(05-26-2015 07:42 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 07:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  This is from 2013-2014... I'd expect to see a good bump from ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane this year.

Tulsa and Tulane are not on the list... public schools only.

Yes...none of the private schools are listed. Notre Dame, USC, Syracuse, Stanford, Baylor and maybe TCU and BC would all be in the Top 40

(05-27-2015 08:46 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:34 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:29 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 07:32 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  This is from 2013-2014... I'd expect to see a good bump from ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane this year.

Actually, I think this was published in 2012-2013... that's the last year Rutgers and UL were in the AAC.

Also, since financial data reporting lags behind a year, this means it is really from 2011-2012.

I remember seeing these numbers a long, long time ago.

Rutgers and Louisville were in the AAC until July 2014. We've only played one athletic season without those schools being in the AAC.

I just checked the numbers for Texas and you're right, apparently this is 2013-2014.

I think USA today has had this chart up forever, but they just insert new numbers each year without datestamping anything.

As far as UH goes, this was the year we were stadium-renting nomads... very curious to see if next year's numbers improve.

Our subsidy % is downright sad.

You can click the drop downs to change years. These are 2014 numbers.

(05-27-2015 03:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 02:25 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:46 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:34 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:29 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  Actually, I think this was published in 2012-2013... that's the last year Rutgers and UL were in the AAC.

Also, since financial data reporting lags behind a year, this means it is really from 2011-2012.

I remember seeing these numbers a long, long time ago.

Rutgers and Louisville were in the AAC until July 2014. We've only played one athletic season without those schools being in the AAC.

I just checked the numbers for Texas and you're right, apparently this is 2013-2014.

I think USA today has had this chart up forever, but they just insert new numbers each year without datestamping anything.

As far as UH goes, this was the year we were stadium-renting nomads... very curious to see if next year's numbers improve.

Our subsidy % is downright sad.

This is the 3rd year that I remember USAToday publishing the numbers, although it may have been longer based on the number of years they have available. I know that we've directed these numbers for 3 years now, so there aren't any surprises there for many.

Overall, I don't think that our subsidy is as bad as you may think.......and FWIW, many here know that I've argued both sides of that discussion depending on viewpoint.

example, UCF:
Does $20,029,409 per year in student fees for athletics sound outrageous? It does if that's the only number that you know.

However, if your enrollment is 60,100, that is only a bit over $300 per year per student, which seems very reasonable compared to some other situations.

You have to look at each situation in detail as we're obviously not all cookie cutter universities. I'd be a bit concerned if my university subsidized over 50% of the athletic funding; that's a situation that would appear unreasonably high on all but the lowest levels of athletics.

$333 reasonable? Depends if you are on-campus and like sports. How about those at the satellite campuses? IMHO $100 a year per full time oncampus student sounds about right.

I can't argue with you because everyone will have a different amount that is "reasonable" and I absolutely understand your position.

(05-27-2015 03:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 02:25 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:46 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:34 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:29 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  Actually, I think this was published in 2012-2013... that's the last year Rutgers and UL were in the AAC.

Also, since financial data reporting lags behind a year, this means it is really from 2011-2012.

I remember seeing these numbers a long, long time ago.

Rutgers and Louisville were in the AAC until July 2014. We've only played one athletic season without those schools being in the AAC.

I just checked the numbers for Texas and you're right, apparently this is 2013-2014.

I think USA today has had this chart up forever, but they just insert new numbers each year without datestamping anything.

As far as UH goes, this was the year we were stadium-renting nomads... very curious to see if next year's numbers improve.

Our subsidy % is downright sad.

This is the 3rd year that I remember USAToday publishing the numbers, although it may have been longer based on the number of years they have available. I know that we've directed these numbers for 3 years now, so there aren't any surprises there for many.

Overall, I don't think that our subsidy is as bad as you may think.......and FWIW, many here know that I've argued both sides of that discussion depending on viewpoint.

example, UCF:
Does $20,029,409 per year in student fees for athletics sound outrageous? It does if that's the only number that you know.

However, if your enrollment is 60,100, that is only a bit over $300 per year per student, which seems very reasonable compared to some other situations.

You have to look at each situation in detail as we're obviously not all cookie cutter universities. I'd be a bit concerned if my university subsidized over 50% of the athletic funding; that's a situation that would appear unreasonably high on all but the lowest levels of athletics.

$333 reasonable? Depends if you are on-campus and like sports. How about those at the satellite campuses? IMHO $100 a year per full time oncampus student sounds about right.

