effective marketing to be the cause of - seems entirely unrelated to the UNT football team. Claims of $20m in marketing value for an Arkansas punt muff seem to be ephemeral, not connected to the real world.

And you are not alone - e.g., USF and UCF both experienced the same kind of institutional growth UNT has had, before they had football teams at all.

What seems to be the case is that rather than being a CAUSE of institutional growth, the presence of a football team backed by $20m+ in subsidies is an EFFECT of that growth: Once a school grows to a certain size and stature, the elites at the university - donors, prominent alumni, student leaders - develop the feeling that We Are Big Time Now, so we need a Big Football Team, as that is a Marker of Being a Big Time School. If we don't have Football, FBS football, then the other Texas (or Florida, or etc.) schools we see as Our Peers will Look Down on Us. So we Must Have It.

Squandering money on football is an effect of growth, not a cause. It becomes a toy in the house, or really in the porch or driveway, and at most places a very expensive one, a status symbol for the neighbors to see.

Even if the neighbors are chortling at the WannaBeism of it all.

(07-06-2019 11:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 08:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

*If* the school's alumni are interested in funding football with donations.

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

Also depends on whether the university needs the specific exposure of D-I athletics or FBS football to attract students. IMO a large public university with a lot of seats to fill year after year, and a 70% acceptance rate, is in a different situation from a small private university that has a 20% acceptance rate.

At any rate, if someone calls FBS football a marketing expense, it has to be justified as an effective and cost-effective expense in the same way as any other such expense. If a marketing director at a large university spent $20 million/year (or even $1 million/year) on traditional media advertising, that expense would be scrutinized for its effectiveness in increasing applications, increasing the quality of applications, increasing donations, etc., and administrators would try to determine if increases in those metrics were directly related to the advertising. It wouldn't just be blindly accepted as, "Hey, we want to increase our visibility."

You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

if you had a large alumni base to tap for funds then it would make sense to tap them for funds (like many other programs do) instead of tapping the students for funds and talking about the large alumni base you could tap for funds (but don't and instead tap the students for funds)

We have always had a large alumni base. Sure we have failed to tap our base for a sizable percentage of donations in the past, but that is more a reflection of how bad our old leadership was. We just didn't have an AD that knew how to tap into our massive alumni base. Our current AD is increasing donations to the athletic department.

I know my annual contributions have gone up about 40% in the last two years. And, I know we are selling more season tickets now than we ever have. I will be sure to post the new numbers when they come out.

(07-07-2019 01:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 11:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 08:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

*If* the school's alumni are interested in funding football with donations.

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

Also depends on whether the university needs the specific exposure of D-I athletics or FBS football to attract students. IMO a large public university with a lot of seats to fill year after year, and a 70% acceptance rate, is in a different situation from a small private university that has a 20% acceptance rate.

At any rate, if someone calls FBS football a marketing expense, it has to be justified as an effective and cost-effective expense in the same way as any other such expense. If a marketing director at a large university spent $20 million/year (or even $1 million/year) on traditional media advertising, that expense would be scrutinized for its effectiveness in increasing applications, increasing the quality of applications, increasing donations, etc., and administrators would try to determine if increases in those metrics were directly related to the advertising. It wouldn't just be blindly accepted as, "Hey, we want to increase our visibility."

You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

if you had a large alumni base to tap for funds then it would make sense to tap them for funds (like many other programs do) instead of tapping the students for funds and talking about the large alumni base you could tap for funds (but don't and instead tap the students for funds)

Plus, I do not think a school like North Texas have a large sugar dady to donate to. Schools with smaller enrollment do get sugar daddies. Montana State-Billings with over 5000 students got a $1 million dollar donation towards restarting their football program which they have not said they would restart it.

We have big money donors.

In September of 2018 North Texas athletics received a donation for $2.5 million. A few days later, the UNT athletic department got another donation for $3 million. Over the last 5 years, we have usually received a donation of over $1 million from at least one of our bigger donors at least once a year.

(07-07-2019 07:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

I, like the North Texas administration, view football and basketball as marketing for the university.

The problem with this thinking is that there isn't really much evidence to support it, which makes its prevalence on campuses rather odd, given these are universities dedicated to facts, logic, etc.

For example, at your North Texas, the six years from 2005 - 2010 were absolutely abysmal in football, you guys never won more than three games in any of those years. And yet institutionally, they were years of excellent growth in enrollment, facilities, quality of students, and quality of faculty. The presence of abysmal football didn't abate that.

