Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
Author Message
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,477
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 742
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #101
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 10:14 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 08:27 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 01:41 AM)scoscox Wrote:  Tigersmoke4 confirmed not mad and actually laughing

We all owe beer or wine to the mod who finally axed him.

Such a shame. I will really miss all the references to "NBE", its "pathetic" ratings and the guarantee that its next contract will be lowered.

FWIW, I never like to see anyone banned, even those I disagree with such as Tigersmoke. I like bantering with everyone.

That's no criticisms of the mods, they have a JOB to do that I'm not accountable for, it's just my perspective as a poster.
07-11-2019 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,911
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 395
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #102
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 01:34 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:44 AM)panama 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.
Largely correct. Large public universities generally have operating budgets of about $1B. $15M - $20M as a marketing expense isn't a big deal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

most of that money is spoken for

if you have a $1B budget and you do $200 million in research then you are down to $800 million because zero of that research money is going to athletics

if you have $12,000 in housing and meals X 6,000 students that is $72 million

so now you are at $728 million

$270 million in state funding (most states do not allow this to go to athletics) that gets you to $458 million

if you have a $1B endowment that will produce about $50 million per year in spendable funds and most of that will be spoken for it will not just go to the general fund to do whatever

so now you are at $408 million

say $28 million in non athletics gifts $380 million

$300 million in tuition so that leaves $80 million from various things (most of which will be spoken for)

so you are looking at that $20 million coming from that $300 million in tuition

so you are looking at 6.7% of the available budget not 2%

and while that seems small you have to look at what that money could otherwise go to

if you have $200 million on faculty salaries then that $20 million is equal to 10% of your faculty salary budget

if you have 1,150 faculty and a student to faculty ratio of 23:1 then even 5% more faculty can get that to 21.8

10% more faculty 20.9

that can help rankings and the student experience in a number of ways

then with research if you are doing $200 million in research with 1,150 faculty then you are doing $174,000 per faculty member on average

so 5% more faculty doing the same average of research would do an additional $10 million in research per year

10% more faculty would do $20 million more in research per year

so spending $20 million per year of basically student tuition at a university with 1,150 faculty and $200 million in faculty salaries doing $200 million a year in research cost you at least $20 million per year in research dollars if you hire "average" faculty relative to your current faculty
Narrator : That's not how any of this works...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
07-11-2019 11:54 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,911
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 395
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #103
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:45 PM)panama Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:44 AM)panama 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.
Largely correct. Large public universities generally have operating budgets of about $1B. $15M - $20M as a marketing expense isn't a big deal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Squandering $20m on marketing that doesn't work is a very big deal to your typical company with a $1B budget. In the private sector it would get you fired.
It's 2%. And it's a cost center that works for FBS schools.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It doesn't work for FBS schools, at least there's no evidence it does.

As for 2%, that figure is misleading, because as a state institution, much of the $1B budget is not discretionary, the great bulk of it is fixed by the legislature and is dedicated to stuff like infrastructure, maintenance, and faculty and staff salaries. Faculty have tenure and staff often have civil service protections.

So that $20m is a much bigger chunk of the budget that the school administration actually has control over. Unlike in the private sector, where the executives have control over basically everything.
It doesn't? Would you rather be you or Florida Tech. The only reason I know your school exists is because of FBS football.

People have to stop thinking about college athletics as if profit is the goal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
07-11-2019 11:57 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,578
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 373
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #104
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
I'd rather be MIT, which has no football I know of. The key is to have a brand, no matter which side you're on. Sometimes you have to spend and advertise, losing some as you gain more.
07-11-2019 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,439
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #105
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 11:54 AM)panama Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 01:34 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:44 AM)panama 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.
Largely correct. Large public universities generally have operating budgets of about $1B. $15M - $20M as a marketing expense isn't a big deal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

most of that money is spoken for

if you have a $1B budget and you do $200 million in research then you are down to $800 million because zero of that research money is going to athletics

if you have $12,000 in housing and meals X 6,000 students that is $72 million

so now you are at $728 million

$270 million in state funding (most states do not allow this to go to athletics) that gets you to $458 million

if you have a $1B endowment that will produce about $50 million per year in spendable funds and most of that will be spoken for it will not just go to the general fund to do whatever

so now you are at $408 million

say $28 million in non athletics gifts $380 million

$300 million in tuition so that leaves $80 million from various things (most of which will be spoken for)

so you are looking at that $20 million coming from that $300 million in tuition

so you are looking at 6.7% of the available budget not 2%

and while that seems small you have to look at what that money could otherwise go to

if you have $200 million on faculty salaries then that $20 million is equal to 10% of your faculty salary budget

if you have 1,150 faculty and a student to faculty ratio of 23:1 then even 5% more faculty can get that to 21.8

