(05-09-2013 08:54 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 08:41 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 08:22 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  It's like we have been saying all along. With the exception of a minuscule amount of TV dollars the ones that defected are in the same pool of teams as we are. Enjoy.

But uab would join the aac in 5 seconds flat if invited as would any cusa school

Yes and if one of their programs ever does emerge, AAC will just pick it off. CUSA is the AAC farm system.

As you can see from the numbers though it's mostly about money. If you are going anywhere you better get your budget up past 30 million and do it with far less student fee's.

There's literally no reason to join the AAC anymore. TV dollars aren't there, and more travel. You guys have more budget, but due to the fact Tulsa left because they wanted to be with the old members gives y'all this false idea that the AAC is a desirable conference...when it's not.

Let me tell you, budgets made all the difference when y'all couldn't beat SBC schools last year.

CUSA
ODU.........35 million......(74% student fees)
Rice.........30 million.......N/A
Marshall....29 million......(50% student fees)
UAB.........28 million.......(67% student fees)
UTEP........27 million......(55% student fees)
MTSU.......27 million.......(72% student fees)
WKU.........26 million......(69% student fees)
FIU..........25 million.......(84% student fees)
FAU.........23 million........(60% student fees)
USTA.......22 million........(62% student fees)
USM........22 milion.........(38% student fees)
UNCC.......21 million........(89% student fees)
UNT.........19 million.........(50% student fees)
La Tech....19 million.........(51% student fees)

Conference average budget....25 million
[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------
La Tech has not been charging student athletic fees. The 51% you show for them as student fees is actually a taxpayer supplement funneled into the athletic dept through the schools general fund. Students pay no athletic fee nor do they pay for tickets.

(05-09-2013 09:33 AM)TheNorthTexan Wrote:  There's literally no reason to join the AAC anymore.

If you want to compete with other most commited schools with healthy revenue streams outside of the BCS east of the rockies there certainly is.

Average budgets
AAC 42 million
CUSA 25 million

There is a significant gap and if you don't think that's a big difference and doesn't impact the future you are dreaming. Huge correlation between money spent and success.

Quote:TV dollars aren't there

Has CUSA got their new TV deal? The Sun Belts was a joke an most of the new schools are sun belt/fcs.

Quote:but due to the fact Tulsa left because they wanted to be with the old members gives y'all this false idea that the AAC is a desirable conference...when it's not.

BS they wanted to get away from schools like UNT, USTA, etc just as much.

Quote:Let me tell you, budgets made all the difference when y'all couldn't beat SBC schools last year.

So one game makes a program. Brillant. Sure you can find programs that do well on pennies and exceed their budgets but if you really believe there is not a huge correlation with money spent and performance you have no clue. It's the biggest factor there is and definer of your program.

(05-09-2013 09:23 AM)Murray007 Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 08:35 AM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  Are you saying that from 2005 to 2012, your enrollment has tripled?

Because that is what the data shows your Student Fee amount did. If they tripled the fee over the years leading up to the football move, then it is very understandable that they wouldn't have to increase it when they announced the move.

Your amount from Student Fees is more than the whole budgets of most of the other C-USA schools.

The enrollment from 2005 to 2012 did not triple but did increase ~5,000 students. Instead, as you have said, the student fee shot up dramatically to pay for the new football program (probably didn't triple but sure went up).

Honestly, ODU can not adjust the student fee to more than what it is now. Heck, it's way too much as it is right now. It needs to be below 50% ASAP.

ODU's athletic budget is founded on the backs of our students and that's extremely unfair especially when there are students who don't give two craps about athletics. I'll be sending an email to the athletic department to see what the future of the student subsidy will be (hopefully reduction in the very near future).

One thing I notice is that "School Funds" is very low for ODU. While added together it is still high, but not as dramatic when compared to other C-USA schools that have both "Student Fees" and "School Funds"

(05-09-2013 09:30 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 08:47 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  With due respect, this post serves no purpose other than to stir the pot or give yourself personal gratification.

I think a lot of people find these numbers interesting, or they should. The fact is the financial data really is the most important measure of how “big time” you really are and separator. There is a reason you see schools with certain levels of finaces grouped together in conferences.

Quote:We're all in the same boat struggling with balancing athletic performance VS what it costs to field good teams. Some have more challenges than others, but none of us have it all figured out.

Yeah compared to the Big 5. There is still a significant gap with the AAC/MWC and the rest of the college athletics. Certain fans can say it’s a lateral move or no difference but there is a big difference.

I agree that the numbers are interesting, hence my comments last night. Posting them just to attempt to show that one conference is more desirable than another is just self gratification or an attempt to stir up a firestorm. Say what you want, but none of us are rolling in cash.

...just an average fans .02 worth.

(05-09-2013 08:47 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  With due respect, this post serves no purpose other than to stir the pot or give yourself personal gratification.