And since moving to CUSA, your have had up and down years, with the last two being up, but regardless, that institutional growth has continued unabated.

So growth at UNT - the kind of growth we would expect effective marketing to be the cause of - seems entirely unrelated to the UNT football team. Claims of $20m in marketing value for a Texas punt muff seem to be ephemeral, not connected to the real world.

And you are not alone - e.g., USF and UCF both experienced the same kind of institutional growth UNT has had, before they had football teams at all.

What seems to be the case is that rather than being a CAUSE of institutional growth, the presence of a football team backed by $20m+ in subsidies is an EFFECT of that growth: Once a school grows to a certain size and stature, the elites at the university - donors, prominent alumni, student leaders - develop the feeling that We Are Big Time Now, so we need a Big Football Team, as that is a Marker of Being a Big Time School. If we don't have Football, FBS football, then the other Texas (or Florida, or etc.) schools we see as Our Peers will Look Down on Us. So we Must Have It.

Squandering money on football is an effect of growth, not a cause. It becomes a toy in the house, or really in the porch or driveway, and at most places a very expensive one, a status symbol for the neighbors to see.

I think you are wrong. In the years from 2005 through 2010, the North Texas athletic department was run very differently. Our annual athletic budget back then was only about $18 million a year. North Texas was on an island in the Sun Belt, playing teams no one in Texas had ever heard of, and certainly didn't care about. We had the worst stadium in all of college football too. Plus, we had bad leadership. Of course our football program was a disaster.

Yes UNT was growing (it is still growing) but that was more of a reflection of the booming Texas economy, and had nothing to do with our football team. In fact, the great Texas economy helped us survive those lean years. And, it is that same growing economy that allows us to build facilities, increase salaries, and increase our athletic budget.

Since joining C-USA our football program has improved on the field and off it. North Texas has played in 4 bowl games in our 6 seasons in C-USA. That is much better than the majority of the programs in C-USA over the same span of time. And, off the field, we have seen consecutive seasons of record breaking attendance gains, when the vast majority of programs are seeing their attendance drop.

This fall North Texas expects a new record for freshman enrollment. That will result in a new record for institutional enrollment. I'm not saying that is a result of our football team, but our student section is packed at our home games. In fact part of the incoming freshmen orientation is at Apogee Stadium where the freshmen hear from out athletic leadership, learn our traditions and history, and get to see where they sit during the football games.

You may not agree with our model, but it is working for us. We view football as good marketing for North Texas, and so far that is working for us. Our university leadership does not mind covering expenses that we need beyond our athletic budget. And, donations are going up. Attendance is going up. Facilities are going up. The quality of recruiting is going up. Salaries are going up. And, most of all, wins are going up. Every North Texas athletic program finished with a winning record last year.

The ****** north texas talk is so boring. No one and I mean no one outside of the north texas campus could tell you wherever the hell north texas university is located. Just stop. U ate a cute commuter school servicing the locals.

(07-07-2019 09:26 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  The ****** north texas talk is so boring. No one and I mean no one outside of the north texas campus could tell you wherever the hell north texas university is located. Just stop. U ate a cute commuter school servicing the locals.

Just ignore him, Joe. ^^^ That’s the hangover talking.

(07-06-2019 06:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:22 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  a pretty poor article in general

you could take away 100% of the student fees and university funds and UConn would still have a $41 million dollar budget and that puts them way up at the top of G5 programs and that is with all those other G5 programs keeping 100% of their (often very large) subsidies

so saying UConn is "broke" is a bit of a joke they clearly had very poor cost controls and an athletics department that thought they could spend their way into the P5 (as many G5s think) and they woke up and realized that in the process they were in a conference that was terrible for their programs (especially the revenue producing ones) and they realized to protect that $41 million in unsubsidized revenue they needed to make a change

the warning should be to those that do not understand what UConn is doing and that still think they can impress the P5 with massive subsidies

no P5 conference is going to do G5 expansion math where they take the current highly subsidized budget, do not remove any of the money from the current conference distributions, and then add on a full P5 conference distribution to try and claim that a program would be way up in P5 budgets at that point and thus able to easily compete

never mind ignoring that facilities would need to be expanded to match what most P5 programs have and those G5 programs usually already have a massive debt load they accumulated to get the current (often very small) venues compared to P5 programs

then you tack on the highly unimpressive "we will sell more tickets if "our fans" can see us play better teams" and "our big donors will give lots of money if you just let us in"

no P5 conference cares to take that risk it is just not worth it to them......even if that G5 program was willing to keep their top 5 (if compared to other P5 programs) academic side subsidy for a long number of years no P5 conference really wants to be saddled with that because you never know when that willingness will change and many P5 conferences are moving to reduce their academic subsidies and there is no reason to go against that and get a program that could reverse that momentum

