Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
Author Message
Square Knight Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 533
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 31
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #21
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-13-2019 11:40 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Budget is misleading without expenditures also... USF will be lower without having to pay $7 million a year for a stadium.

UCF doesn't spend anywhere near $7 million per year for the on-campus stadium. Debt service is about $3.6 million per year. Currently about half toward principal and half toward interest.

In 2023 about 59% will go toward principal and 41% toward interest.

Facts Matter.
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2019 06:47 PM by Square Knight.)
08-14-2019 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 35,738
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 924
I Root For: Fire Jose!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #22
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-14-2019 06:24 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 11:40 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Budget is misleading without expenditures also... USF will be lower without having to pay $7 million a year for a stadium.

UCF doesn't spend anywhere near $7 million per year for the on-campus stadium. Debt service is about $3.6 million per year. Currently about half toward principal and half toward interest.

In 2023 about 59% will go toward principal and 41% toward interest.

Facts Matter.

I don’t know UCFs figures but your stadium cost more than just debt service....maintenance, labor, etc would add to that cost. Still probably less than 7 mil I would imagine but not just 3.6 million.
08-14-2019 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCF_SystemsEng Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 557
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 23
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #23
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-14-2019 08:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 06:24 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 11:40 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Budget is misleading without expenditures also... USF will be lower without having to pay $7 million a year for a stadium.

UCF doesn't spend anywhere near $7 million per year for the on-campus stadium. Debt service is about $3.6 million per year. Currently about half toward principal and half toward interest.

In 2023 about 59% will go toward principal and 41% toward interest.

Facts Matter.

I don’t know UCFs figures but your stadium cost more than just debt service....maintenance, labor, etc would add to that cost. Still probably less than 7 mil I would imagine but not just 3.6 million.

The tough to quantify metric is how much additional fundraising the University receives by getting alumni back on campus multiple times per year. Most schools administrators are convinced it's a money maker.
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2019 10:30 PM by UCF_SystemsEng.)
08-14-2019 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,299
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #24
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-13-2019 12:58 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 12:46 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Also, for the expansion addicts... wanna see why no one should be on the USM train?

#108 - Troy
#110 - USA
#111 - Kent State
#113 - Ball State
#119 - NMSU
#121 - NIU
#124 - Bowling Green
#125 - Southern Miss
#127 - Louisiana Tech
#170 - Louisiana Monroe

If we're going purely by revenue...

#61 James Madison, $51.71MM in revenue higher than all but 8 G5 programs.

Until you realize that they only generated $10MM in revenue on their own without pulling from school general funds. That's one of two columns I wish they'd add...Revenue Less Subsidy and Net Operating +/-...it would definitely put things into even starker perspective, and would also give a better perspective of which departments are better at generating their own income.

Just for fun, here are those values for our conference in order of largest Revenue Less Subsidy:

1. UConn
Revenue Less Subsidy: $40,267,408
Net Operating +/-: ($40,638,237)

2. UCF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $33,694,421
Net Operating +/-: ($27,424,550)

3. Cincinnati
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,540,220
Net Operating +/-: ($32,215,083)

4. Memphis
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,352,260
Net Operating +/-: ($23,110,245)

5. ECU
Revenue Less Subsidy: $25,923,858
Net Operating +/-: ($21,486,951)

6. Houston
Revenue Less Subsidy: $23,964,596
Net Operating +/-: ($33,142,317)

7. USF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $21,589,423
Net Operating +/-: ($29,084,917)

To put this into perspective, one football team (USF) and two basketball teams (Houston and Cincinnati) were not in complete control of their home revenues this year. Houston and Cincinnati should likely see a big bump in Revenue Less Subsidy and a decrease in Net Operating +/- precipitated by the decrease in expenses for rent/facility holding costs.

Of the G5 programs, quite a few had better pure revenue numbers than our lower end conference mates, namely SDSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, UNLV, Boise State, Wyoming, New Mexico, and (oddly enough) Arknasas State, which all had Revenue Less Subsidy values of $26MM+ which would put them right in the middle of our league for that value. Hell, looking at values, USF's operating revenue minus subsidy actually would put them at 8th in the MWC (between New Mexico and Nevada-Reno) and 2nd in the Sun Belt (behind Arky State).

Actually, the MWC isn't far off of our numbers in any of these categories, and generally run smaller subsidy shares as well...it's a bit disconcerting to be honest. Every one of the schools (excluding Boise who leads their conference at $35MM Less Subsidy and only a 28% subsidy run) would be at best 5th in our conference out of those who report.

