(06-24-2019 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  For me, the question is this...what schools can actually afford to join the AAC?

Half the schools in the conference can't afford to be in the conference either. No conference loses more on athletics than the AAC. Not even close.

Initial Outlay: Probably around 10 million dollars for exit fees to the existing conference, entry fees to the AAC, and other transition charges. This amount may actually be higher.

Annual Outlay: Roughly 20 million dollars more per team per year for CUSA, SBC, and MAC teams.
Annual Increase in Revenue: Call it 10 million more per team per year, and that's probably generous.

So the 10 year INCREMENTAL cost of leaving the Belt, CUSA, or the MAC to join the AAC is at least 100 million dollars that's virtually guaranteed to be sunk and it could be as high as DOUBLE that amount. I suspect it is closer to 200 million than 100 million. Remember that the higher profile coaches and other expenses will happen at the beginning, while the increased revenue will probably take time to seep in, if it does so at all.
----

And there's another issue. Many of the candidate schools are already making their students spend millions on non-voluntary athletic fees as it is. Adding more to it could really cause real outrage. Some of the numbers are truly staggering, especially at the smaller enrollment schools. 6-8 grand for a 4 year degree in non-voluntary athletic subsidies at UAB or USM or Ohio? That's how you get a program shut down with the students demanding that it be shut down, rather than demanding to save it.

----

Here's the profile of a school that would be a good 'financial fit' for the conference
1) Large endowment
2) Large undergraduate enrollment
3) Relatively large AD revenues.

The number of schools in the Belt, CUSA, or the MAC that have all three... zero. Neither Army nor UMass nor JMU qualify either.
------

The math just fails for just about every school in CUSA, SBC, and the MAC.

-----

I'm sure lots of schools *want* to be in the AAC. But most of them simply can't afford it. The only public school that will bite will be one that is desperate or foolish. The MWC schools most likely stay where they are. BYU has a special TV deal. Liberty is, well, Liberty. They'll flush hundred of millions down the drain if asked, but they're probably not being asked. Army *might* jump. UMass might double down on AD losses, but I think that would probably cause a revolt among a student body and faculty already grumbling about athletic costs. JMU might jump, but doubtful the AAC asks them (and a QUARTER of the cost of a JMU degree is already athletic subsidies). Some school with an out of touch Board of Trustees might roll the dice, I suppose, but they'd be fools to do so.

And the AAC isn't likely to bring on board a school that is financially unable to sustain the losses required to compete in AAC. Regardless of the willingness of whomever is on the board of trustees at any individual institution at the time.

I don't know. A 20 million dollar more outlay would make us the top spending team in the AAC. I think we could do it for cheaper. It's less of a jump than was the CAA to CUSA for us. No schollies to add, no title 9, travel about the same. Our fans would chomp at the bit to have those FB and BB schedules compared to what we have. I'm pretty confident with the increased revenue we would make it work.

At this point I think it's more likely Navy just goes independent with a scheduling agreement or they just stop at 11. Expansion doesn't make a ton of sense.

(06-24-2019 03:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  At this point I think it's more likely Navy just goes independent with a scheduling agreement or they just stop at 11. Expansion doesn't make a ton of sense.

that would be interesting, because it would both alleviate the issues, and probably allow Navy to make a lot more money.

But I don't think that was their priority when signing up with the AAC, as I think scheduling certainty was their primary aspiration.

(06-24-2019 10:31 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I'll make a wacky prediction...

The AAC will try for Army, but moving the Army-Navy game to Thanksgiving weekend from Heisman weekend will make that a no-go. So they'll try with Air Force, who says yes. Air Force puts their Olympic sports in the Big Sky.

The Mountain West invites UTEP to replace Air Force.

Rice goes independent and puts Olympic sports in the Missouri Valley.

C-USA loses two Texas schools, goes down to 12, and simply shifts Middle Tennessee to the West.

Crazier things have happened. Don't forget Denver was once in the Sun Belt or that West Virginia is in the Big 12.

Personally I think something to keep the game unique is to move Army-Navy to Veterans Day (which always is November 11th, regardless the day of the week). Only the years when that fell on a Saturday would it become an issue, and then you could possibly move it to Friday night or Sunday so it could be the sole-event that it has always really been. I don't think that would be too difficult at all (aside from MACtion in Nov, but who the hell would be watching that when Army-Navy is on). Hell, Army-Navy suddenly could have conference title implications as well in addition to the rivalry itself. If the game falls Tues-Thurs just build in a BYE week either before or after (like they do for mid-week games already). I think that's the perfect solution for Army-Navy IN the conference.

