(06-06-2014 10:57 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:36 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 12:06 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  2013 G5 Fan Dollar Support (Ticket Sales + Contributions)
Expressed in thousands

UConn's ticket sales numbers are down in 2013 because of the basketball ban. During that season, UConn experienced the worst fan support for basketball in ages. But this year it bounced back huge. Just look at the 2012 numbers.

$22 million in ticket sales and donations which would take it to the top of the AAC.

Plus, it has averaged about $24 million in licensing deals.

Right, here are the numbers from the USA Today data base for the last few years, which directionally support your comment....
2013
Tickets 8,890
Contributions 7,203

2012
Tickets 11,118
Contributions 10,963

2011
Tickets 10,628
Contribution 9,587

2010
Tickets 11,469
Contribution 5,950

So, with tongue in cheek, let me ask you a question.

We've all accepted the line "Football drives the bus". For nonP5 conferences, is that really true or a mistaken priority? Again, that's intended 95% for humor, 5% for thought. Looking at this conference's fan's investment in their programs, perhaps it's possible that I could make a case somewhat contrary to common belief if I chose.

FWIW, understanding how volatile simple topics can become; I may chose to delete this post if a firestorm follows it because that wasn't my intent. My intent is merely just another non-menacing/non-aggressive point of view.

For UConn, and I imagine Memphis, it should be pretty clear they still make more money from basketball. It used to be quite hard to get UConn bball tickets just a few years ago, despite what the attendance #s show, the fans would sell out season ticket packages and then not show up for the cupcake games (well, 8k would). This is quite different than tickets sold. In fact, UConn football was showing 20k fans for games which is well below the season ticket base.

It's clear that bball makes more money than football, but I imagine football could catchup if it weren't for Pasqualoni.

(06-06-2014 10:25 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:47 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:31 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:03 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:35 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  My take is the exact reverse of this.

They do cook their books, but they do so to hide LOSSES, not PROFITS. Many assume they are afraid to show profits because of the lawsuits, but they are much, much, much more afraid of showing losses because of what it implies for their true customers.

Take a school like Tulane. Your tuition is actually HIGHER than the actual cost per student (budget/# of students). This means customers paying the full tab are paying for more than the school can argue they are giving. If the athletic department were to show any losses, a paying customer could infer that they are directly subsidizing the losses.

And this is why schools have incentive to hide the nature of their athletics losses. They are much more afraid of losing parents than they are losing lawsuits. Parents are their bread and butter.

...and as huge of a college athletics and Memphis fan as I am, I'm not happy about the amount of taxpayer/parent/student loan cash that is required to run an athletic department today.

Just look at the student fee numbers, divide it by the number of students and then multiply it by 4-5 years and students are graduating every year owing that money simply so we can enjoy college football, basketball, and baseball. Something is inherently wrong with that in this college football and basketball fan's opinion.

(06-05-2014 02:17 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:35 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  My take is the exact reverse of this.

They do cook their books, but they do so to hide LOSSES, not PROFITS. Many assume they are afraid to show profits because of the lawsuits, but they are much, much, much more afraid of showing losses because of what it implies for their true customers.

Take a school like Tulane. Your tuition is actually HIGHER than the actual cost per student (budget/# of students). This means customers paying the full tab are paying for more than the school can argue they are giving. If the athletic department were to show any losses, a paying customer could infer that they are directly subsidizing the losses.

And this is why schools have incentive to hide the nature of their athletics losses. They are much more afraid of losing parents than they are losing lawsuits. Parents are their bread and butter.

So only a few schools are reporting profits, yet they keep investing more and more, but in fact are hiding larger losses? They count the scholarship as a real expense, that alone destroys your argument.

I really don't understand what you're saying here, and I'm not trying to argue. How does counting scholarships destroy my argument? Not sure what it is you're saying.

Because if they were trying to hide losses they would count the true cost of the scholarship. When providing medical treatment they would count the true cost to the university, not a market rate.

In the end, the idea that these departments are losing millions yet invest more and more and more, is absurd. Yet it goes on with virtually every P5 and the top of the G5's with virtually no exceptions. They may cut some small time sports to comply with Title IX but the reality is any cash freed up is plowed right back in and then some.

If they counted the true cost of a scholarship (whatever you meant by that, I'm not sure) wouldn't it RAISE the losses higher?

