So here is the new stadium effect on ticket sales and contributions at other schools who have opened facilities recently:

UCF - Went from $6.3M the year before to a 3-year average of $11.7M after. 86% increase.

North Texas - Went from $2.0M the year before to a 2-year average of $4.8M after. 139% increase.

Akron - Went from $1.2M the year before to a 3-year average of $2.6M after. 114% increase.

Minnesota - Went from $24.7M the year before to a 3-year average of $29.5M after. 19% increase.

Florida Atlantic - Went from $1.3M the year before to average of $3.4M after. 158% increase.

***************

Average percent increase: 103%
Average dollar increase: $3.3M

(06-06-2014 08:44 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  So here is the new stadium effect on ticket sales and contributions at other schools who have opened facilities recently:

UCF - Went from $6.3M the year before to a 3-year average of $11.7M after. 86% increase.

North Texas - Went from $2.0M the year before to a 2-year average of $4.8M after. 139% increase.

Akron - Went from $1.2M the year before to a 3-year average of $2.6M after. 114% increase.

Minnesota - Went from $24.7M the year before to a 3-year average of $29.5M after. 19% increase.

Florida Atlantic - Went from $1.3M the year before to average of $3.4M after. 158% increase.

***************

Average percent increase: 103%
Average dollar increase: $3.3M

Similar (but on lower levels) jumps can be seen when schools build new on-campus arenas too.

UCF had a HS level support program when they played in their old tiny gym and were stuck in the ASUN Conf...but even with average teams, attendance increase 2-3 fold when they opened up their new arena.

New facilities can/do bring in new revenue...challenge for some (i.e. Akron & FAU) is that those increased revenues can actually pay for the huge investments. (Akron is still having trouble paying their stadium construction costs).

Here's a past article after Year 1 of Akron's new $61 Million Stadium (situation is still basically the same...as that program continues to struggle at the gate)
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/...jl1On.dpbs

FAU's AD was fired partly over the high cost/low tix sales/donations after their new on-campus stadium opened up a few years ago:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports...-fu/nN3F3/

So our revenues are $45 million from the Equity in Athletics Database but $62 million from the NCAA Database. That's...uh...kind of a big split.There must be a disconnect somewhere. I'd have to think it's closer to the second number than the first from what I've heard, but something's up there. Are these from different years or something?

(06-06-2014 08:44 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  So here is the new stadium effect on ticket sales and contributions at other schools who have opened facilities recently:

UCF - Went from $6.3M the year before to a 3-year average of $11.7M after. 86% increase.

North Texas - Went from $2.0M the year before to a 2-year average of $4.8M after. 139% increase.

Akron - Went from $1.2M the year before to a 3-year average of $2.6M after. 114% increase.

Minnesota - Went from $24.7M the year before to a 3-year average of $29.5M after. 19% increase.

Florida Atlantic - Went from $1.3M the year before to average of $3.4M after. 158% increase.

***************

Average percent increase: 103%
Average dollar increase: $3.3M

It's interesting that some of those programs have had decreases in some of those numbers after the 3 year period that you've calculated. There's nothing wrong with that and I suppose that's to be expected after the "new" and "different" feeling wears off. However, it shows that in some cases, schools have to grab the money when they can.....which is obviously always the case. :)

I do agree that your measuring the right categories; tickets sold and contributions are the real measure of the overall support of the athletic program. To determine what folks are interested in, just follow where they invest their money.

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

(06-05-2014 01:35 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:33 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:27 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  There's inconsistent accounting.

For instance, are royalties university income, or athletics income? Are stadium costs school responsibilities, or athletics responsibilities? Are donations counted as athletics revenue, or school revenue?

Companies do the same thing. They have to report for the entire company. They don't have to report how they breakdown income/expenses by individual units if they're the same company.

No, that's not accounting, that's simply an internal reporting exercise. No different than budgeting. There are standards in governmental accounting just as there are financial accounting standards. The schools themselves are audited by independent accountants. You can't change the accounting to suit your needs. You can report differently since this would be considered an internal reporting exercise. I was simply pointing out that it's not differences in accounting, it's differences in reporting numbers internally.

Reading the methodology shows there are buckets given to the schools in an effort to standardize the numbers. It also says that schools DO have some leeway with how they interpret the buckets that the NCAA gives them, although the NCAA does a general audit of the numbers.

