(05-04-2014 04:00 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 03:35 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  Tech reported revenue for the year as $18,734,197. The direct state subsidy was $7,230,707 lowering the revenue figure down to $11,503,490 which INCLUDES an indirect supplement total of $1,983,682 thus removing that discloses self generated revenue as $9,355,811.

As I stated until we can do this same analysis for EVERY school, it isn't a valid comparsion for ANY school since no one (and that includes you) knows which schools have an indirect transfer amount included and which ones don't.

Future NCAA reporting requirements are irrelevant for the 2012-2013 reports. And I dispute that indirect transfers are going away. Indirect transfers are for items such as services performed by university staff not on the athletic department payroll. That work isn't going away, so even if the reporting methodology changes budgets won't magically shrink as you imply.

Your agenda shines through as always.

It is almost humanly impossible, without considerable expense, to calculate the indirect expenses therefore most are meaningless except for inflating the size of a budget. You said the last year for which this info was available was back in 2009-10 therefore can easily see it is being deleted. Only a few schools still include it, primarily by those trying to be as big as they can be.

(05-04-2014 05:06 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:00 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 03:35 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  Tech reported revenue for the year as $18,734,197. The direct state subsidy was $7,230,707 lowering the revenue figure down to $11,503,490 which INCLUDES an indirect supplement total of $1,983,682 thus removing that discloses self generated revenue as $9,355,811.

As I stated until we can do this same analysis for EVERY school, it isn't a valid comparsion for ANY school since no one (and that includes you) knows which schools have an indirect transfer amount included and which ones don't.

Future NCAA reporting requirements are irrelevant for the 2012-2013 reports. And I dispute that indirect transfers are going away. Indirect transfers are for items such as services performed by university staff not on the athletic department payroll. That work isn't going away, so even if the reporting methodology changes budgets won't magically shrink as you imply.

Your agenda shines through as always.

It is almost humanly impossible, without considerable expense, to calculate the indirect expenses therefore most are meaningless except for inflating the size of a budget. You said the last year for which this info was available was back in 2009-10 therefore can easily see it is being deleted. Only a few schools still include it, primarily by those trying to be as big as they can be.

It isn't very hard with a proper accounting and employee time reporting system. Simply charge work done for the athletic department by non-athletic department employees to the athletic department budget code.

Tech's 2009-2010 figure was below the average of almost 50 schools that included it. I can't imagine that many schools removing it in only three years. And Tech's 2012-2013 figure is less than its 2009-2010 reported amount.

There is nothing else to discuss on the indirect expense data issue until (if) we get complete data for all schools.

(05-04-2014 05:23 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 05:06 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:00 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 03:35 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  Tech reported revenue for the year as $18,734,197. The direct state subsidy was $7,230,707 lowering the revenue figure down to $11,503,490 which INCLUDES an indirect supplement total of $1,983,682 thus removing that discloses self generated revenue as $9,355,811.

As I stated until we can do this same analysis for EVERY school, it isn't a valid comparsion for ANY school since no one (and that includes you) knows which schools have an indirect transfer amount included and which ones don't.

Future NCAA reporting requirements are irrelevant for the 2012-2013 reports. And I dispute that indirect transfers are going away. Indirect transfers are for items such as services performed by university staff not on the athletic department payroll. That work isn't going away, so even if the reporting methodology changes budgets won't magically shrink as you imply.

Your agenda shines through as always.

It is almost humanly impossible, without considerable expense, to calculate the indirect expenses therefore most are meaningless except for inflating the size of a budget. You said the last year for which this info was available was back in 2009-10 therefore can easily see it is being deleted. Only a few schools still include it, primarily by those trying to be as big as they can be.

It isn't very hard with a proper accounting and employee time reporting system. Simply charge work done for the athletic department by non-athletic department employees to the athletic department budget code.

Tech's 2009-2010 figure was below the average of almost 50 schools that included it. I can't imagine that many schools removing it in only three years. And Tech's 2012-2013 figure is less than its 2009-2010 reported amount.

There is nothing else to discuss on the indirect expense data issue until (if) we get complete data for all schools.

How are you going to get data for all schools when most are disregarding that now and the rest will follow suit shortly? It is meaningless and Tech needs to suck it up because changes like this are going to expose their smoke and mirrors program more and more.

(05-04-2014 08:04 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 05:23 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 05:06 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:00 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 03:35 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  Tech reported revenue for the year as $18,734,197. The direct state subsidy was $7,230,707 lowering the revenue figure down to $11,503,490 which INCLUDES an indirect supplement total of $1,983,682 thus removing that discloses self generated revenue as $9,355,811.

As I stated until we can do this same analysis for EVERY school, it isn't a valid comparsion for ANY school since no one (and that includes you) knows which schools have an indirect transfer amount included and which ones don't.

Future NCAA reporting requirements are irrelevant for the 2012-2013 reports. And I dispute that indirect transfers are going away. Indirect transfers are for items such as services performed by university staff not on the athletic department payroll. That work isn't going away, so even if the reporting methodology changes budgets won't magically shrink as you imply.

Your agenda shines through as always.

It is almost humanly impossible, without considerable expense, to calculate the indirect expenses therefore most are meaningless except for inflating the size of a budget. You said the last year for which this info was available was back in 2009-10 therefore can easily see it is being deleted. Only a few schools still include it, primarily by those trying to be as big as they can be.

It isn't very hard with a proper accounting and employee time reporting system. Simply charge work done for the athletic department by non-athletic department employees to the athletic department budget code.

Tech's 2009-2010 figure was below the average of almost 50 schools that included it. I can't imagine that many schools removing it in only three years. And Tech's 2012-2013 figure is less than its 2009-2010 reported amount.

There is nothing else to discuss on the indirect expense data issue until (if) we get complete data for all schools.

How are you going to get data for all schools when most are disregarding that now and the rest will follow suit shortly? It is meaningless and Tech needs to suck it up because changes like this are going to expose their smoke and mirrors program more and more.

We will see if USA Today updates its database with complete 2012-2013 data. But I'm not holding my breath on that.

I don't have to hold my breath regarding your anti-Tech agenda. But only time will tell if what you claim will happen. And if it doesn't I will expect retraction of the "smoke and mirrors" claim.