Craziest thing to think about...if you take out direct subsidies, our conference COMBINED would only place #3 in revenue...

It's really difficult for straight comparisons due to accounting differences. For decent, though not perfect, comparison tix sales plus contributions give a look at fanbase support year over year. Looking at the Ark. St. example shows what a good job the AD has done in facility fundraising. "If you build it they will come," and hopefully the fans will do just that. They've been pretty consistently at +/-$1.5M in tix sales the last five or so years which would be last in the AAC. The AD has said buy games are essential for the budget at this point in time. As long as facilities are being funded and built (a great feat), USAToday overall dept. numbers will be high compared to day to day operating revenues and expenses. Terry Mohajir has done a fantastic job updating campus infrastructure. Going forward, those numbers will decline when capital improvements come off the books if ticket sales (and reoccurring revenues) do not pick up.

Moving forward, all but possibly USF and UC should see improvement in subsidy % as conference contributions will be significantly higher for schools before selling one ticket. Someone else mentioned UCF having better 18/19 numbers. Memphis should as well as this was Tubby's last year which produced modern day low bball attendance and giving numbers.
08-15-2019 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 35,738
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 924
I Root For: Fire Jose!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #25
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-14-2019 10:29 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 08:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 06:24 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 11:40 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Budget is misleading without expenditures also... USF will be lower without having to pay $7 million a year for a stadium.

UCF doesn't spend anywhere near $7 million per year for the on-campus stadium. Debt service is about $3.6 million per year. Currently about half toward principal and half toward interest.

In 2023 about 59% will go toward principal and 41% toward interest.

Facts Matter.

I don’t know UCFs figures but your stadium cost more than just debt service....maintenance, labor, etc would add to that cost. Still probably less than 7 mil I would imagine but not just 3.6 million.

The tough to quantify metric is how much additional fundraising the University receives by getting alumni back on campus multiple times per year. Most schools administrators are convinced it's a money maker.

I dont disagree but you still do need to count the expenses beyond just debt service.
08-15-2019 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Square Knight Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 533
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 31
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #26
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-15-2019 07:19 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 10:29 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 08:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 06:24 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 11:40 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Budget is misleading without expenditures also... USF will be lower without having to pay $7 million a year for a stadium.

UCF doesn't spend anywhere near $7 million per year for the on-campus stadium. Debt service is about $3.6 million per year. Currently about half toward principal and half toward interest.

In 2023 about 59% will go toward principal and 41% toward interest.

Facts Matter.

I don’t know UCFs figures but your stadium cost more than just debt service....maintenance, labor, etc would add to that cost. Still probably less than 7 mil I would imagine but not just 3.6 million.

The tough to quantify metric is how much additional fundraising the University receives by getting alumni back on campus multiple times per year. Most schools administrators are convinced it's a money maker.

I dont disagree but you still do need to count the expenses beyond just debt service.

True...but maintenance is nowhere near $3.4 million per year. And whether you rent or own a stadium, you are paying similar gameday labor costs.

The main point of my original post was to point out the hysterical anti-UCF hyperbole used by our favorite USF fan. 04-cheers
08-16-2019 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,021
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 691
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #27
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-16-2019 09:06 AM)Square Knight Wrote:  True...but maintenance is nowhere near $3.4 million per year. And whether you rent or own a stadium, you are paying similar gameday labor costs.

Not necessarily true. In our case, TSA controls, staffs and pays for all labor at Raymond James and the surrounding property that they own. That's what the "rent" pays for, since the residents of Hillsborough County paid for the stadium out of their tax dollars (https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/go...ment-tax). So the $185K we pay per game is our total cost for the facility. Technically, we're also allowed to use it rent free for other events (like the spring game, which we haven't held at RJS in years).

Just trying to make sure the misinformation is fair in both directions...

USFFan
08-16-2019 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #28
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-15-2019 01:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 12:58 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 12:46 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Also, for the expansion addicts... wanna see why no one should be on the USM train?

#108 - Troy
#110 - USA
#111 - Kent State
#113 - Ball State
#119 - NMSU
#121 - NIU
#124 - Bowling Green
#125 - Southern Miss
#127 - Louisiana Tech
#170 - Louisiana Monroe

If we're going purely by revenue...

#61 James Madison, $51.71MM in revenue higher than all but 8 G5 programs.

Until you realize that they only generated $10MM in revenue on their own without pulling from school general funds. That's one of two columns I wish they'd add...Revenue Less Subsidy and Net Operating +/-...it would definitely put things into even starker perspective, and would also give a better perspective of which departments are better at generating their own income.