I mean, tuition and cost-of-attendance is subsidized by a variety of things: taxpayer subsidy, endowment, research grant skim-off of 60%, etc. This means the AD's return to the university is actually BELOW the true cost-per-student at state universities (this doesn't hold true at state universities). If you calculated for the TRUE cost, the losses would actually increase. Instead, the ADs return an amount of revenue to the university that is already subsidized by the university's state tax subsidy, endowment, and research grant skim-off. Which I think is proper by the way.

I'll say it again: schools have a lot more to fear from parents than they do from lawsuits, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that almost no one who is a stakeholder (parents, employees) really understands athletic budgets.

As for revenues increasing expenses, you're going to have to find a volunteer to control expenses. UConn could have started a national trend, I suppose, by refusing to increase Kevin Ollie's salary. Now, how would such a decision impact UConn's AD's revenues for the next year?

No the true cost to add a few 100 students is minimal, especially for larger schools. The biggest jke is counting housing costs in full. Everything else int he cost structure is accounted for (assets, trainers, travel, support staffs, equipment etc.). Like it costs Tulane anywhere close to $60k to have their athletes take four classes and stay in a dorm, please.

The premise still holds, if in fact the schools were operating at a huge ACTUAL loss, as you contend, than why keep spending more and more and more? Ollie is an absolutely awful example to pluck out.

(06-06-2014 12:54 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:25 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:47 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 09:31 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:03 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  ...and as huge of a college athletics and Memphis fan as I am, I'm not happy about the amount of taxpayer/parent/student loan cash that is required to run an athletic department today.

Just look at the student fee numbers, divide it by the number of students and then multiply it by 4-5 years and students are graduating every year owing that money simply so we can enjoy college football, basketball, and baseball. Something is inherently wrong with that in this college football and basketball fan's opinion.

(06-05-2014 02:17 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  So only a few schools are reporting profits, yet they keep investing more and more, but in fact are hiding larger losses? They count the scholarship as a real expense, that alone destroys your argument.

I really don't understand what you're saying here, and I'm not trying to argue. How does counting scholarships destroy my argument? Not sure what it is you're saying.

Because if they were trying to hide losses they would count the true cost of the scholarship. When providing medical treatment they would count the true cost to the university, not a market rate.

In the end, the idea that these departments are losing millions yet invest more and more and more, is absurd. Yet it goes on with virtually every P5 and the top of the G5's with virtually no exceptions. They may cut some small time sports to comply with Title IX but the reality is any cash freed up is plowed right back in and then some.

If they counted the true cost of a scholarship (whatever you meant by that, I'm not sure) wouldn't it RAISE the losses higher?

I mean, tuition and cost-of-attendance is subsidized by a variety of things: taxpayer subsidy, endowment, research grant skim-off of 60%, etc. This means the AD's return to the university is actually BELOW the true cost-per-student at state universities (this doesn't hold true at state universities). If you calculated for the TRUE cost, the losses would actually increase. Instead, the ADs return an amount of revenue to the university that is already subsidized by the university's state tax subsidy, endowment, and research grant skim-off. Which I think is proper by the way.

I'll say it again: schools have a lot more to fear from parents than they do from lawsuits, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that almost no one who is a stakeholder (parents, employees) really understands athletic budgets.

As for revenues increasing expenses, you're going to have to find a volunteer to control expenses. UConn could have started a national trend, I suppose, by refusing to increase Kevin Ollie's salary. Now, how would such a decision impact UConn's AD's revenues for the next year?

No the true cost to add a few 100 students is minimal, especially for larger schools. The biggest jke is counting housing costs in full. Everything else int he cost structure is accounted for (assets, trainers, travel, support staffs, equipment etc.). Like it costs Tulane anywhere close to $60k to have their athletes take four classes and stay in a dorm, please.

The premise still holds, if in fact the schools were operating at a huge ACTUAL loss, as you contend, than why keep spending more and more and more? Ollie is an absolutely awful example to pluck out.

I already said the privates are different because the cost-per-student is LOWER than the tuition. Did you not read that?

It's part of my job to go through university budgets. At state schools, the budgets are subsidized. Everyone knows this.

(06-06-2014 12:37 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:56 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:31 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:29 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:12 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No I think Wake is leech just like Vanderbilt and Northwestern are.

That's all right that's ok, you will be working for them someday.

Not me, I am retire!

Then they handle your retirement money. At least I hope so, and not someone from some FB or BB factory.

I am a retired Banker, my retirement money is well invested. Thank you.

I don't know many retired bankers that act like this.....