10% more faculty 20.9

that can help rankings and the student experience in a number of ways

then with research if you are doing $200 million in research with 1,150 faculty then you are doing $174,000 per faculty member on average

so 5% more faculty doing the same average of research would do an additional $10 million in research per year

10% more faculty would do $20 million more in research per year

so spending $20 million per year of basically student tuition at a university with 1,150 faculty and $200 million in faculty salaries doing $200 million a year in research cost you at least $20 million per year in research dollars if you hire "average" faculty relative to your current faculty
Narrator : That's not how any of this works...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

it is only how that does not work if one is clueless and can't perform simple math
07-11-2019 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,477
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 742
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #106
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:45 PM)panama Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:44 AM)panama Wrote:  Largely correct. Large public universities generally have operating budgets of about $1B. $15M - $20M as a marketing expense isn't a big deal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Squandering $20m on marketing that doesn't work is a very big deal to your typical company with a $1B budget. In the private sector it would get you fired.
It's 2%. And it's a cost center that works for FBS schools.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It doesn't work for FBS schools, at least there's no evidence it does.

As for 2%, that figure is misleading, because as a state institution, much of the $1B budget is not discretionary, the great bulk of it is fixed by the legislature and is dedicated to stuff like infrastructure, maintenance, and faculty and staff salaries. Faculty have tenure and staff often have civil service protections.

So that $20m is a much bigger chunk of the budget that the school administration actually has control over. Unlike in the private sector, where the executives have control over basically everything.
It doesn't? Would you rather be you or Florida Tech. The only reason I know your school exists is because of FBS football.

People have to stop thinking about college athletics as if profit is the goal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I can see why you would say that, as Georgia State socks its students with $22m in transfers, a whopping 74% of the athletic budget. You guys are hemorrhaging money that should be spent on the academic side chasing an FBS dream. Your POV is designed to basically justify that, forever. You are probably one of the 16k or so Georgia State alums or students who goes to the games, so of course you want other students - the clear majority who do not - to subsidize your entertainment.

But investments have to earn a positive return, otherwise you pay an opportunity cost.

IMO, USF's ongoing investment in FBS, with the concomitant $21m in student fees, is justifiable only as a means to building up the athletics so as to get a Power conference bid. It's a strategy of losing money now to cash in a bigger check later, that is, it is a strategy that is designed to "make a profit" in the end.

It is not a status-quo situation with long run sustainability. If at a certain point it becomes clear that we are never being elevated, and that our future is $20m a year subsidies essentially forever, then we will have to downgrade our football, as UConn has done. Georgia State is doing the same thing USF is, but faces the same fate.

It is true that in the 19 years we have had FBS football, the academic 'side' has improved significantly. But, that was also true about the 19 years before we had FBS football. So there's no reason to think that FBS football is mission-critical to the university. I love having it, but it has to justify itself in ROI.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2019 01:39 PM by quo vadis.)
07-11-2019 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 284
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 28
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #107
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 12:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'd rather be MIT, which has no football I know of. The key is to have a brand, no matter which side you're on. Sometimes you have to spend and advertise, losing some as you gain more.

MIT has division III football...and actually is pretty good at it recently.

https://www.mitathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/index

They went 9-2 last year (second loss came in the playoffs).
07-11-2019 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJ2MDTerp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,065
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Maryland
Location:
Post: #108
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 09:31 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:29 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 06:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question is that Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, Penn. State, Pittsburgh and Boston College are in the wrong conference because the culture are different.

I agree with that. The northeast teams that are in the B1G and ACC should be in a northeast conference - Penn State, Syracuse, UConn, BC, Maryland, Rutgers, WVU, Pitt.
Adding UMass and Temple makes it a solid 10 school NE conference.
Nah...we good

Rather have Cincy and Louisville
Add those two schools to get to 12. Everyone would forget about B1G, BE and ACC.
07-11-2019 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
loki_the_bubba Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,764
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 167
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #109
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 01:49 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 12:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'd rather be MIT, which has no football I know of. The key is to have a brand, no matter which side you're on. Sometimes you have to spend and advertise, losing some as you gain more.

