http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

(02-14-2017 02:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

Could be. But even if they trim it by the deficit they have of 4 or 5 million (according to the linked article) they still have a bigger athletic budget. There's a lot of examples of schools you can use who have G4 budgets. I'm just pointing out that it would be better to use a school with a smaller budget than AAC schools. If UNLV is used as an example of a "G4" we are in trouble as they have a much bigger budget than most of us.
Cheers!

The school to keep an eye on is ArkSt. They have quietly upped their budget to over 43 million. I'd put them ahead of S Miss and many other other potential AAC replacement canditdates based simply on that metric.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/...al-16-201/

(02-14-2017 02:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

Could be. But even if they trim it by the deficit they have of 4 or 5 million (according to the linked article) they still have a bigger athletic budget. There's a lot of examples of schools you can use who have G4 budgets. I'm just pointing out that it would be better to use a school with a smaller budget than AAC schools. If UNLV is used as an example of a "G4" we are in trouble as they have a much bigger budget than most of us.
Cheers!

Source?
Because earlier Las Vegas Review Journal article (Aug '15) had them at $33M for '14-'15.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blo...time-years

That number is lower than what USA Today lists for them for '14-'15
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
which is definitely not "higher than any AAC school except Cincy and UConn"
They'd be middle of the pack in the AAC (and yes, slightly higher than Navy). Top of their conference, median or below in the AAC...sounds like a refrain in TV ratings, attendance, $, on-field performance...

(02-14-2017 03:15 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

Could be. But even if they trim it by the deficit they have of 4 or 5 million (according to the linked article) they still have a bigger athletic budget. There's a lot of examples of schools you can use who have G4 budgets. I'm just pointing out that it would be better to use a school with a smaller budget than AAC schools. If UNLV is used as an example of a "G4" we are in trouble as they have a much bigger budget than most of us.
Cheers!

Source?
Because earlier Las Vegas Review Journal article (Aug '15) had them at $33M for '14-'15.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blo...time-years

That number is lower than what USA Today lists for them for '14-'15
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
which is definitely not "higher than any AAC school except Cincy and UConn"
They'd be middle of the pack in the AAC (and yes, slightly higher than Navy). Top of their conference, median or below in the AAC...sounds like a refrain in TV ratings, attendance, $, on-field performance...

So you're saying they would be in the bottom of the AAC?

Ucf's athletic budget is over $51.5 million according to the USA today. That is with our garbage tv deal.

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

also except UCF, USF, and ECU who each have a higher budget than UNLV. Houston is just slightly behind.

(02-14-2017 03:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:15 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

Could be. But even if they trim it by the deficit they have of 4 or 5 million (according to the linked article) they still have a bigger athletic budget. There's a lot of examples of schools you can use who have G4 budgets. I'm just pointing out that it would be better to use a school with a smaller budget than AAC schools. If UNLV is used as an example of a "G4" we are in trouble as they have a much bigger budget than most of us.
Cheers!

Source?
Because earlier Las Vegas Review Journal article (Aug '15) had them at $33M for '14-'15.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blo...time-years

That number is lower than what USA Today lists for them for '14-'15
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
which is definitely not "higher than any AAC school except Cincy and UConn"
They'd be middle of the pack in the AAC (and yes, slightly higher than Navy). Top of their conference, median or below in the AAC...sounds like a refrain in TV ratings, attendance, $, on-field performance...

So you're saying they would be in the bottom of the AAC?

Especially if that $4M-$5M deficit comes from expenses holding steady at the '14-'15 $45M figure and revenues decreasing (which it sounds like from the body of the article). That would DEFINITELY be in the bottom of the AAC.

(02-14-2017 04:15 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:15 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

Could be. But even if they trim it by the deficit they have of 4 or 5 million (according to the linked article) they still have a bigger athletic budget. There's a lot of examples of schools you can use who have G4 budgets. I'm just pointing out that it would be better to use a school with a smaller budget than AAC schools. If UNLV is used as an example of a "G4" we are in trouble as they have a much bigger budget than most of us.
Cheers!