Where are these audits....and there are legal ways to downsize your profits. I am convinced these books are totally cooked. Not to mention what is the branding value, what is the value to the academic quality of your undergrad/grad population, what are the true scholarship and health care costs.

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:  

(06-05-2014 12:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:33 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:27 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  There's inconsistent accounting.

For instance, are royalties university income, or athletics income? Are stadium costs school responsibilities, or athletics responsibilities? Are donations counted as athletics revenue, or school revenue?

Companies do the same thing. They have to report for the entire company. They don't have to report how they breakdown income/expenses by individual units if they're the same company.

No, that's not accounting, that's simply an internal reporting exercise. No different than budgeting. There are standards in governmental accounting just as there are financial accounting standards. The schools themselves are audited by independent accountants. You can't change the accounting to suit your needs. You can report differently since this would be considered an internal reporting exercise. I was simply pointing out that it's not differences in accounting, it's differences in reporting numbers internally.

Reading the methodology shows there are buckets given to the schools in an effort to standardize the numbers. It also says that schools DO have some leeway with how they interpret the buckets that the NCAA gives them, although the NCAA does a general audit of the numbers.

Where are these audits....and there are legal ways to downsize your profits. I am convinced these books are totally cooked. Not to mention what is the branding value, what is the value to the academic quality of your undergrad/grad population, what are the true scholarship and health care costs.

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.

(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.

(06-06-2014 08:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:44 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  So here is the new stadium effect on ticket sales and contributions at other schools who have opened facilities recently:

UCF - Went from $6.3M the year before to a 3-year average of $11.7M after. 86% increase.

North Texas - Went from $2.0M the year before to a 2-year average of $4.8M after. 139% increase.

Akron - Went from $1.2M the year before to a 3-year average of $2.6M after. 114% increase.

Minnesota - Went from $24.7M the year before to a 3-year average of $29.5M after. 19% increase.

Florida Atlantic - Went from $1.3M the year before to average of $3.4M after. 158% increase.

***************

Average percent increase: 103%
Average dollar increase: $3.3M

Similar (but on lower levels) jumps can be seen when schools build new on-campus arenas too.

UCF had a HS level support program when they played in their old tiny gym and were stuck in the ASUN Conf...but even with average teams, attendance increase 2-3 fold when they opened up their new arena.

New facilities can/do bring in new revenue...challenge for some (i.e. Akron & FAU) is that those increased revenues can actually pay for the huge investments. (Akron is still having trouble paying their stadium construction costs).

Here's a past article after Year 1 of Akron's new $61 Million Stadium (situation is still basically the same...as that program continues to struggle at the gate)
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/...jl1On.dpbs

FAU's AD was fired partly over the high cost/low tix sales/donations after their new on-campus stadium opened up a few years ago:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports...-fu/nN3F3/

The problems these ADs often run into is using the extra revenue as collateral for bonds to build the stadiums. That kind of leverage often bites the school in the butt, especially after the newness wears off.

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

Clearly, UConn has a great brand. And I suppose some part of the licensing revenue is derived from fans buying T-shirts, etc. I would consider that indirect fan support. I was trying to measure more direct fan support.

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

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

(06-05-2014 01:35 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 12:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:33 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  No, that's not accounting, that's simply an internal reporting exercise. No different than budgeting. There are standards in governmental accounting just as there are financial accounting standards. The schools themselves are audited by independent accountants. You can't change the accounting to suit your needs. You can report differently since this would be considered an internal reporting exercise. I was simply pointing out that it's not differences in accounting, it's differences in reporting numbers internally.

Reading the methodology shows there are buckets given to the schools in an effort to standardize the numbers. It also says that schools DO have some leeway with how they interpret the buckets that the NCAA gives them, although the NCAA does a general audit of the numbers.

Where are these audits....and there are legal ways to downsize your profits. I am convinced these books are totally cooked. Not to mention what is the branding value, what is the value to the academic quality of your undergrad/grad population, what are the true scholarship and health care costs.

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:  

(06-05-2014 12:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 11:33 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  No, that's not accounting, that's simply an internal reporting exercise. No different than budgeting. There are standards in governmental accounting just as there are financial accounting standards. The schools themselves are audited by independent accountants. You can't change the accounting to suit your needs. You can report differently since this would be considered an internal reporting exercise. I was simply pointing out that it's not differences in accounting, it's differences in reporting numbers internally.