(06-24-2019 04:21 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Personally I think something to keep the game unique is to move Army-Navy to Veterans Day (which always is November 11th, regardless the day of the week). Only the years when that fell on a Saturday would it become an issue, and then you could possibly move it to Friday night or Sunday so it could be the sole-event that it has always really been.

I don't know if you have ever been to an Army/Navy game, but that game -logistically speaking - could not be held during the week. You certainly couldl not have it on a Sunday in November: it would be up against NFL games. And none of the 3 usual host cities, who pay a ton of money to get the game, would want that either, as they bring semi-major bowl-like revenues to the cities.

Not only could you NOT do it during the week, but the current date works so very well, and allowed the game to thrive when both teams were pretty bad, and makes it even better now that both have life. You also don't want military personnel choosing between this game, and other Veterans Day festivities.

(06-24-2019 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  At this point I think it's more likely Navy just goes independent with a scheduling agreement or they just stop at 11. Expansion doesn't make a ton of sense.

that would be interesting, because it would both alleviate the issues, and probably allow Navy to make a lot more money.

But I don't think that was their priority when signing up with the AAC, as I think scheduling certainty was their primary aspiration.

They already get the proceeds from the Army-Navy game as a separate deal. Unless the rest of their package is worth more than 7 million a year---I doubt they make more on their own.

(06-24-2019 04:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  At this point I think it's more likely Navy just goes independent with a scheduling agreement or they just stop at 11. Expansion doesn't make a ton of sense.

that would be interesting, because it would both alleviate the issues, and probably allow Navy to make a lot more money.

But I don't think that was their priority when signing up with the AAC, as I think scheduling certainty was their primary aspiration.

They already get the proceeds from the Army-Navy game as a separate deal. Unless the rest of their package is worth more than 7 million a year---I doubt they make more on their own.

They used to make $5 million alone for the ND game, plus I believe got paid more for the AFA game. Granted that was every other year. But that was on the old deal.

But, I was assuming the Army/Navy game was part of the overall compensation of the new package.... So that changes it somewhat. It all depends on the motivation for being a part of the conference, which is now even more different, than the one they originally started out in.

However going Indy all but permanently locks you out of New Year's day games, and they were fairly close a couple of years ago, so maybe not.

(06-23-2019 10:03 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 09:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the AAC stays at 11. No one willing to join adds real value.

The “value,” if nothing else, would be the CCG, as I don’t think they will be allowed to break the CCG rules indefinitely, with regard to playing everyone in the division. Probably only allowed to have one with 11 teams for 1-2 years max, before finding a solution.

They'd have 2 teams playing 7 or 9 conference games before cancelling their CCG.

Actually, if AAC provided bowl spots with a 3-4 game a year AAC schedule with Navy. I imagine Navy could make out like bandits with the money for Notre Dame & Army. I could see CBS offer them a nice deal.

(06-24-2019 06:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, if AAC provided bowl spots with a 3-4 game a year AAC schedule with Navy. I imagine Navy could make out like bandits with the money for Notre Dame & Army. I could see CBS offer them a nice deal.

Why does the USNA need to make money? Will it give it back to taxpayers?

(06-24-2019 02:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  For me, the question is this...what schools can actually afford to join the AAC?

Half the schools in the conference can't afford to be in the conference either. No conference loses more on athletics than the AAC. Not even close.

Initial Outlay: Probably around 10 million dollars for exit fees to the existing conference, entry fees to the AAC, and other transition charges. This amount may actually be higher.

Annual Outlay: Roughly 20 million dollars more per team per year for CUSA, SBC, and MAC teams.
Annual Increase in Revenue: Call it 10 million more per team per year, and that's probably generous.

