(04-28-2017 09:54 AM)Black Diamond Reb Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 11:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I grew tired of trying to explain how thingys actually work.

Because you can't .. It's just a big shell game of moving / shuffling / hiding / juggling funds and documents justifying a particular entities existence and legitimacy. You'd have better luck getting a sample of Bigfoot DNA than a true accounting of USM financials and fiscal liability, likely the same at any public institution. Munzly and the like can report what they're told, but nobody pulls out the abacus and sees if the slides level out.

True, and cannot believe I am agreeing with you on . Oh well, a weak moment.

(04-28-2017 01:32 PM)CajunEagle Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 12:34 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 11:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 11:37 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 08:23 AM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  Just noticed that Usm has more student fees go to athletics than um/msu, and all the LA schools. Five-six of cusa schools have significant more student fees go to athletics - old dominion with $28m , for instance. Guess them and charlotte will will be the next schools to leap frog us.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

When I've seen this list before, "subsidy" wasn't defined as just student fees, but any imaginable sort of financial support from general university funds. It's long been standard procedure at USM for the university to cut a check to athletics to cover any deficit at the end of the fiscal year, so that's certainly on there. One time I saw this info published, it was even cited that things like facility maintenance expenses that didn't specifically come out of athletic revenues counted (i.e., if the physical plant mowed a playing field instead of a dedicated grounds crew, that was included in the subsidy column).

Point being, the subsidy they're showing on that list doesn't directly or even necessarily equate to student fees. It covers a lot of other ground as well. If you want to compare student fees straight-up, you're going to have to dig deeper into the numbers.

thank you.....I grew tired of trying to explain how thingys actually work relative to how they're reported.....

bean counters can wave wands better than those that pull rabbits out of the hat.....

I just checked in and have not read the previous posts on this thus forgive if someone else has already explained this. The subsidy figure includes student athletic fees plus any pitched in by the school. Athletic fees are the primary source for those numbers for most schools. You mentioned the Louisiana schools. They do not impose student athletic fees except a school or two imposed a minute amount to cover some special event, etc. therefore the amount shown for them is an entirely state suppliment. The powers to be, however, just recently authorized them to impose student athletic fees IF the students vote it upon themselves. I think ULM is the only one that has held a vote and the students turned it down. We are really at a disadvantage when competing with those schools. The students are not charged an athletic fee nor do most pay tuition due to the state TOPS program. Kid living at home only has to pay for books, and some incidental fees. If USM could offer that we would be a 30,000 student university.

Good grief. Have you been living in a damn cave ?? TOPS was pretty much shut down at the start of last Fall. State paid half of what had been given to TOPS students at last Fall's semester. State pays nothing now, so it's up to student/parent to pay for tuition. I believe Southeastern has picked up the tab for it's TOPS students, but they are the only institution that does.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2...stops.html

No, not living in a cave, you need to crawl out of yours and buy an up to date edition rather than relying on material more than one year old. Do a little more research and note the TOPS program has been in effect for many years and, as I said, a kid living at home could attend ULL or any other state school with cost being limited mostly to just buying his books and paying some incidental fees. Now, notice the material you referenced and look at the date-Feb 2016, over a year ago. State was in a bind, couldnt fully pay the schools for what was owed under TOPS for school year 2015-2016, but the SCHOOLS, not the students, took the hit. So, the legislature funded the TOPS program for following year, 2016-2017, at I believe 75% of each scholarship. They did not apply that until mid-year thus kid got 100% for first semester but in order to come to the 75% overall figure they reduced his scholarship to 50% for second semester and kid had to pay the difference UNLESS a school like SLU picked up that extra amt. So, the students have had full coverage UNTIL this last semester when it dropped to 50%. Now, the upcoming year 2017-2018 is unsettled because the state budget has not been finalized.

(04-28-2017 12:36 PM)Bleacher Eagle Wrote:  With the exception of Rice (a rich private school), EVERY SINGLE school above us on this list has one thing in common: They have larger enrollments than Southern Miss. Most, substantially larger. The only school we're ahead of on the list, La Tech, has a smaller enrollment than Southern Miss.

We have a small budget because we are a small school. The most sustainable cure for our athletic financial woes would be to increase our enrollment. In the short term, more Students would equate to more Student Fees. In the long run, more Alumni equates to more donations, more ticket sales, more merchandise sales, etc.

To be more specific, we need to increase male enrollment. Having more females than males is great while you're a student, but so many of those female graduates end up marring non-USM graduates and never return to campus, never donate to the Eagle Club, never go to games, etc.

Add programs to the curriculum that attract mostly male students. Grow the alumni base and thus grow the revenue. It's a long term, sustainable way to increase our athletics budget.

Enrollment is a balancing act, though. An extra 5,000 warm bodies who only stick around for a year and never come back OR take 8 years of classes and never actually become productive alumni don't do much for you over the long haul, either.

The male:female ratio is certainly a thing. I'd also add the out-of-state student ratio, which was pretty high last I saw numbers. We have a shipload of students who come, get their degree, then go back home and resume being full-time LSU, Alabama, Florida, etc. fans without giving USM's teams even the second thought they did while enrolled.

The problem we're running into these days is a number of characteristics that make the University what it is simply don't jive with what it takes to play in the current and upcoming environments. Unless we find a way to put the turnip in a vice until it bleeds, the choice is ultimately going to be between toning down athletics or redefining the institution as a whole (in a way satisfactory to the IHL, of course) in order to support them. The clock is ticking on, "Neither, just keep moving the shells around."