UL-Lafayette brags about having a higher budget than Tech but ULL loses a shite load of money that Tech doesn’t. And they still lose to Tech. I think the AAC might look into how well certain schools manage their funds.

ODU, looking at the numbers and reading up on the VA athletic transfer rules implemented a few years back is there a set plan to get ODU in-line with the law before the grace period is up, or more of a get what you can before the hard cap? I know prior to the law y'all were around 72-73% and have gotten down to 66%, just wondering how the administration decided to approach it. I don't blame them at all if they are taking every dime they can at the moment to draw down debted bonds to help balance the spreadsheet going forward.

I don't think it is a coincidence of what teams have switched conferences and these revenue numbers. UT and OK move from the Big 12 to the SEC and they were the top 2 rev teams in the Big 12. Houston, UConn, Cincy and UCF moved from the AAC to the Big 12 (except UConn) were the top 4 revenue teams from the AAC.

Just based on looking at the average rev of the remaining AAC teams (~$59M) ex Wichita that doesn't have football, the only teams that come close to AAC revenue levels are ODU (~$49M), UMass (~$49.4M) and JMU (~$58.2M) and I've excluded Central MI since there number was skewed. And of course, the private schools like Liberty, Tulane or Rice are not in this particular data set. Also, how did JMU almost double their rev in the last 10 years?

(10-15-2021 10:15 AM)banker Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:24 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 08:47 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Anybody else notice that Central MI rev was $65M. The next closest in the MAC are Miami (OH) and Buffalo at ~$38M. Wonder if that is the norm or if the year reported had a one off anomaly (gotta believe this is case here).

Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Yes, the new $32-million Chippewa Champions Center built on the north end of the stadium.

Chippewa Champions Center? So $32MM for an empty building? Seems steep.

Lol, trust me, banker, it's better than anything you have at the Joan!

(10-15-2021 11:10 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  I don't think it is a coincidence of what teams have switched conferences and these revenue numbers. UT and OK move from the Big 12 to the SEC and they were the top 2 rev teams in the Big 12. Houston, UConn, Cincy and UCF moved from the AAC to the Big 12 (except UConn) were the top 4 revenue teams from the AAC.

Just based on looking at the average rev of the remaining AAC teams (~$59M) ex Wichita that doesn't have football, the only teams that come close to AAC revenue levels are ODU (~$49M), UMass (~$49.4M) and JMU (~$58.2M) and I've excluded Central MI since there number was skewed. And of course, the private schools like Liberty or Rice are not in this particular data set. Also, how did JMU almost double their rev in the last 10 years?

It looks like JMU nearly doubled their student fee over the last decade or increased their student body by 80%.

The Virginia schools intrigue me some because just looking at some ramp up it looks like both ODU and JMU have ramped up some institutional support (fees and transfers) during their grace period to assumingly draw down their debt. If I understand their laws correctly ODU has to get to 55% institutional support and JMU 72% prior to July 1, 2026. That means both will need to find more money outside from licensing or donors or could both see a double digit reduction in their overall athletic budget.

(10-15-2021 11:25 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 10:15 AM)banker Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:24 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 08:47 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Anybody else notice that Central MI rev was $65M. The next closest in the MAC are Miami (OH) and Buffalo at ~$38M. Wonder if that is the norm or if the year reported had a one off anomaly (gotta believe this is case here).

Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Yes, the new $32-million Chippewa Champions Center built on the north end of the stadium.

Chippewa Champions Center? So $32MM for an empty building? Seems steep.

Lol, trust me, banker, it's better than anything you have at the Joan!

I don’t know, we dropped $35 million on an IPF that includes the Marshall HOF a few ago.

https://muphotos.marshall.edu/Athletics/...-HOF-2015/

(10-15-2021 09:24 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 08:47 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Anybody else notice that Central MI rev was $65M. The next closest in the MAC are Miami (OH) and Buffalo at ~$38M. Wonder if that is the norm or if the year reported had a one off anomaly (gotta believe this is case here).

Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Yes, the new $32-million Chippewa Champions Center built on the north end of the stadium.

That's not REVENUE.

(10-15-2021 10:48 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  ODU, looking at the numbers and reading up on the VA athletic transfer rules implemented a few years back is there a set plan to get ODU in-line with the law before the grace period is up, or more of a get what you can before the hard cap? I know prior to the law y'all were around 72-73% and have gotten down to 66%, just wondering how the administration decided to approach it. I don't blame them at all if they are taking every dime they can at the moment to draw down debted bonds to help balance the spreadsheet going forward.

The way the wrote that bill it really has no teeth. I’m pretty confident we’re already under the threshold the way they calculate the percentage

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 08:47 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Anybody else notice that Central MI rev was $65M. The next closest in the MAC are Miami (OH) and Buffalo at ~$38M. Wonder if that is the norm or if the year reported had a one off anomaly (gotta believe this is case here).

Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Adding capital items to revenue is a violation of the instructions for the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures reports these figures come from. Those capital items are supposed to be reported under Other Reporting Items and not under Operating Revenue or Expenses.

Annual debt service for facilities can be included, but not fundraising revenue for the projects.

(10-15-2021 12:33 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 10:48 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  ODU, looking at the numbers and reading up on the VA athletic transfer rules implemented a few years back is there a set plan to get ODU in-line with the law before the grace period is up, or more of a get what you can before the hard cap? I know prior to the law y'all were around 72-73% and have gotten down to 66%, just wondering how the administration decided to approach it. I don't blame them at all if they are taking every dime they can at the moment to draw down debted bonds to help balance the spreadsheet going forward.

The way the wrote that bill it really has no teeth. I’m pretty confident we’re already under the threshold the way they calculate the percentage

This is correct.

Here is the state auditor's report on subsidies for 2019, it lists ODU in compliance:
http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Repo...ts2019.pdf

Here is the same report for 2018, which also shows ODU is in compliance:
http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Repo...ts2018.pdf

(10-15-2021 12:52 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 08:47 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Anybody else notice that Central MI rev was $65M. The next closest in the MAC are Miami (OH) and Buffalo at ~$38M. Wonder if that is the norm or if the year reported had a one off anomaly (gotta believe this is case here).

Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Adding capital items to revenue is a violation of the instructions for the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures reports these figures come from. Those capital items are supposed to be reported under Other Reporting Items and not under Operating Revenue or Expenses.

Annual debt service for facilities can be included, but not fundraising revenue for the projects.

But the debt service would be an expense, not revenue.

(10-15-2021 09:20 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 12:52 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 08:47 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Anybody else notice that Central MI rev was $65M. The next closest in the MAC are Miami (OH) and Buffalo at ~$38M. Wonder if that is the norm or if the year reported had a one off anomaly (gotta believe this is case here).

Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Adding capital items to revenue is a violation of the instructions for the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures reports these figures come from. Those capital items are supposed to be reported under Other Reporting Items and not under Operating Revenue or Expenses.

Annual debt service for facilities can be included, but not fundraising revenue for the projects.

But the debt service would be an expense, not revenue.

If donations are used to pay the debt service, those would be included in revenue to offset the expense side.

(10-16-2021 01:49 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:20 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 12:52 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 08:47 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Anybody else notice that Central MI rev was $65M. The next closest in the MAC are Miami (OH) and Buffalo at ~$38M. Wonder if that is the norm or if the year reported had a one off anomaly (gotta believe this is case here).

Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Adding capital items to revenue is a violation of the instructions for the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures reports these figures come from. Those capital items are supposed to be reported under Other Reporting Items and not under Operating Revenue or Expenses.

Annual debt service for facilities can be included, but not fundraising revenue for the projects.

But the debt service would be an expense, not revenue.

If donations are used to pay the debt service, those would be included in revenue to offset the expense side.

Well, those donations would have to be declared as revenue up front. It's the donations that are revenue, not the Debt Service.

(10-16-2021 07:57 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-16-2021 01:49 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:20 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 12:52 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:11 AM)freshtop Wrote:  Something is off about their numbers. They added 30 mil in school funds this year, but not to expenses.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/169248

You figure it was some sort of construction or facility fund that is a one time deal. Otherwise why would the school fund athletic revenues to the tune of 55 mil when their expenses are in the 30's.

Adding capital items to revenue is a violation of the instructions for the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures reports these figures come from. Those capital items are supposed to be reported under Other Reporting Items and not under Operating Revenue or Expenses.

Annual debt service for facilities can be included, but not fundraising revenue for the projects.

But the debt service would be an expense, not revenue.

If donations are used to pay the debt service, those would be included in revenue to offset the expense side.

Well, those donations would have to be declared as revenue up front. It's the donations that are revenue, not the Debt Service.

If the donations are made to the annual fund basically giving the school the ability to use as they see fit then it’s revenue. If it’s given to endow scholarships or capital campaigns then it’s not for this purpose as it’s meant to represent operating income/expenses

(10-17-2021 10:22 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(10-16-2021 07:57 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-16-2021 01:49 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 09:20 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 12:52 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  Adding capital items to revenue is a violation of the instructions for the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures reports these figures come from. Those capital items are supposed to be reported under Other Reporting Items and not under Operating Revenue or Expenses.

Annual debt service for facilities can be included, but not fundraising revenue for the projects.

But the debt service would be an expense, not revenue.

If donations are used to pay the debt service, those would be included in revenue to offset the expense side.

Well, those donations would have to be declared as revenue up front. It's the donations that are revenue, not the Debt Service.

If the donations are made to the annual fund basically giving the school the ability to use as they see fit then it’s revenue. If it’s given to endow scholarships or capital campaigns then it’s not for this purpose as it’s meant to represent operating income/expenses

Agreed. Just as I stated, DONATIONS of any kind are legitimate revenue. Debt service on capital projects are not.