So the 10 year INCREMENTAL cost of leaving the Belt, CUSA, or the MAC to join the AAC is at least 100 million dollars that's virtually guaranteed to be sunk and it could be as high as DOUBLE that amount. I suspect it is closer to 200 million than 100 million. Remember that the higher profile coaches and other expenses will happen at the beginning, while the increased revenue will probably take time to seep in, if it does so at all.
----

And there's another issue. Many of the candidate schools are already making their students spend millions on non-voluntary athletic fees as it is. Adding more to it could really cause real outrage. Some of the numbers are truly staggering, especially at the smaller enrollment schools. 6-8 grand for a 4 year degree in non-voluntary athletic subsidies at UAB or USM or Ohio? That's how you get a program shut down with the students demanding that it be shut down, rather than demanding to save it.

----

Here's the profile of a school that would be a good 'financial fit' for the conference
1) Large endowment
2) Large undergraduate enrollment
3) Relatively large AD revenues.

The number of schools in the Belt, CUSA, or the MAC that have all three... zero. Neither Army nor UMass nor JMU qualify either.
------

The math just fails for just about every school in CUSA, SBC, and the MAC.

-----

I'm sure lots of schools *want* to be in the AAC. But most of them simply can't afford it. The only public school that will bite will be one that is desperate or foolish. The MWC schools most likely stay where they are. BYU has a special TV deal. Liberty is, well, Liberty. They'll flush hundred of millions down the drain if asked, but they're probably not being asked. Army *might* jump. UMass might double down on AD losses, but I think that would probably cause a revolt among a student body and faculty already grumbling about athletic costs. JMU might jump, but doubtful the AAC asks them (and a QUARTER of the cost of a JMU degree is already athletic subsidies). Some school with an out of touch Board of Trustees might roll the dice, I suppose, but they'd be fools to do so.

And the AAC isn't likely to bring on board a school that is financially unable to sustain the losses required to compete in AAC. Regardless of the willingness of whomever is on the board of trustees at any individual institution at the time.

I don't know. A 20 million dollar more outlay would make us the top spending team in the AAC. I think we could do it for cheaper. It's less of a jump than was the CAA to CUSA for us. No schollies to add, no title 9, travel about the same. Our fans would chomp at the bit to have those FB and BB schedules compared to what we have. I'm pretty confident with the increased revenue we would make it work.

I may be incorrect, but my understanding is that the Commonwealth of Virginia requires its public institutions to report significant outlays allied to, but not necessarily part of (e.g., cheerleaders, certain recruiting expenses, band, etc.) athletics in its NCAA financial reporting. Even UVA and VT report far higher losses than their ACC peers. GMU, a basketball only school in a compact conference, reports higher athletic spending than half of FBS playing CUSA. Someting is going on with the Virginia numbers. To be clear, Delaware, Uconn and UMass also report staggeringly high athletic department budgets too.

ODU paid its head coach 650k a year. The average head coaches salary in the AAC is over a million more a year. And that's just the head coach. One person. Now, double (or triple) all the other football coaching salaries and associated staff and see where you land. Then, there's the recruiting expenses. And basketball expenses too. I suspect that an ODU move to the AAC would involve pretty much the same increase in spending that its other CUSA peers would experience. If ODU actually does spend, on a peer basis, that amount on athletics, then perhaps they could fit it in by reducing costs elsewhere in the department (but watch out for Title IX).

----

ODU is one of the stronger candidates for AAC inclusion from CUSA, the Belt and the MAC. Lets look at it.

Endowment: 240 million. High for a CUSA school. But would be only ahead of ECU and Memphis (and barely so). But its enough.

Enrollment: 18,000 undergrads. ODU would be the smallest public school in the AAC.

Athletic Department Revenue: 17 million. That is actually a great number for a CUSA school. But IIRC, ODU has a small stadium that they do a pretty good job of filling up. Without spending 100 million or more on a new stadium, it might be hard to dramatically increase that revenue (outside of the AAC TV deal). Basketball revenue would increase, but I'm not sure that is going to make the difference up.

Athletic Department loss and sustainability: ODU loses 28 million and change each year on athletics, or roughly $1600 per year per undergraduate student (or $6400 per undergraduate degree). That's actually quite high. My understanding is that the Delegates and Senators in Richmond are more aware of this situation than in other states. How much should a nursing student going to ODU part time have to borrow to fund ODU's athletic program as a condition of going to their public University? Right now its $6400 a degree. Add another 10 million a year to that, and it gets up to around $8600 a degree. If I'm right, and ODU really will lose 10 million more a year in AAC, this is a very dangerous game. You could join the AAC and it might work out. But its equally likely that the Legislature gets involved or the students get fed up and you lose your program.