MIT has division III football...and actually is pretty good at it recently.

https://www.mitathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/index

They went 9-2 last year (second loss came in the playoffs).

Lost to WPI (my son is a WPI alum)!
07-11-2019 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,480
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 167
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #110
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 02:05 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:31 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:29 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 06:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question is that Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, Penn. State, Pittsburgh and Boston College are in the wrong conference because the culture are different.

I agree with that. The northeast teams that are in the B1G and ACC should be in a northeast conference - Penn State, Syracuse, UConn, BC, Maryland, Rutgers, WVU, Pitt.
Adding UMass and Temple makes it a solid 10 school NE conference.
Nah...we good

Rather have Cincy and Louisville
Add those two schools to get to 12. Everyone would forget about B1G, BE and ACC.


Cincinnati and Louisville are midwest culture and do not belong with the northeast schools. Those 2 and Notre Dame belongs in the Big 10.

You got to wonder if the Big 10 would add schools that have no football that are AAU type schools?
07-11-2019 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,477
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 742
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #111
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 03:49 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 02:05 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:31 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:29 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with that. The northeast teams that are in the B1G and ACC should be in a northeast conference - Penn State, Syracuse, UConn, BC, Maryland, Rutgers, WVU, Pitt.
Adding UMass and Temple makes it a solid 10 school NE conference.
Nah...we good

Rather have Cincy and Louisville
Add those two schools to get to 12. Everyone would forget about B1G, BE and ACC.


Cincinnati and Louisville are midwest culture and do not belong with the northeast schools. Those 2 and Notre Dame belongs in the Big 10.

You got to wonder if the Big 10 would add schools that have no football that are AAU type schools?

For the same reason - culture - that Cincy and Louisville don't belong in a NE conference, the same applies to Notre Dame, they don't belong in any conference.

07-coffee3

And to a certain extent, Cincy and especially Louisville, don't belong in a pure midwest conference either. Both are odd fits, both almost borderline between the midwest and upper south. They don't really naturally fit anywhere.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2019 05:05 PM by quo vadis.)
07-11-2019 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,578
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 373
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #112
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 01:49 PM)e-parade Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 12:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'd rather be MIT, which has no football I know of. The key is to have a brand, no matter which side you're on. Sometimes you have to spend and advertise, losing some as you gain more.

MIT has division III football...and actually is pretty good at it recently.

https://www.mitathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/index

They went 9-2 last year (second loss came in the playoffs).

But it's nothing I or most people know of, which is the point.
07-11-2019 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,480
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 167
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #113
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
Would either the ACC or the Big 10 go after MIT if they stayed in D1? Or would they joined the Ivy League?
07-11-2019 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,563
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 136
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #114
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 05:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And to a certain extent, Cincy and especially Louisville, don't belong in a pure midwest conference either. Both are odd fits, both almost borderline between the midwest and upper south. They don't really naturally fit anywhere.

Ohio river basin conference ... lessee, that would be ... huhn ...
[Image: 422-2bimage-2b2-2bohio-2briver-2bvalley-...ey-map.jpg]

Lessee, Louisville, WVU, UK, Vandy, UTK, OSU, Pitt, Indiana, probably Purdue, and in the Go5, UC, Miami, Ball State, Ohio, Marshall, Kent State, Akron, MTSU, WKU.

Yeah, that would be a weird FB conference. Might be a fun conference to play Basketball in, though.
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2019 02:44 AM by BruceMcF.)
07-12-2019 02:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,911
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 395
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #115
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 01:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:45 PM)panama Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Squandering $20m on marketing that doesn't work is a very big deal to your typical company with a $1B budget. In the private sector it would get you fired.
It's 2%. And it's a cost center that works for FBS schools.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It doesn't work for FBS schools, at least there's no evidence it does.

As for 2%, that figure is misleading, because as a state institution, much of the $1B budget is not discretionary, the great bulk of it is fixed by the legislature and is dedicated to stuff like infrastructure, maintenance, and faculty and staff salaries. Faculty have tenure and staff often have civil service protections.

So that $20m is a much bigger chunk of the budget that the school administration actually has control over. Unlike in the private sector, where the executives have control over basically everything.
It doesn't? Would you rather be you or Florida Tech. The only reason I know your school exists is because of FBS football.