Just for fun, here are those values for our conference in order of largest Revenue Less Subsidy:

1. UConn
Revenue Less Subsidy: $40,267,408
Net Operating +/-: ($40,638,237)

2. UCF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $33,694,421
Net Operating +/-: ($27,424,550)

3. Cincinnati
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,540,220
Net Operating +/-: ($32,215,083)

4. Memphis
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,352,260
Net Operating +/-: ($23,110,245)

5. ECU
Revenue Less Subsidy: $25,923,858
Net Operating +/-: ($21,486,951)

6. Houston
Revenue Less Subsidy: $23,964,596
Net Operating +/-: ($33,142,317)

7. USF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $21,589,423
Net Operating +/-: ($29,084,917)

To put this into perspective, one football team (USF) and two basketball teams (Houston and Cincinnati) were not in complete control of their home revenues this year. Houston and Cincinnati should likely see a big bump in Revenue Less Subsidy and a decrease in Net Operating +/- precipitated by the decrease in expenses for rent/facility holding costs.

Of the G5 programs, quite a few had better pure revenue numbers than our lower end conference mates, namely SDSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, UNLV, Boise State, Wyoming, New Mexico, and (oddly enough) Arknasas State, which all had Revenue Less Subsidy values of $26MM+ which would put them right in the middle of our league for that value. Hell, looking at values, USF's operating revenue minus subsidy actually would put them at 8th in the MWC (between New Mexico and Nevada-Reno) and 2nd in the Sun Belt (behind Arky State).

Actually, the MWC isn't far off of our numbers in any of these categories, and generally run smaller subsidy shares as well...it's a bit disconcerting to be honest. Every one of the schools (excluding Boise who leads their conference at $35MM Less Subsidy and only a 28% subsidy run) would be at best 5th in our conference out of those who report.

Craziest thing to think about...if you take out direct subsidies, our conference COMBINED would only place #3 in revenue...

It's really difficult for straight comparisons due to accounting differences. For decent, though not perfect, comparison tix sales plus contributions give a look at fanbase support year over year. Looking at the Ark. St. example shows what a good job the AD has done in facility fundraising. "If you build it they will come," and hopefully the fans will do just that. They've been pretty consistently at +/-$1.5M in tix sales the last five or so years which would be last in the AAC. The AD has said buy games are essential for the budget at this point in time. As long as facilities are being funded and built (a great feat), USAToday overall dept. numbers will be high compared to day to day operating revenues and expenses. Terry Mohajir has done a fantastic job updating campus infrastructure. Going forward, those numbers will decline when capital improvements come off the books if ticket sales (and reoccurring revenues) do not pick up.

Moving forward, all but possibly USF and UC should see improvement in subsidy % as conference contributions will be significantly higher for schools before selling one ticket. Someone else mentioned UCF having better 18/19 numbers. Memphis should as well as this was Tubby's last year which produced modern day low bball attendance and giving numbers.


Those capital campaign dollars really shouldn't be included in these figure according to the NCAA guidelines. It should only include annual fund contributions. But as you say everyone does it differently.
08-16-2019 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 24,161
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #29
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-15-2019 01:35 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  It's really difficult for straight comparisons due to accounting differences. For decent, though not perfect, comparison tix sales plus contributions give a look at fanbase support year over year. Looking at the Ark. St. example shows what a good job the AD has done in facility fundraising. "If you build it they will come," and hopefully the fans will do just that. They've been pretty consistently at +/-$1.5M in tix sales the last five or so years which would be last in the AAC. The AD has said buy games are essential for the budget at this point in time. As long as facilities are being funded and built (a great feat), USAToday overall dept. numbers will be high compared to day to day operating revenues and expenses. Terry Mohajir has done a fantastic job updating campus infrastructure. Going forward, those numbers will decline when capital improvements come off the books if ticket sales (and reoccurring revenues) do not pick up.

Moving forward, all but possibly USF and UC should see improvement in subsidy % as conference contributions will be significantly higher for schools before selling one ticket. Someone else mentioned UCF having better 18/19 numbers. Memphis should as well as this was Tubby's last year which produced modern day low bball attendance and giving numbers.