Source?
Because earlier Las Vegas Review Journal article (Aug '15) had them at $33M for '14-'15.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blo...time-years

That number is lower than what USA Today lists for them for '14-'15
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
which is definitely not "higher than any AAC school except Cincy and UConn"
They'd be middle of the pack in the AAC (and yes, slightly higher than Navy). Top of their conference, median or below in the AAC...sounds like a refrain in TV ratings, attendance, $, on-field performance...

So you're saying they would be in the bottom of the AAC?

Especially if that $4M-$5M deficit comes from expenses holding steady at the '14-'15 $45M figure and revenues decreasing (which it sounds like from the body of the article). That would DEFINITELY be in the bottom of the AAC.

G4's being G4's

AAC is P6 -its clear frim the athletic budgets

(02-14-2017 03:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:15 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

Could be. But even if they trim it by the deficit they have of 4 or 5 million (according to the linked article) they still have a bigger athletic budget. There's a lot of examples of schools you can use who have G4 budgets. I'm just pointing out that it would be better to use a school with a smaller budget than AAC schools. If UNLV is used as an example of a "G4" we are in trouble as they have a much bigger budget than most of us.
Cheers!

Source?
Because earlier Las Vegas Review Journal article (Aug '15) had them at $33M for '14-'15.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blo...time-years

That number is lower than what USA Today lists for them for '14-'15
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
which is definitely not "higher than any AAC school except Cincy and UConn"
They'd be middle of the pack in the AAC (and yes, slightly higher than Navy). Top of their conference, median or below in the AAC...sounds like a refrain in TV ratings, attendance, $, on-field performance...

So you're saying they would be in the bottom of the AAC?

Yeah, UNLV would be at the bottom of the AAC. I'm sure Tulsa, Tulane, Temple and SMU even have higher athletic budgets than the measly 45 million UNLV. Come on, let's not get ridiculous.
Cheers!

(02-14-2017 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The school to keep an eye on is ArkSt. They have quietly upped their budget to over 43 million. I'd put them ahead of S Miss and many other other potential AAC replacement canditdates based simply on that metric.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/...al-16-201/

Arkansas St's numbers are impressive but half of their athletic budget is subsidized. That's what a lot posters choose to ignore. True athletic revenue not counting subsidies. I won't list certain obvious programs that are boosted (subsidized) by 50 to 60%. Look at that the top schools athletic departments: they receive 0 in subsidies. Most "power schools" don't need it with one glaring exception, Rutgers. New Mexico is the least subsidized "non p5 school" at 26%.
Cheers!

(02-14-2017 07:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:58 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:15 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:37 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Well clearly they need to trim the budget like a g4.

Could be. But even if they trim it by the deficit they have of 4 or 5 million (according to the linked article) they still have a bigger athletic budget. There's a lot of examples of schools you can use who have G4 budgets. I'm just pointing out that it would be better to use a school with a smaller budget than AAC schools. If UNLV is used as an example of a "G4" we are in trouble as they have a much bigger budget than most of us.
Cheers!

Source?
Because earlier Las Vegas Review Journal article (Aug '15) had them at $33M for '14-'15.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blo...time-years

That number is lower than what USA Today lists for them for '14-'15
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
which is definitely not "higher than any AAC school except Cincy and UConn"
They'd be middle of the pack in the AAC (and yes, slightly higher than Navy). Top of their conference, median or below in the AAC...sounds like a refrain in TV ratings, attendance, $, on-field performance...

So you're saying they would be in the bottom of the AAC?

Yeah, UNLV would be at the bottom of the AAC. I'm sure Tulsa, Tulane, Temple and SMU even have higher athletic budgets than the measly 45 million UNLV. Come on, let's not get ridiculous.
Cheers!

Or $45 million with a $5 million deficit... $40 million.