You know what they say, if you can't beat them, whack them over the head ad nauseum with irrelevant statistics.

Interesting. Thanks

(05-08-2013 04:35 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 04:31 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

89% of UNCC's budget is student fee's.

Their numbers are wrong. I'm waiting to hear back from the Athletic Foundation on the real numbers.

From our athletics department:

Quote:The issue is the contribution numbers are inaccurate….they show $621,982, when actually they were $7,167,831 (that includes capital gifts/FSLs/etc).

That pushes our subsidy number from near 90% to closer to 67%.....which isn’t all that high for a non-BCS program.

I think such a big oversight on their (USAToday's) part calls into question any of the figures they've published.

ouch... usf is going to be hit the hardest in all this realignment crap.

(05-09-2013 10:58 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 04:35 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 04:31 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

89% of UNCC's budget is student fee's.

Their numbers are wrong. I'm waiting to hear back from the Athletic Foundation on the real numbers.

From our athletics department:

Quote:The issue is the contribution numbers are inaccurate….they show $621,982, when actually they were $7,167,831 (that includes capital gifts/FSLs/etc).

That pushes our subsidy number from near 90% to closer to 67%.....which isn’t all that high for a non-BCS program.

I think such a big oversight on their (USAToday's) part calls into question any of the figures they've published.

Those numbers are pulled from the public filings that each university is required to make. They aren't USAToday's numbers, they merely assemble them. I'm not saying that there isn't a possible error somewhere along the chain, because none of us know. Perhaps the gifts for capital projects and the money spent for capital projects aren't classified as revenue/expense???

(05-10-2013 12:18 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  Those numbers are pulled from the public filings that each university is required to make. They aren't USAToday's numbers, they merely assemble them. I'm not saying that there isn't a possible error somewhere along the chain, because none of us know. Perhaps the gifts for capital projects and the money spent for capital projects aren't classified as revenue/expense???

I think that's the case. We all get separate donations that go to projects and facilites. I think the numbers they gave to the Government were more right than wrong and what went to the budget, and the other numbers were everything.

(05-10-2013 07:46 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:18 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  Those numbers are pulled from the public filings that each university is required to make. They aren't USAToday's numbers, they merely assemble them. I'm not saying that there isn't a possible error somewhere along the chain, because none of us know. Perhaps the gifts for capital projects and the money spent for capital projects aren't classified as revenue/expense???

I think that's the case. We all get separate donations that go to projects and facilites. I think the numbers they gave to the Government were more right than wrong and what went to the budget, and the other numbers were everything.

Well, the numbers were wrong so it's either our AD or USAToday's fault. Bottom line is the % isn't as bad as what you would like.

Charlotte is a young school and as a result has to rely more heavily on student fees than a school that's been around longer like an ECU. Nobody wants to rely so much on student fees but that's just the way it is at this point in time. Given we now have football and the $$ that will hopefully bring in I hope that in the future that % will go down.

Who knows how accurate these are. Our AD said the budget USA Today posted was incorrect; we're closer to 26. Who knows, who cares.

(05-10-2013 08:52 AM)TheNorthTexan Wrote:  Who knows how accurate these are. Our AD said the budget USA Today posted was incorrect; we're closer to 26. Who knows, who cares.

I doubt any Niner fans would if we were just sorta middle of the pack, but the way ours is being reported has us as one of the worst schools in the country. Makes us look really bad.

(05-10-2013 09:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 08:52 AM)TheNorthTexan Wrote:  Who knows how accurate these are. Our AD said the budget USA Today posted was incorrect; we're closer to 26. Who knows, who cares.

I doubt any Niner fans would if we were just sorta middle of the pack, but the way ours is being reported has us as one of the worst schools in the country. Makes us look really bad.

Doesn't make you look bad to anyone that matters. What I wonder about is the Contribution level... 600K in 2005, then 2Mil-5Mil range from 2006-2011 and then back to 600K in 2012. That seemed really odd, must be additional funding to support the stadium build?

That's what I don't like about this report, they don't give any details on the numbers... just the numbers. Just like with ODU and the high student fee vs school funds... who says one university doesn't classify something differently than another.

And I think UNCC will balance out once you've been FBS for a few years. Spending during transition is abnormal to a routine budget. Also, you'll increase your revenue for football instead of just spending on it.

This should be good for at least two weeks of offseason smack talk.

(05-10-2013 08:40 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:46 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:18 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  Those numbers are pulled from the public filings that each university is required to make. They aren't USAToday's numbers, they merely assemble them. I'm not saying that there isn't a possible error somewhere along the chain, because none of us know. Perhaps the gifts for capital projects and the money spent for capital projects aren't classified as revenue/expense???

I think that's the case. We all get separate donations that go to projects and facilites. I think the numbers they gave to the Government were more right than wrong and what went to the budget, and the other numbers were everything.