Impact of additional revenues: They will go up, but you'll have to pay to get out of CUSA, you'll have to pay to join the AAC, you'll have to forego certain payments as well.

----

And ODU is probably one of the better financially positions institutions for admission to the AAC. But if I were on the Board at ODU, or a Delegate in Richmond, I'd seriously question whether adding millions in expenses for an athletic program that already loses close to 300 million dollars a decade is a wise decision for the stakeholders of the Commonwealth.

----

At some point, the deficits have to start falling. Moving to FBS only expanded them. And the AAC appears to have even higher average deficits. While its doubtful that non-P5 football will ever be truly cost neutral, they're no reason for the deficits to continuously expand.

None of the academies need a nickel from college sports. Each likes their current affiliation. I see no change.

BYU has the LDS Church, so they really don't care that much about a couple million either. The AAC doesn't get BYU any closer to being accepted by the B12 in All Sports, nor getting BYU power status as an Independent compared to their current scheduling. So I see no change here either.

When you really look at who could afford the American and also would be interested, only three schools come forward:

1. Rice
2. Old Dominion (not sure they can afford it)
3. Virginia Commonwealth (no football)

There is the hurdle of ESPN. They have to say yes, we'll pay you a full share for them. In the case of Rice and ODU the answer is no.

VCU is interesting, but they don't need another basketball school, nor am I at all sure they want one, as they can split the distributions one fewer way.

Conclusion, they stay at 11 with ESPN's blessing.

(06-24-2019 06:42 PM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 06:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, if AAC provided bowl spots with a 3-4 game a year AAC schedule with Navy. I imagine Navy could make out like bandits with the money for Notre Dame & Army. I could see CBS offer them a nice deal.

Why does the USNA need to make money? Will it give it back to taxpayers?

That's what I have been wondering about Air Force and Army.

There sports have private funding. It is not all Taxpayer. https://navysports.com/sports/2018/5/23/...-html.aspx

Is it worth it for BYU to cancel a ton of games for an AAC payday when they want ultimately want to join the Big XII? No.

Is it worth it for Army to cancel a ton of games for an AAC payday and get beat up by future pros every week? No.

I don’t disagree that those two are the main targets. I just don’t see either of them having any serious interest.

I hope they kick down the no division door and the ACC can finally capitalize on the match-ups within the conference. Thanks, UConn and the Big East!

(06-24-2019 07:56 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  There sports have private funding. It is not all Taxpayer. https://navysports.com/sports/2018/5/23/...-html.aspx

Who pays for the scholarships?

(06-24-2019 08:37 PM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 07:56 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  There sports have private funding. It is not all Taxpayer. https://navysports.com/sports/2018/5/23/...-html.aspx

Who pays for the scholarships?

They are cadets like everyone else

(06-24-2019 07:53 PM)SMUfan Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 06:42 PM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 06:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually, if AAC provided bowl spots with a 3-4 game a year AAC schedule with Navy. I imagine Navy could make out like bandits with the money for Notre Dame & Army. I could see CBS offer them a nice deal.

Why does the USNA need to make money? Will it give it back to taxpayers?

That's what I have been wondering about Air Force and Army.

The Naval Academy Athletic Association supports 33 varsity, intercollegiate sports (and NAAA also supports some key club sports like hockey and rugby), essentially all from football. This is a direct contribution to the institution's mission, "To develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically...:

(06-24-2019 08:46 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:37 PM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 07:56 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  There sports have private funding. It is not all Taxpayer. https://navysports.com/sports/2018/5/23/...-html.aspx

Who pays for the scholarships?

They are cadets like everyone else

There are no athletic scholarships. All the varsity athletes are on the same ride as intramural athletes like me.

I said it in another thread but the AAC will go to 12 with a team ESPN has given their blessings to. More than likely Aresco will have a meeting with ESPN reps and they will give him a list of schools they would be okay with the AAC adding. Just easier for them that way.

(06-24-2019 07:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  For me, the question is this...what schools can actually afford to join the AAC?

Half the schools in the conference can't afford to be in the conference either. No conference loses more on athletics than the AAC. Not even close.

Initial Outlay: Probably around 10 million dollars for exit fees to the existing conference, entry fees to the AAC, and other transition charges. This amount may actually be higher.