There seems to be something different between a school like Boise State and a school like UConn. Boise State does have a deep pockets sugar daddy to donate money. Their football stadium is named after that sugar daddy. They do have plans in place to expand the stadium, and that sugar daddy, and other donors would raise the cash to make it happened that Boise state does not really depend on subsidies. UConn do not have a deep pocket sugar daddy to bail them out.

UConn has a ton of available "sugar daddies" that can spend on supporting college football but I feel that they probably don't want to come off as a loser like your Boise State guy.

(07-07-2019 07:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

I, like the North Texas administration, view football and basketball as marketing for the university.

The problem with this thinking is that there isn't really much evidence to support it, which makes its prevalence on campuses rather odd, given these are universities dedicated to facts, logic, etc.

For example, at your North Texas, the six years from 2005 - 2010 were absolutely abysmal in football, you guys never won more than three games in any of those years. And yet institutionally, they were years of excellent growth in enrollment, facilities, quality of students, and quality of faculty. The presence of abysmal football didn't abate that.

And since moving to CUSA, your have had up and down years, with the last two being up, but regardless, that institutional growth has continued unabated.

So growth at UNT - the kind of growth we would expect effective marketing to be the cause of - seems entirely unrelated to the UNT football team. Claims of $20m in marketing value for an Arkansas punt muff seem to be ephemeral, not connected to the real world.

And you are not alone - e.g., USF and UCF both experienced the same kind of institutional growth UNT has had, before they had football teams at all.

What seems to be the case is that rather than being a CAUSE of institutional growth, the presence of a football team backed by $20m+ in subsidies is an EFFECT of that growth: Once a school grows to a certain size and stature, the elites at the university - donors, prominent alumni, student leaders - develop the feeling that We Are Big Time Now, so we need a Big Football Team, as that is a Marker of Being a Big Time School. If we don't have Football, FBS football, then the other Texas (or Florida, or etc.) schools we see as Our Peers will Look Down on Us. So we Must Have It.

Squandering money on football is an effect of growth, not a cause. It becomes a toy in the house, or really in the porch or driveway, and at most places a very expensive one, a status symbol for the neighbors to see.

Even if the neighbors are chortling at the WannaBeism of it all.

yea looking at the numbers it is difficult to say it has been a good investment

2010

University of Houston 38,752

University of North Texas 36,067

The University of Texas at Arlington 32,975

Texas State University 32,572

Texas Tech University 31,587

The University of Texas at San Antonio 27,291

The University of Texas at El Paso 22,051

The University of Texas at Dallas 17,128


2015

University of Houston 42,704

Texas State University 37,979

University of North Texas 37,175

The University of Texas at Arlington 37,008

Texas Tech University 35,546

The University of Texas at San Antonio 30,258

The University of Texas at Dallas 24,554

The University of Texas at El Paso 23,308


2018

University of Houston 46,355

The University of Texas at Arlington 42,496

Texas State University 38,661

Texas Tech University 38,246

University of North Texas 38,154

The University of Texas at San Antonio 32,101

The University of Texas at Dallas 28,755

The University of Texas at El Paso 25,151


.............................................2010 ..........2018.....growth....%

The University of Texas at Dallas ..17,128.. 28,755 .. 11,627 ..67.88

The University of Texas at Arlington ..32,975 .. 42,496 ..9,521 ..28.87

Texas Tech University ..31,587 ..38,246 .. 6,659 ..21.08

University of Houston ..38,752 ..46,355 .. 7,603 ..19.62

Texas State University ..32,572 ..38,661 .. 6,089 .. 18.69

The University of Texas at San Antonio ..27,291 .. 32,101 .. 4,810 .. 17.62

The University of Texas at El Paso ..22,051 .. 25,151 .. 3,100 ..14.06

University of North Texas ..36,067 ..38,154 .. 2,087 ..5.79

Unless the schools institute spending measures it will soon be the Biggest 30-40 programs. That isn't good.

My school has been fortunate that basketball has been a huge Cash cow and the school runs a $15-20M surplus. The school also has resisted most friviolus building expenses.