People have to stop thinking about college athletics as if profit is the goal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I can see why you would say that, as Georgia State socks its students with $22m in transfers, a whopping 74% of the athletic budget. You guys are hemorrhaging money that should be spent on the academic side chasing an FBS dream. Your POV is designed to basically justify that, forever. You are probably one of the 16k or so Georgia State alums or students who goes to the games, so of course you want other students - the clear majority who do not - to subsidize your entertainment.

But investments have to earn a positive return, otherwise you pay an opportunity cost.

IMO, USF's ongoing investment in FBS, with the concomitant $21m in student fees, is justifiable only as a means to building up the athletics so as to get a Power conference bid. It's a strategy of losing money now to cash in a bigger check later, that is, it is a strategy that is designed to "make a profit" in the end.

It is not a status-quo situation with long run sustainability. If at a certain point it becomes clear that we are never being elevated, and that our future is $20m a year subsidies essentially forever, then we will have to downgrade our football, as UConn has done. Georgia State is doing the same thing USF is, but faces the same fate.

It is true that in the 19 years we have had FBS football, the academic 'side' has improved significantly. But, that was also true about the 19 years before we had FBS football. So there's no reason to think that FBS football is mission-critical to the university. I love having it, but it has to justify itself in ROI.
We have a $1.2B budget and we are restricted by the state to 55% so we are way under 74%. So you're data is old. Hemmhorraging money. You funny. I actually chuckled.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
07-15-2019 03:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,911
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 395
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #116
UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
The point is they are M.I.T. and do not need to increase their profile with athletics. They are the most important and well regarded engineering school in the solar system.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
07-15-2019 03:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colohank Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 977
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Cincy
Location: Colorado
Post: #117
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 05:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 03:49 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 02:05 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:31 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:29 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Adding UMass and Temple makes it a solid 10 school NE conference.
Nah...we good

Rather have Cincy and Louisville
Add those two schools to get to 12. Everyone would forget about B1G, BE and ACC.


Cincinnati and Louisville are midwest culture and do not belong with the northeast schools. Those 2 and Notre Dame belongs in the Big 10.

You got to wonder if the Big 10 would add schools that have no football that are AAU type schools?

For the same reason - culture - that Cincy and Louisville don't belong in a NE conference, the same applies to Notre Dame, they don't belong in any conference.

07-coffee3

And to a certain extent, Cincy and especially Louisville, don't belong in a pure midwest conference either. Both are odd fits, both almost borderline between the midwest and upper south. They don't really naturally fit anywhere.

Conversely, they could naturally fit just about anywhere.
07-15-2019 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,439
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #118
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-15-2019 03:05 PM)panama Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 01:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:45 PM)panama Wrote:  It's 2%. And it's a cost center that works for FBS schools.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It doesn't work for FBS schools, at least there's no evidence it does.

As for 2%, that figure is misleading, because as a state institution, much of the $1B budget is not discretionary, the great bulk of it is fixed by the legislature and is dedicated to stuff like infrastructure, maintenance, and faculty and staff salaries. Faculty have tenure and staff often have civil service protections.

So that $20m is a much bigger chunk of the budget that the school administration actually has control over. Unlike in the private sector, where the executives have control over basically everything.
It doesn't? Would you rather be you or Florida Tech. The only reason I know your school exists is because of FBS football.

People have to stop thinking about college athletics as if profit is the goal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I can see why you would say that, as Georgia State socks its students with $22m in transfers, a whopping 74% of the athletic budget. You guys are hemorrhaging money that should be spent on the academic side chasing an FBS dream. Your POV is designed to basically justify that, forever. You are probably one of the 16k or so Georgia State alums or students who goes to the games, so of course you want other students - the clear majority who do not - to subsidize your entertainment.

But investments have to earn a positive return, otherwise you pay an opportunity cost.

IMO, USF's ongoing investment in FBS, with the concomitant $21m in student fees, is justifiable only as a means to building up the athletics so as to get a Power conference bid. It's a strategy of losing money now to cash in a bigger check later, that is, it is a strategy that is designed to "make a profit" in the end.

It is not a status-quo situation with long run sustainability. If at a certain point it becomes clear that we are never being elevated, and that our future is $20m a year subsidies essentially forever, then we will have to downgrade our football, as UConn has done. Georgia State is doing the same thing USF is, but faces the same fate.