Well, the numbers were wrong so it's either our AD or USAToday's fault. Bottom line is the % isn't as bad as what you would like.

Charlotte is a young school and as a result has to rely more heavily on student fees than a school that's been around longer like an ECU. Nobody wants to rely so much on student fees but that's just the way it is at this point in time. Given we now have football and the $$ that will hopefully bring in I hope that in the future that % will go down.

The problem with looking at these USA Today numbers is that there's really no accounting standards for college athletics reporting. So it's not really a matter of right or wrong but each school can and does do it differently which can really cause troubles when comparing 2 schools. ODU received 3.5 million in pledges last year when deciding to move to C-USA I don't know if any of those donations are reflected in these numbers but certainly not all of it. Probably it will be shown over the course of several years or when it's actually received, IDK but a school could show it all in one year and that would skew the view of things. As Old Tiger said donations for Capital Campaigns might never appear in the school's revenue, we have one for our basketball practice facility which I doubt are in these figures.

USA Today also likes to harp on the percentage of subsidies probably because there can be some pretty eyebrow raising figures but personally I think further analysis is needed if you want to look at the health of an AD. Obviously larger (enrollment) schools can rely on student fees to a higher degree than smaller. The same dollar fee multiplied by 15,000 as opposed to 25,000 is going to make a substansial difference to the overall revenue. Is there any more "burden put on the students? Not on each individual student and I would argue that they chose to go to a larger school perhaps a bigger athletic program was part of that descision. Other factors to consider are nonrevenue sports, does a school have the NCAA minimum or do they consider these as an important part of a healthy AD. We have a Sailing Team, I haven't seen any figures of what that costs but it can't be cheap and probably doesn't bring in much in the way of revenue. Also, as a La Tech poster wrote earlier the overall size of the budget will impact what percent is made up by student fees.

Well, for all you Charlotte fans, take solace in the fact that there's no way donations are considered because NT raised $3 million dollars in 30 days for our practice facility and scoreboard. Also, all of our facilities and upgrades minus Apogee are completely paid off, mainly via donations. If you take $3+ million out of our "budget" the bottom drops out of it, to FCS levels. So, take that as you will.

(05-10-2013 09:11 AM)Hilltop1215 Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:02 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 08:52 AM)TheNorthTexan Wrote:  Who knows how accurate these are. Our AD said the budget USA Today posted was incorrect; we're closer to 26. Who knows, who cares.

I doubt any Niner fans would if we were just sorta middle of the pack, but the way ours is being reported has us as one of the worst schools in the country. Makes us look really bad.

Doesn't make you look bad to anyone that matters. What I wonder about is the Contribution level... 600K in 2005, then 2Mil-5Mil range from 2006-2011 and then back to 600K in 2012. That seemed really odd, must be additional funding to support the stadium build?

That's what I don't like about this report, they don't give any details on the numbers... just the numbers. Just like with ODU and the high student fee vs school funds... who says one university doesn't classify something differently than another.

And I think UNCC will balance out once you've been FBS for a few years. Spending during transition is abnormal to a routine budget. Also, you'll increase your revenue for football instead of just spending on it.

The school funds number for ODU is the way it is because of VA law, we're not allowed to use funds other than specifically stated student fees for athletics.

Personally I find the ODU's jump in student fees dubious. Student fees were raised pretty high when football was started 4-5 years ago and enrollments been rising but nothing that drastic from 2011-20112. 2.5 mIL?

(05-10-2013 08:40 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:46 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:18 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  Those numbers are pulled from the public filings that each university is required to make. They aren't USAToday's numbers, they merely assemble them. I'm not saying that there isn't a possible error somewhere along the chain, because none of us know. Perhaps the gifts for capital projects and the money spent for capital projects aren't classified as revenue/expense???

I think that's the case. We all get separate donations that go to projects and facilites. I think the numbers they gave to the Government were more right than wrong and what went to the budget, and the other numbers were everything.

Well, the numbers were wrong so it's either our AD or USAToday's fault. Bottom line is the % isn't as bad as what you would like.

Most all of us are have facility projects we are raising money for. I can believe UNCC athletics got 7 or 8 million in donations last year since you were building a stadium and have projects like that going on. What I don't believe is that 7 million went into your opperating budget.

I don't know the most recent numbers but as of about 4 or 5 years ago 7 million would have put you right there with schools like ECU (maybe even a little higher because I think ours was about 6 million) and even close to NC State if I remember correct. App State had just past 1 million and I have a hard time beleiving your fans without football were donatating more or anywhere close to ECU/NC State. I don't remember you numbers but it wasn't anything special at that time I looked.

It's a heck of a lot easier for me to believe the number you reported to the federal governement is accurate and that you are robbing the donation pot to pay petter for your stadium than that you had 7 million donated and used just for you opperating budget. That's just some employee trying to fan the stink off it this report IMO.