Call it a 333 dollar marketing fee. That's a little over a 100 a year for all sports season tix

(05-27-2015 01:26 PM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  Doesn't UConn, Cincinnati and south Florida get a bigger cut off the exit fee money from the Big east teams that formed the latest big east, west Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburg, Louisville and Rutgers? There are also a bunch of basketball credits left behind too. I can only speak for Louisville but I know they had a $11 million dollar exit fee, final four run from 2012 and championship run from 2013 in ncaa credits.

This is from a 2013 article
For example, most of the money from last year's men's basketball championship season and the Final Four run in 2012 will stay with the AAC when U of L departs.

The way the NCAA disburses tournament earnings is to pay the conference a set amount per tourney game over a six-year span. Last season, the share was $245,550 per tournament game (capped once teams reach the Final Four -- there is no extra share for reaching the title game). That means U of L earned $1.227 million from last year's tournament, with that amount to be paid to its conference starting next April for the next six years, for a final total of $7.366 million.

U of L will get its yearly share next April, but after that, all those payments will go to the AAC, as will the remaining four payments from the 2012 tournament run, and six more shares earned over the previous three seasons -- plus any money from any NCAA Tournament run this coming March.

That means U of L will leave at least $13.1 million

http://www.wdrb.com/story/23973737/crawf...e-earnings

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

UConn, Cincinnati, and USF are getting an additional 5 million a year over four years. So 60 million additional over that time. Their 'hope chest' money. Spend it wisely

(05-26-2015 07:12 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ interesting to see the differences in university funds vs student fees. Our merchandising certainly has benefited from the jump up.

My coppin state t shirt is on order. Poor fellers.

UCF is doing good with $49 million dollar budget considering we were at $8 million not that far back. I remember we paid Kruzcek $125k as an interim head coach before he got the job.

Now we just need more TV revenue please!

(05-27-2015 05:31 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 02:25 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:46 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:34 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Rutgers and Louisville were in the AAC until July 2014. We've only played one athletic season without those schools being in the AAC.

I just checked the numbers for Texas and you're right, apparently this is 2013-2014.

I think USA today has had this chart up forever, but they just insert new numbers each year without datestamping anything.

As far as UH goes, this was the year we were stadium-renting nomads... very curious to see if next year's numbers improve.

Our subsidy % is downright sad.

This is the 3rd year that I remember USAToday publishing the numbers, although it may have been longer based on the number of years they have available. I know that we've directed these numbers for 3 years now, so there aren't any surprises there for many.

Overall, I don't think that our subsidy is as bad as you may think.......and FWIW, many here know that I've argued both sides of that discussion depending on viewpoint.

example, UCF:
Does $20,029,409 per year in student fees for athletics sound outrageous? It does if that's the only number that you know.

However, if your enrollment is 60,100, that is only a bit over $300 per year per student, which seems very reasonable compared to some other situations.

You have to look at each situation in detail as we're obviously not all cookie cutter universities. I'd be a bit concerned if my university subsidized over 50% of the athletic funding; that's a situation that would appear unreasonably high on all but the lowest levels of athletics.

$333 reasonable? Depends if you are on-campus and like sports. How about those at the satellite campuses? IMHO $100 a year per full time oncampus student sounds about right.

Call it a 333 dollar marketing fee. That's a little over a 100 a year for all sports season tix

I was only trying to put it in perspective.

$20 million sounds like a huge subsidy. However, when it's spread over 60K students, it's much more understandable. As UCF's alumni base gains maturity, contributions will reach a more reasonable amount and the student fee subsidy should be reduced.

(05-28-2015 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 05:31 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 02:25 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:46 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  I just checked the numbers for Texas and you're right, apparently this is 2013-2014.

I think USA today has had this chart up forever, but they just insert new numbers each year without datestamping anything.

As far as UH goes, this was the year we were stadium-renting nomads... very curious to see if next year's numbers improve.

Our subsidy % is downright sad.

This is the 3rd year that I remember USAToday publishing the numbers, although it may have been longer based on the number of years they have available. I know that we've directed these numbers for 3 years now, so there aren't any surprises there for many.

Overall, I don't think that our subsidy is as bad as you may think.......and FWIW, many here know that I've argued both sides of that discussion depending on viewpoint.

example, UCF:
Does $20,029,409 per year in student fees for athletics sound outrageous? It does if that's the only number that you know.

However, if your enrollment is 60,100, that is only a bit over $300 per year per student, which seems very reasonable compared to some other situations.

You have to look at each situation in detail as we're obviously not all cookie cutter universities. I'd be a bit concerned if my university subsidized over 50% of the athletic funding; that's a situation that would appear unreasonably high on all but the lowest levels of athletics.

