This kind of surprised me, especially when you consider the schools above and below.

Full list here https://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?pid=18...id18305875



Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

I'm sure many many caveats apply here ... things like accounting rules for Virginia schools vs other states and what must be included in the athletics budget.

For Football, looking quickly, we spent $7.9 million, App St spent $8.5 million, Louisiana spent $11.4 million. I'm certain those numbers will go up for us, and we will be competitive. But it can be misleading to look at just the overall athletic spending. I believe JMU does fund women's sports more heavily than many of our peers.

While I do believe there's merit to these numbers, I also believe that each school has it's own reporting guidelines, allowing for a some differences that may not be completely accurate. For one, it's hard to believe Coastal has a larger budget than does App State. CCU is not averaging 16K fans at their football games. It's been a four year university for less than 50 years. It's endowment is about $50M. It's student enrollment is less than 11,000. They've come a long way in a short time, and I'm not knocking them at all, only saying that there must be some different things included in budgets from each school and it's not consistent across universities.

This is talking about revenue, not budgets. Of course, budgets play a part.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(07-04-2022 07:42 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is talking about revenue, not budgets. Of course, budgets play a part.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Taken directly from this link App State (and the same will be found across the schools at our level, including JMU), revenues and expenses are almost always identical. ODU had slightly more expenses than revenues, but that was negligible. Athletics is not a money maker for our schools, they simply want it to balance out financially.

We are not like schools such as the Uni. of TX where they have a spending budget less than their revenues. This school actually generates cash for the school to use in other areas outside of athletics. They do not rely on students to foot the majority of the costs of their NCAA sports. With these schools, budgets cannot be used interchangeably with revenues. Texas Athletics

When I used the term budget I used it meaning expense budget which is the same as revenue forecast (budget) again at our level of athletics.

I may have not worded this properly, but this is the way I understand the media using the term revenue regarding athletics.

(07-04-2022 07:42 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is talking about revenue, not budgets. Of course, budgets play a part.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Yes, though its pretty closely interrelated, when you consider that revenue and expenditures are identical and balance to 0. Student fees are included in "revenue" normally. Nearly all G5 and FCS school athletics are partially supported this way, as well as at many P5 schools.

Not clear why this source shows lower numbers than the Knight commission data.

That has us at $52.7M 2019, 58.2M 2020, and 52.9M 2021.

(07-04-2022 09:22 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 07:42 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is talking about revenue, not budgets. Of course, budgets play a part.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Yes, though its pretty closely interrelated, when you consider that revenue and expenditures are identical and balance to 0. Student fees are included in "revenue" normally. Nearly all G5 and FCS school athletics are partially supported this way, as well as at many P5 schools.

Not clear why this source shows lower numbers than the Knight commission data.

That has us at $52.7M 2019, 58.2M 2020, and 52.9M 2021.

I looked at that as well, I assumed it had something to do with us taking something out to have our numbers and the inputs that we use relate to other schools. However, they (not JMU) may have simply made an error in the reporting.

(07-04-2022 09:28 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 09:22 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 07:42 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is talking about revenue, not budgets. Of course, budgets play a part.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Yes, though its pretty closely interrelated, when you consider that revenue and expenditures are identical and balance to 0. Student fees are included in "revenue" normally. Nearly all G5 and FCS school athletics are partially supported this way, as well as at many P5 schools.

Not clear why this source shows lower numbers than the Knight commission data.

That has us at $52.7M 2019, 58.2M 2020, and 52.9M 2021.

I looked at that as well, I assumed it had something to do with us taking something out to have our numbers and the inputs that we use relate to other schools. However, they (not JMU) may have simply made an error in the reporting.

Other schools like ECU also have higher numbers shown in the Knight data I believe. It seems like there may be something this is excluding, though not sure what (if it was student fees, it would be much lower).

(07-04-2022 09:36 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 09:28 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 09:22 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 07:42 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is talking about revenue, not budgets. Of course, budgets play a part.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Yes, though its pretty closely interrelated, when you consider that revenue and expenditures are identical and balance to 0. Student fees are included in "revenue" normally. Nearly all G5 and FCS school athletics are partially supported this way, as well as at many P5 schools.

Not clear why this source shows lower numbers than the Knight commission data.

That has us at $52.7M 2019, 58.2M 2020, and 52.9M 2021.

I looked at that as well, I assumed it had something to do with us taking something out to have our numbers and the inputs that we use relate to other schools. However, they (not JMU) may have simply made an error in the reporting.

Other schools like ECU also have higher numbers shown in the Knight data I believe. It seems like there may be something this is excluding, though not sure what (if it was student fees, it would be much lower).

It's leading me to believe the people who put this data together didn't do a very good job.

(07-04-2022 10:14 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 09:36 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 09:28 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 09:22 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 07:42 PM)hburg Wrote:  This is talking about revenue, not budgets. Of course, budgets play a part.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Yes, though its pretty closely interrelated, when you consider that revenue and expenditures are identical and balance to 0. Student fees are included in "revenue" normally. Nearly all G5 and FCS school athletics are partially supported this way, as well as at many P5 schools.

Not clear why this source shows lower numbers than the Knight commission data.

That has us at $52.7M 2019, 58.2M 2020, and 52.9M 2021.

I looked at that as well, I assumed it had something to do with us taking something out to have our numbers and the inputs that we use relate to other schools. However, they (not JMU) may have simply made an error in the reporting.

Other schools like ECU also have higher numbers shown in the Knight data I believe. It seems like there may be something this is excluding, though not sure what (if it was student fees, it would be much lower).

It's leading me to believe the people who put this data together didn't do a very good job.

I tried to compare the two sources, and things just don't align perfectly, even for things like scholarship costs and coaching expenses.

Was thinking it might be some accounting rule details in terms of what is counted. It seems like Knight includes everything, including grandfathered athletic facility debt costs that are exempt under the Virginia state calculations (cox). This one is linked to the Federal dept of education, and they are trying to slice the data to show the level of "equity" per sport and gender.

Personally, I think the Knight data is more complete, and shows more interesting breakdowns of the detail. Its hard to decipher what the rollups are for Dept. Of Education, and what line items they might be excluding.

Obviously, the true "revenue" doesn't change, I believe the difference is which budget/accounting line items are included in these reports.

Another thing to note, these were Covid year revenues...which as we know were down for everyone.