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

thats because P5 programs are subsidized by TV contracts. All of the G5 programs have huge subsidies, UNLV included (over 40%). What is your point? You claimed UNLV was ahead of everyone in the AAC except cinci and uconn which was an alternative fact and simply not true.

(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!

It's not half anymore. We get 5 million in student fees, 8 million in University support out of 43 million in revenue. We're wanting to lower it more.

Lots of good things happening at stAte both in Sports and elsewhere on campus. It is one of only 2 FBS schools in the State . . there is the UA System based out of Fayetteville and there is the ASU System based out of Jonesboro.

On-Campus Embassy Suites and Red Wolf Conference Center adjacent to the Football Stadium and Basketball Arena . . Ground breaking in 60 days and opens about 15 months later.

NYIT College of Osteopathic Medicine opened on campus this past Fall and the first class of Medical Students is now in progress.

ASU Queretaro Mexico Campus opens this Fall . . part of the ASU System

http://astate.mx/

(02-15-2017 09:14 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(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.

Our budgeting is always going to be unusual. Arkansas state legislature ran through a bunch of weird laws a while back that privatized all giving to a Universities Athletic Department. (I'm guessing to protect the U of Arkansas)

As a result, we don't have to report what the Red Wolf Foundation gets each year to anyone outside of the IRS, we also cannot put that money in the Athletic Department unless it is required to meet the budget.

I expect a lot wild swings with our Athletic budget yearly from 30 million to as high as 50 million

Just trying to understand, the RED WOLVES FOUNDATION COMMITMENT TO ASU line item on aux. income is expected shortfall? $1,245,303 for 15/16 and $1,767,155 budgeted for 16/17?

Wait! What? They got an Embassy Suites? Get the...
We better sweep in and get State before the SEC does

I think ASU has a bright future. Not sure why some want to make it more than it's is. Crap, that sounded harsher than I meant.

(02-15-2017 04:27 PM)Stallion Wrote:  Wait! What? They got an Embassy Suites? Get the...
We better sweep in and get State before the SEC does

Next they are going to say the have a dunkin Donuts. If that is the case Aresco is pushing expansion asap.

MMMmmm...

Arkansas State has 4 fans in the state...pass

(02-15-2017 02:40 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Just trying to understand, the RED WOLVES FOUNDATION COMMITMENT TO ASU line item on aux. income is expected shortfall? $1,245,303 for 15/16 and $1,767,155 budgeted for 16/17?

That line item is where we get a lot of doubters, because many believe that is the amount of annual giving.

The Red Wolves Foundation is a separate entity from the University because of Arkansas law. Giving to the Foundation is entirely privatized. The school is not required to report anything publicly, and it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

The line item you read is what the Foundation sends to the University each year, which is specifically going to be tailored to meet but not exceed the Athletic Budget for a given year. Everything else goes unreported and stays within the Foundation until it is needed. The law was written to allow the University of Arkansas to get away without documenting what they take in donation wise each season. We get to take advantage of it.

Hence my comment about our budget swinging wildly year to year. We only report what we take in, and can only take in what we need.

Personally, I dont believe in any preconceived notions. It is what it is. Ark. St. is on the upswing. But, are they operating on a 40 M+ annual budget? No straight faced supporter can answer yes.

ETA: no doubt, just trying to quantify if the operating budget is at a surplus or deficit. By this definition, it appears that it is a deficit...which is par for the course for a non- power conference conference team.

(02-15-2017 07:55 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Arkansas State has 4 fans in the state...pass

Most annoying fanbase in the g4, all 4 of them

Just to you, shere. You're such an easy target. :)

I live in ARkansas...nobody outside of jonesboro gives a rats butt about Ark St

(02-15-2017 10:21 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I live in ARkansas...nobody outside of jonesboro gives a rats butt about Ark St

Tulane>Arkansas-Little Rock>Arkansas State

(02-15-2017 09:31 AM)Knights_of_UCF 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!

thats because P5 programs are subsidized by TV contracts. All of the G5 programs have huge subsidies, UNLV included (over 40%). What is your point? You claimed UNLV was ahead of everyone in the AAC except cinci and uconn which was an alternative fact and simply not true.

I stand corrected based on the link in this thread. It was true until recently. I must of been going off old numbers (or different metrics) that had SDSU and UNLV at the top of the athletic budgets of the non-power schools. Uconn was 1, Cincinnati 2, SDSU 3 and UNLV 4. I'm assuming that the BE legacy money has boosted many schools up, because ECU was way below UNLV in the athletic department budget numbers I last looked at. According to the link in this thread ECU is a little ahead of them. I could look for the info and link it, but what's the point...
Cheers!

(02-15-2017 10:27 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 10:21 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I live in ARkansas...nobody outside of jonesboro gives a rats butt about Ark St

Tulane>Arkansas-Little Rock>Arkansas State

Maybe so, based on the info required by Title 9. Tulsa has the lowest budget at @$40M.

(02-15-2017 10:21 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I live in ARkansas...nobody outside of jonesboro gives a rats butt about Ark St

Don't ever go to Jonesboro. Stay away from that place. For the love of god bc1