Annual Outlay: Roughly 20 million dollars more per team per year for CUSA, SBC, and MAC teams.
Annual Increase in Revenue: Call it 10 million more per team per year, and that's probably generous.

So the 10 year INCREMENTAL cost of leaving the Belt, CUSA, or the MAC to join the AAC is at least 100 million dollars that's virtually guaranteed to be sunk and it could be as high as DOUBLE that amount. I suspect it is closer to 200 million than 100 million. Remember that the higher profile coaches and other expenses will happen at the beginning, while the increased revenue will probably take time to seep in, if it does so at all.
----

And there's another issue. Many of the candidate schools are already making their students spend millions on non-voluntary athletic fees as it is. Adding more to it could really cause real outrage. Some of the numbers are truly staggering, especially at the smaller enrollment schools. 6-8 grand for a 4 year degree in non-voluntary athletic subsidies at UAB or USM or Ohio? That's how you get a program shut down with the students demanding that it be shut down, rather than demanding to save it.

----

Here's the profile of a school that would be a good 'financial fit' for the conference
1) Large endowment
2) Large undergraduate enrollment
3) Relatively large AD revenues.

The number of schools in the Belt, CUSA, or the MAC that have all three... zero. Neither Army nor UMass nor JMU qualify either.
------

The math just fails for just about every school in CUSA, SBC, and the MAC.

-----

I'm sure lots of schools *want* to be in the AAC. But most of them simply can't afford it. The only public school that will bite will be one that is desperate or foolish. The MWC schools most likely stay where they are. BYU has a special TV deal. Liberty is, well, Liberty. They'll flush hundred of millions down the drain if asked, but they're probably not being asked. Army *might* jump. UMass might double down on AD losses, but I think that would probably cause a revolt among a student body and faculty already grumbling about athletic costs. JMU might jump, but doubtful the AAC asks them (and a QUARTER of the cost of a JMU degree is already athletic subsidies). Some school with an out of touch Board of Trustees might roll the dice, I suppose, but they'd be fools to do so.

And the AAC isn't likely to bring on board a school that is financially unable to sustain the losses required to compete in AAC. Regardless of the willingness of whomever is on the board of trustees at any individual institution at the time.

I don't know. A 20 million dollar more outlay would make us the top spending team in the AAC. I think we could do it for cheaper. It's less of a jump than was the CAA to CUSA for us. No schollies to add, no title 9, travel about the same. Our fans would chomp at the bit to have those FB and BB schedules compared to what we have. I'm pretty confident with the increased revenue we would make it work.

I may be incorrect, but my understanding is that the Commonwealth of Virginia requires its public institutions to report significant outlays allied to, but not necessarily part of (e.g., cheerleaders, certain recruiting expenses, band, etc.) athletics in its NCAA financial reporting. Even UVA and VT report far higher losses than their ACC peers. GMU, a basketball only school in a compact conference, reports higher athletic spending than half of FBS playing CUSA. Someting is going on with the Virginia numbers. To be clear, Delaware, Uconn and UMass also report staggeringly high athletic department budgets too.

ODU paid its head coach 650k a year. The average head coaches salary in the AAC is over a million more a year. And that's just the head coach. One person. Now, double (or triple) all the other football coaching salaries and associated staff and see where you land. Then, there's the recruiting expenses. And basketball expenses too. I suspect that an ODU move to the AAC would involve pretty much the same increase in spending that its other CUSA peers would experience. If ODU actually does spend, on a peer basis, that amount on athletics, then perhaps they could fit it in by reducing costs elsewhere in the department (but watch out for Title IX).

----

ODU is one of the stronger candidates for AAC inclusion from CUSA, the Belt and the MAC. Lets look at it.

Endowment: 240 million. High for a CUSA school. But would be only ahead of ECU and Memphis (and barely so). But its enough.

Enrollment: 18,000 undergrads. ODU would be the smallest public school in the AAC.

Athletic Department Revenue: 17 million. That is actually a great number for a CUSA school. But IIRC, ODU has a small stadium that they do a pretty good job of filling up. Without spending 100 million or more on a new stadium, it might be hard to dramatically increase that revenue (outside of the AAC TV deal). Basketball revenue would increase, but I'm not sure that is going to make the difference up.