(02-14-2017 07:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The school to keep an eye on is ArkSt. They have quietly upped their budget to over 43 million. I'd put them ahead of S Miss and many other other potential AAC replacement canditdates based simply on that metric.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/...al-16-201/

Arkansas St's numbers are impressive but half of their athletic budget is subsidized. That's what a lot posters choose to ignore. True athletic revenue not counting subsidies. I won't list certain obvious programs that are boosted (subsidized) by 50 to 60%. Look at that the top schools athletic departments: they receive 0 in subsidies. Most "power schools" don't need it with one glaring exception, Rutgers. New Mexico is the least subsidized "non p5 school" at 26%.
Cheers!

That article on Ark St us funny, too.
They say the $14M increase came from plenty of revenue sources, and identify a couple hundred thousand here and a couple hundred thousand there. They gush about the new tower for a couple of paragraphs, and estimate $1.6M for the tower....then at the bottom of the story, the data just lists "other revenue +$14M"
Some top notch journalism, there

(02-14-2017 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The school to keep an eye on is ArkSt. They have quietly upped their budget to over 43 million. I'd put them ahead of S Miss and many other other potential AAC replacement canditdates based simply on that metric.

screw NIU though

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/...al-16-201/

=*(

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

(02-14-2017 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The school to keep an eye on is ArkSt. They have quietly upped their budget to over 43 million. I'd put them ahead of S Miss and many other other potential AAC replacement canditdates based simply on that metric.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/...al-16-201/

gawd no

(02-14-2017 02:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/unlv...5m-the-red

The team you linked, UNLV has a higher athletic budget than any AAC school except Cincinnati and Uconn (who receive BE payout money still) Bad example of a "G4" school.

Cheers!

When does the BE money dry up? I know its soon but cant remember if its this year or next year.

(02-14-2017 08:12 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 07:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The school to keep an eye on is ArkSt. They have quietly upped their budget to over 43 million. I'd put them ahead of S Miss and many other other potential AAC replacement canditdates based simply on that metric.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/...al-16-201/

Arkansas St's numbers are impressive but half of their athletic budget is subsidized. That's what a lot posters choose to ignore. True athletic revenue not counting subsidies. I won't list certain obvious programs that are boosted (subsidized) by 50 to 60%. Look at that the top schools athletic departments: they receive 0 in subsidies. Most "power schools" don't need it with one glaring exception, Rutgers. New Mexico is the least subsidized "non p5 school" at 26%.
Cheers!

That article on Ark St us funny, too.
They say the $14M increase came from plenty of revenue sources, and identify a couple hundred thousand here and a couple hundred thousand there. They gush about the new tower for a couple of paragraphs, and estimate $1.6M for the tower....then at the bottom of the story, the data just lists "other revenue +$14M"
Some top notch journalism, there

They have a very good AD who is going to publicize the USAToday numbers which have a different set of perameters than ope.ed.gov. Last year, I looked at some schools with drastically differing government and USAToday numbers. The facilities category and methodology seem to account for much of the difference. Just a quick glance at ASU's operating budget leads me to believe this is the case here. Looking at FY 14/15 listed on the school's website, their actual of $15M+ closely aligns with the equity in athletics government data also at $15M while USAToday reported close to $30M. The school's expenditures for FY 15/16 are listed at $17M while it appears USAToday will report $43M when it comes out in six or so weeks. I suspect the government number will be closer to $17M. This is not unusual as the schools I looked at with large discrepancies had stated operating numbers closer to ope.ed.gov vs. USAToday. I think the problem comes in how we interpret these numbers. Some want to look at it and generalize as annual operating revenues/expenses rather than an overall snapshot of a particular year. Year over year can tell a different story. Capital improvements should be included IMO, folks just need to understand what they're looking at.

ETA: This wasnt meant to disparage Ark. St. at all as they do a great job and get a lot of bang for their buck on a sub $20M annual budget. Only pointing out, it would be misleading to state they operate on a $40M+ budget. The current operating budget according to the school is $18M+. Good for them as they have an AD willing to send USAToday more info than just what they turn into the NCAA. Shame on the ones who don't as that database gets mentioned on multiple media platforms.