Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
pilot172000 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,626
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Tech/ Bama
Location: North Louisiana
Post: #81
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
(05-28-2015 02:26 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Yes, but my post has more to do with EEs odd categorization of subsidies. Doesn't matter if it's from the state, students (even if they do see some benefit) or the college's general fund; none of it is from the ticket paying public and/or donors.

This thread has gone way off topic thanks to folks like EE. You won't convince him of anything that's not his own opinion so try not too.
05-28-2015 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eager eagle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,893
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 6
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #82
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
(05-28-2015 02:26 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Yes, but my post has more to do with EEs odd categorization of subsidies. Doesn't matter if it's from the state, students (even if they do see some benefit) or the college's general fund; none of it is from the ticket paying public and/or donors.

Like I said, it depends upon ones definition of subsidy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
05-28-2015 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
winston70 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,823
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 116
I Root For: La Tech
Location:
Post: #83
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
(05-28-2015 02:54 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 02:26 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Yes, but my post has more to do with EEs odd categorization of subsidies. Doesn't matter if it's from the state, students (even if they do see some benefit) or the college's general fund; none of it is from the ticket paying public and/or donors.

Like I said, it depends upon ones definition of subsidy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

And we have heard yours too many times to count 03-banghead
05-28-2015 06:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eager eagle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,893
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 6
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #84
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
(05-28-2015 06:29 PM)winston70 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 02:54 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 02:26 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Yes, but my post has more to do with EEs odd categorization of subsidies. Doesn't matter if it's from the state, students (even if they do see some benefit) or the college's general fund; none of it is from the ticket paying public and/or donors.

Like I said, it depends upon ones definition of subsidy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

And we have heard yours too many times to count 03-banghead

I know, you would ignore me but then where would you guys get up to date, accurate, and unbiased info on Tech and Dogpatch? I am your only source it appears. For example one of your guys, St Gregg, just posted above that Tech was unable to charge student athletic fees which most all know isnt true. I had to update the poor guy.
05-28-2015 08:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HogDawg Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,354
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 549
I Root For: LA Tech
Location: FranklinTNMcKinneyTX
Post: #85
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
(05-28-2015 08:16 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 10:10 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

So basically you think everyone but the Texas, Ohio State, and Alabama's of the world need to fold up shop. Gotcha.

Not at all. What I am saying is that programs that rely on taxpayer supliments to cover anything more than like 25% of their expenses should compete only at the level they can afford. Schools who take more are distinctly short on fans and need to consider playing at the level they can afford. This includes a huge block of schools.

Well, whatever USM is doing, it doesn't seem to be helping them much these days. Just saying.......03-lmfao
05-30-2015 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DAWGZILLA Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 113
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 9
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #86
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
I might be 100% wrong, but I'm under the impression that the University of Louisiana System has regulations about how much general fund money can be allocated to athletics. Each university can make their own decision how this is used depending on their mission. La. Tech has always been fortunate enough to be able to allocate the maximum amount. Not all ULS schools have been able to do this.

On top of that, the athletic transfer percentage is based on the overall university budget, even though the state is currently only funding about 20-25% of operating cost if that under the cuts that have been made the last 6 years.
05-30-2015 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DAWGZILLA Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 113
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 9
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #87
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
I personally think that athletics is an important part of a university and is money well spent. Where it comes from I don't care.
05-30-2015 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
papa_dawg Offline
Stirring Pots Since 1975
*

Posts: 1,578
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 138
I Root For: LA Tech
Location:
Post: #88
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
(05-28-2015 02:52 PM)VermilionWhite Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 02:26 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Yes, but my post has more to do with EEs odd categorization of subsidies. Doesn't matter if it's from the state, students (even if they do see some benefit) or the college's general fund; none of it is from the ticket paying public and/or donors.
What??? It matters GREATLY if you are taking money from the state, versus ticket sales, donors, etc. That is what it means when school's athletic programs are defined as "self-supporting"....that they do not have to rely on a state to keep their programs going. LOL....if anyone should....or BETTER..... understand this it would be folks in our great state of La.

Good point. Now let's ask the Standard & Poor how financially solvent Louisiana's universities are.
05-30-2015 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eager eagle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,893
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 6
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #89
RE: LaTech alters 2016 OOC football schedule
(05-30-2015 04:47 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  
(05-28-2015 08:16 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 10:10 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  
(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

So basically you think everyone but the Texas, Ohio State, and Alabama's of the world need to fold up shop. Gotcha.

Not at all. What I am saying is that programs that rely on taxpayer supliments to cover anything more than like 25% of their expenses should compete only at the level they can afford. Schools who take more are distinctly short on fans and need to consider playing at the level they can afford. This includes a huge block of schools.

Well, whatever USM is doing, it doesn't seem to be helping them much these days. Just saying.......03-lmfao

You are absolutely correct. Another couple of years like the last three will most likely see the rest of our fanbase erode whereby if we cant get the state to bail us out, like Tech does, then we will be down the drain. I dont think Mississippi will do that so things really dont look all that good at this time.
05-31-2015 09:36 PM
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.