Athletic Department loss and sustainability: ODU loses 28 million and change each year on athletics, or roughly $1600 per year per undergraduate student (or $6400 per undergraduate degree). That's actually quite high. My understanding is that the Delegates and Senators in Richmond are more aware of this situation than in other states. How much should a nursing student going to ODU part time have to borrow to fund ODU's athletic program as a condition of going to their public University? Right now its $6400 a degree. Add another 10 million a year to that, and it gets up to around $8600 a degree. If I'm right, and ODU really will lose 10 million more a year in AAC, this is a very dangerous game. You could join the AAC and it might work out. But its equally likely that the Legislature gets involved or the students get fed up and you lose your program.

Impact of additional revenues: They will go up, but you'll have to pay to get out of CUSA, you'll have to pay to join the AAC, you'll have to forego certain payments as well.

----

And ODU is probably one of the better financially positions institutions for admission to the AAC. But if I were on the Board at ODU, or a Delegate in Richmond, I'd seriously question whether adding millions in expenses for an athletic program that already loses close to 300 million dollars a decade is a wise decision for the stakeholders of the Commonwealth.

----

At some point, the deficits have to start falling. Moving to FBS only expanded them. And the AAC appears to have even higher average deficits. While its doubtful that non-P5 football will ever be truly cost neutral, they're no reason for the deficits to continuously expand.

If you’re interested in how VA accounts for athletics I suggest you look at the Auditor of Public Accounts website. You can find all of the public school’s audited financial statements submitted to the ncaa. There’s also a link showing the recommendations put forth by a task force on how VA schools should report on each category of the ncaa’s account groupings when they released revised reporting regulations on the Agreed Upon Procedures a few years ago. It even includes emails to and from ncaa administrators requesting guidance on certain items. Spoiler warning: “Spirit Groups” is most definitely a category requested by the ncaa. VA schools are probably the most transparent in the Union. But to your point: yes, VA schools tend to be “inflated” overall. We require school overhead to be charged back to the athletic department. And other schools might have reason to keep athletic expense reporting lower. You compare these figures at your own risk, the NCAA’s AUP acknowledges the different methods schools have for reporting. Even in VA there are differences. With that said, JMUs FBS feasibility report suggested that their budget was around 7 million higher than schools in neighboring states, this was in maybe 2014? I have reason to believe after comparing our financials that ODUs number would be lower. But using that figure, if you add 20 million to the [44million-7million=] 37 million dollar budget that’s still among the top of AAC spending.


Also required by VA is that all athletic spending be used by self generated revenue or student fees (I.e. no state funds and no general fund monies). So if we’re reporting expenses that others may not even though they incur them then along with our overall budget being higher then student fees is higher as well. So you can calculate ODUs vs USAs athletic fees per degree but some of USAs athletic expenses are just coming out of your tuition where in VA it must be publicly, separately stated.

You can’t have it both ways, that our budgets inflated and our fees are too high.

Now that that’s out of the way. ODU has not raised athletic fees in several years and the 28 million we’re using is in line with other AAC schools. The legislature made thier law and we’re adhering to and surpassing their threshold. Our new stadium is nearing completion of the first stage, paid for by private funding and expected revenue increases. Although the capacity increase is very modest there were new premium seating options and there will be more sideline boxes coming in the next stage as well as increasing capacity through more bench seating. I see a lot of opportunity to increase revenues beyond the conference payout.

But in general I think your assumptions are just off. You could add up all of our coaching salaries, support staff salaries and bonuses and benefits as well as recruiting expenses for FB,MBB & WBB and double them and it’d be 11 million. And we’d be competitive if we made decent hires. We’d be paying our current coach more now if he’d earn it.

I don’t know where you’re coming up with 20 million. Take the extra revenue and put it into better coaching, piece of cake. Our fundraising and ticket sales are good for where we are but could definitely improve. Anybody in the CUSA, SB or MAC would be foolish not to take the offer.

editing to add some links:

VA's guidance on NCAA reporting (it's a word document):

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/NCAA...02018.docx

Search page for VA Public Schools NCAA reports (type the name of the school and choose "Agreed Upon Procedures" as the category and it will bring up all the recent years:

http://www.apa.state.va.us/APA_Reports/Reports.aspx

ODU's most recent report 2017-18 (will match the USA Today info when it comes out, presumably any day now based on past publications):

http://www.apa.state.va.us/reports/OldDo...AA2018.pdf