Very good points...one correction on your second paragraph though. Cincinnati will have a pretty significant increase in pure revenue, as they did not control parking or concessions revenues for the venue they played their basketball games in 2017-18, and they had no premium seating revenue with a lower capacity overall as well (9,200 vs. 12,000). On top of that, you can knock out the partial payback of ticket revenues received in lieu of rent payments to NKU. If I had to guess, the AD-specific revenue will go up between $4M-$6M in the FY19 reports ('18-'19) .
08-16-2019 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 35,738
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 924
I Root For: Fire Jose!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #30
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-16-2019 09:06 AM)Square Knight Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 07:19 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 10:29 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 08:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  
(08-14-2019 06:24 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  UCF doesn't spend anywhere near $7 million per year for the on-campus stadium. Debt service is about $3.6 million per year. Currently about half toward principal and half toward interest.

In 2023 about 59% will go toward principal and 41% toward interest.

Facts Matter.

I don’t know UCFs figures but your stadium cost more than just debt service....maintenance, labor, etc would add to that cost. Still probably less than 7 mil I would imagine but not just 3.6 million.

The tough to quantify metric is how much additional fundraising the University receives by getting alumni back on campus multiple times per year. Most schools administrators are convinced it's a money maker.

I dont disagree but you still do need to count the expenses beyond just debt service.

True...but maintenance is nowhere near $3.4 million per year. And whether you rent or own a stadium, you are paying similar gameday labor costs.

The main point of my original post was to point out the hysterical anti-UCF hyperbole used by our favorite USF fan. 04-cheers

Oh no doubt and I said as much in my first reply. I was actually hoping those ancillary stadium cost figures would be posted honestly. I’m curious as to what they are.

I will disagree on one small point. Game day labor costs for a school like Memphis isn’t the same as UCF because the City of Memphis pays those out of the rent we pay them instead of UCF paying it themselves. I doubt that UCF pays more overall but I am curious what difference the figures would show.
08-16-2019 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,697
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 187
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #31
RE: 2017/2018 USA Today Athletic Budgets released
(08-13-2019 12:58 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(08-13-2019 12:46 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Also, for the expansion addicts... wanna see why no one should be on the USM train?

#108 - Troy
#110 - USA
#111 - Kent State
#113 - Ball State
#119 - NMSU
#121 - NIU
#124 - Bowling Green
#125 - Southern Miss
#127 - Louisiana Tech
#170 - Louisiana Monroe

If we're going purely by revenue...

#61 James Madison, $51.71MM in revenue higher than all but 8 G5 programs.

Until you realize that they only generated $10MM in revenue on their own without pulling from school general funds. That's one of two columns I wish they'd add...Revenue Less Subsidy and Net Operating +/-...it would definitely put things into even starker perspective, and would also give a better perspective of which departments are better at generating their own income.

Just for fun, here are those values for our conference in order of largest Revenue Less Subsidy:

1. UConn
Revenue Less Subsidy: $40,267,408
Net Operating +/-: ($40,638,237)

2. UCF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $33,694,421
Net Operating +/-: ($27,424,550)

3. Cincinnati
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,540,220
Net Operating +/-: ($32,215,083)

4. Memphis
Revenue Less Subsidy: $32,352,260
Net Operating +/-: ($23,110,245)

5. ECU
Revenue Less Subsidy: $25,923,858
Net Operating +/-: ($21,486,951)

6. Houston
Revenue Less Subsidy: $23,964,596
Net Operating +/-: ($33,142,317)

7. USF
Revenue Less Subsidy: $21,589,423
Net Operating +/-: ($29,084,917)

To put this into perspective, one football team (USF) and two basketball teams (Houston and Cincinnati) were not in complete control of their home revenues this year. Houston and Cincinnati should likely see a big bump in Revenue Less Subsidy and a decrease in Net Operating +/- precipitated by the decrease in expenses for rent/facility holding costs.

Of the G5 programs, quite a few had better pure revenue numbers than our lower end conference mates, namely SDSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, UNLV, Boise State, Wyoming, New Mexico, and (oddly enough) Arknasas State, which all had Revenue Less Subsidy values of $26MM+ which would put them right in the middle of our league for that value. Hell, looking at values, USF's operating revenue minus subsidy actually would put them at 8th in the MWC (between New Mexico and Nevada-Reno) and 2nd in the Sun Belt (behind Arky State).

Actually, the MWC isn't far off of our numbers in any of these categories, and generally run smaller subsidy shares as well...it's a bit disconcerting to be honest. Every one of the schools (excluding Boise who leads their conference at $35MM Less Subsidy and only a 28% subsidy run) would be at best 5th in our conference out of those who report.

Craziest thing to think about...if you take out direct subsidies, our conference COMBINED would only place #3 in revenue...

Thank goodness for the new contract.
08-17-2019 05:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.