$333 reasonable? Depends if you are on-campus and like sports. How about those at the satellite campuses? IMHO $100 a year per full time oncampus student sounds about right.

Call it a 333 dollar marketing fee. That's a little over a 100 a year for all sports season tix

I was only trying to put it in perspective.

$20 million sounds like a huge subsidy. However, when it's spread over 60K students, it's much more understandable. As UCF's alumni base gains maturity, contributions will reach a more reasonable amount and the student fee subsidy should be reduced.

Never heard a student complain about the athletic fee. Our fee is pretty reasonable per student. Just wait until we reach 100k students!

(05-28-2015 09:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 05:31 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 02:25 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  This is the 3rd year that I remember USAToday publishing the numbers, although it may have been longer based on the number of years they have available. I know that we've directed these numbers for 3 years now, so there aren't any surprises there for many.

Overall, I don't think that our subsidy is as bad as you may think.......and FWIW, many here know that I've argued both sides of that discussion depending on viewpoint.

example, UCF:
Does $20,029,409 per year in student fees for athletics sound outrageous? It does if that's the only number that you know.

However, if your enrollment is 60,100, that is only a bit over $300 per year per student, which seems very reasonable compared to some other situations.

You have to look at each situation in detail as we're obviously not all cookie cutter universities. I'd be a bit concerned if my university subsidized over 50% of the athletic funding; that's a situation that would appear unreasonably high on all but the lowest levels of athletics.

$333 reasonable? Depends if you are on-campus and like sports. How about those at the satellite campuses? IMHO $100 a year per full time oncampus student sounds about right.

Call it a 333 dollar marketing fee. That's a little over a 100 a year for all sports season tix

I was only trying to put it in perspective.

$20 million sounds like a huge subsidy. However, when it's spread over 60K students, it's much more understandable. As UCF's alumni base gains maturity, contributions will reach a more reasonable amount and the student fee subsidy should be reduced.

Never heard a student complain about the athletic fee. Our fee is pretty reasonable per student. Just wait until we reach 100k students!

Everyone comes from differing perspectives. UCF is as open and honest about their athletic fee as any university you will find.......

http://tuitionfees.ikm.ucf.edu

Syracuse has a slightly more complicated listing:

http://comptroller.syr.edu/comptroller/c...es-ART.pdf

:)

Some of the above is intended for a bit of humor and some of it is intended to demonstrate how easy it is to be critical of others in a completely different situation. It's easy for a fan of an ACC program to be critical of athletic subsidies of programs that have never been a member of a "monied" conference.

....and I don't think that Texan Mark is a bad guy at all; in fact he's always been a reasonable poster. He's just forgotten what it's like trying to put competitive programs on the field/diamond/court while being shut out from some income streams.

(05-28-2015 09:34 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 05:31 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 02:25 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:46 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  I just checked the numbers for Texas and you're right, apparently this is 2013-2014.

I think USA today has had this chart up forever, but they just insert new numbers each year without datestamping anything.

As far as UH goes, this was the year we were stadium-renting nomads... very curious to see if next year's numbers improve.

Our subsidy % is downright sad.

This is the 3rd year that I remember USAToday publishing the numbers, although it may have been longer based on the number of years they have available. I know that we've directed these numbers for 3 years now, so there aren't any surprises there for many.

Overall, I don't think that our subsidy is as bad as you may think.......and FWIW, many here know that I've argued both sides of that discussion depending on viewpoint.

example, UCF:
Does $20,029,409 per year in student fees for athletics sound outrageous? It does if that's the only number that you know.

However, if your enrollment is 60,100, that is only a bit over $300 per year per student, which seems very reasonable compared to some other situations.

You have to look at each situation in detail as we're obviously not all cookie cutter universities. I'd be a bit concerned if my university subsidized over 50% of the athletic funding; that's a situation that would appear unreasonably high on all but the lowest levels of athletics.

$333 reasonable? Depends if you are on-campus and like sports. How about those at the satellite campuses? IMHO $100 a year per full time oncampus student sounds about right.

Call it a 333 dollar marketing fee. That's a little over a 100 a year for all sports season tix

I was only trying to put it in perspective.

$20 million sounds like a huge subsidy. However, when it's spread over 60K students, it's much more understandable. As UCF's alumni base gains maturity, contributions will reach a more reasonable amount and the student fee subsidy should be reduced.

I agree. In fact it was reduced in 2014 slightly. Ultimately in my eyes it buys legitimacy and brand recognition you can't get anywhere else.