It is true that in the 19 years we have had FBS football, the academic 'side' has improved significantly. But, that was also true about the 19 years before we had FBS football. So there's no reason to think that FBS football is mission-critical to the university. I love having it, but it has to justify itself in ROI.
We have a $1.2B budget and we are restricted by the state to 55% so we are way under 74%. So you're data is old. Hemmhorraging money. You funny. I actually chuckled.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

these numbers are from 2016-17

101 Georgia State Sun Belt $30,230,203 $29,859,420 $22,423,489 74.18

so a $22.4 million subsidy on total revenues of $30.2 million
07-15-2019 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,823
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 537
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #119
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-11-2019 03:49 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 02:05 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:31 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 10:29 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 06:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with that. The northeast teams that are in the B1G and ACC should be in a northeast conference - Penn State, Syracuse, UConn, BC, Maryland, Rutgers, WVU, Pitt.
Adding UMass and Temple makes it a solid 10 school NE conference.
Nah...we good

Rather have Cincy and Louisville
Add those two schools to get to 12. Everyone would forget about B1G, BE and ACC.


Cincinnati and Louisville are midwest culture and do not belong with the northeast schools. Those 2 and Notre Dame belongs in the Big 10.

You got to wonder if the Big 10 would add schools that have no football that are AAU type schools?

ND is Midwest culture? Why, other than geography, do you say that?

ND is more East Coast than Midwest. ND does not "belong" in the Big Ten.


"Those students who are coming to ND are mostly coming from areas far from the Midwest. The admissions department says that's because they're changing tactics to get more diversity. And that’s paying off, because more students from across the country and around the globe want to become students here.

So far, enrolled students come from 49 states and 70 countries. Bishop says the school is the most “national” university in the U.S. More American students come from farther away than other selective, private universities.

About 2/3 of the class will come from outside of the Midwest. In fact, more are from New York City than any other major city in the country."





https://wsbt.com/news/local/notre-dae-is...he-country
(This post was last modified: 07-15-2019 03:46 PM by TerryD.)
07-15-2019 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,477
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 742
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #120
RE: UConn going broke a cautionary tale for Group of 5 schools
(07-15-2019 03:05 PM)panama Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 01:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:45 PM)panama Wrote:  It's 2%. And it's a cost center that works for FBS schools.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It doesn't work for FBS schools, at least there's no evidence it does.

As for 2%, that figure is misleading, because as a state institution, much of the $1B budget is not discretionary, the great bulk of it is fixed by the legislature and is dedicated to stuff like infrastructure, maintenance, and faculty and staff salaries. Faculty have tenure and staff often have civil service protections.

So that $20m is a much bigger chunk of the budget that the school administration actually has control over. Unlike in the private sector, where the executives have control over basically everything.
It doesn't? Would you rather be you or Florida Tech. The only reason I know your school exists is because of FBS football.

People have to stop thinking about college athletics as if profit is the goal.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I can see why you would say that, as Georgia State socks its students with $22m in transfers, a whopping 74% of the athletic budget. You guys are hemorrhaging money that should be spent on the academic side chasing an FBS dream. Your POV is designed to basically justify that, forever. You are probably one of the 16k or so Georgia State alums or students who goes to the games, so of course you want other students - the clear majority who do not - to subsidize your entertainment.

But investments have to earn a positive return, otherwise you pay an opportunity cost.

IMO, USF's ongoing investment in FBS, with the concomitant $21m in student fees, is justifiable only as a means to building up the athletics so as to get a Power conference bid. It's a strategy of losing money now to cash in a bigger check later, that is, it is a strategy that is designed to "make a profit" in the end.

It is not a status-quo situation with long run sustainability. If at a certain point it becomes clear that we are never being elevated, and that our future is $20m a year subsidies essentially forever, then we will have to downgrade our football, as UConn has done. Georgia State is doing the same thing USF is, but faces the same fate.

It is true that in the 19 years we have had FBS football, the academic 'side' has improved significantly. But, that was also true about the 19 years before we had FBS football. So there's no reason to think that FBS football is mission-critical to the university. I love having it, but it has to justify itself in ROI.
We have a $1.2B budget and we are restricted by the state to 55% so we are way under 74%. So you're data is old. Hemmhorraging money. You funny. I actually chuckled.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

My data was just the USA Today data from 2017, which showed Georgia State with a $30m athletic budget, $22m of which is from transfers and subsidies, or 74%.

That means your athletics only generates $8m a year in real revenue. That is an incredibly small amount.
07-15-2019 04:11 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.