Reading the methodology shows there are buckets given to the schools in an effort to standardize the numbers. It also says that schools DO have some leeway with how they interpret the buckets that the NCAA gives them, although the NCAA does a general audit of the numbers.

Where are these audits....and there are legal ways to downsize your profits. I am convinced these books are totally cooked. Not to mention what is the branding value, what is the value to the academic quality of your undergrad/grad population, what are the true scholarship and health care costs.

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.

(06-06-2014 09:38 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:59 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:44 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  So here is the new stadium effect on ticket sales and contributions at other schools who have opened facilities recently:

UCF - Went from $6.3M the year before to a 3-year average of $11.7M after. 86% increase.

North Texas - Went from $2.0M the year before to a 2-year average of $4.8M after. 139% increase.

Akron - Went from $1.2M the year before to a 3-year average of $2.6M after. 114% increase.

Minnesota - Went from $24.7M the year before to a 3-year average of $29.5M after. 19% increase.

Florida Atlantic - Went from $1.3M the year before to average of $3.4M after. 158% increase.

***************

Average percent increase: 103%
Average dollar increase: $3.3M

Similar (but on lower levels) jumps can be seen when schools build new on-campus arenas too.

UCF had a HS level support program when they played in their old tiny gym and were stuck in the ASUN Conf...but even with average teams, attendance increase 2-3 fold when they opened up their new arena.

New facilities can/do bring in new revenue...challenge for some (i.e. Akron & FAU) is that those increased revenues can actually pay for the huge investments. (Akron is still having trouble paying their stadium construction costs).

Here's a past article after Year 1 of Akron's new $61 Million Stadium (situation is still basically the same...as that program continues to struggle at the gate)
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/...jl1On.dpbs

FAU's AD was fired partly over the high cost/low tix sales/donations after their new on-campus stadium opened up a few years ago:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports...-fu/nN3F3/

The problems these ADs often run into is using the extra revenue as collateral for bonds to build the stadiums. That kind of leverage often bites the school in the butt, especially after the newness wears off.

But they don't bond out stadiums, right? The university does. I haven't seen a case where the AD bonds it out. Maybe there is one. But mostly the bonding process goes like this: http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/...idera.html

(06-06-2014 09:42 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

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

Clearly, UConn has a great brand. And I suppose some part of the licensing revenue is derived from fans buying T-shirts, etc. I would consider that indirect fan support. I was trying to measure more direct fan support.

Royalties are definitely a part of that. About $8 million. The rest has a lot to do with advertising on the coaches' shows. The money is going to be down now that we are in the AAC, because Uconn no longer has its tier3 rights as it did in the BE. UConn used to sell its rights to SNY which in turn charged every cable subscriber in Conn. $2.50 a month. SNY is on basic tier in Connecticut.

(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:  

(06-05-2014 12:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Where are these audits....and there are legal ways to downsize your profits. I am convinced these books are totally cooked. Not to mention what is the branding value, what is the value to the academic quality of your undergrad/grad population, what are the true scholarship and health care costs.

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:  

(06-05-2014 12:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Where are these audits....and there are legal ways to downsize your profits. I am convinced these books are totally cooked. Not to mention what is the branding value, what is the value to the academic quality of your undergrad/grad population, what are the true scholarship and health care costs.

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?

(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.

(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?

There's no end in sight in the near future.

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

Thanks for breaking it out like this. It should be noted that these numbers were earned playing OBE and CUSA schedules. I wonder how much of a role realignment plays. Using Memphis as an example, attendance rose 17% in its' first year in the AAC with a worse record. It'll be interesting to track these numbers in the coming years to gauge the net effect once the dust settles.

(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!

(06-06-2014 10:30 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Thanks for breaking it out like this. It should be noted that these numbers were earned playing OBE and CUSA schedules. I wonder how much of a role realignment plays. Using Memphis as an example, attendance rose 17% in its' first year in the AAC with a worse record. It'll be interesting to track these numbers in the coming years to gauge the net effect once the dust settles.

Yes - these numbers are from 2012-13. A year old.

(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.

(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.

(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.