(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

Fair enough.

I looked at the OPE details for Coastal, they reported more than $20 million in expenses for the 13-14 season year. Including over $1.5 million for men's basketball and over $5 million for football.

So that is pretty significant.

I'd be curious to know where the department gets its money. The school must be picking up a pretty decent chunk of that, either with direct payments or from student fees. Otherwise, they have some sugar daddy donors.

(08-03-2015 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

Fair enough.

I looked at the OPE details for Coastal, they reported more than $20 million in expenses for the 13-14 season year. Including over $1.5 million for men's basketball and over $5 million for football.

So that is pretty significant.

I'd be curious to know where the department gets its money. The school must be picking up a pretty decent chunk of that, either with direct payments or from student fees. Otherwise, they have some sugar daddy donors.

Mostly from university funds and student fees, per USA Today.

ticket sales = $470,636
contributions = $1,135,630
rights / licensing = $2,021,141
student fees = $3,967,045
school funds = $15,191,036
other = $589,224
total revenues = $23,374,712

Coastal has been getting capital project money from a county-wide penny sales tax implemented a few years back. So far, we've accumulated approximately $50 million with another $80-$90 million projected by the time it expires in about 9 years.

(08-03-2015 11:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

Fair enough.

I looked at the OPE details for Coastal, they reported more than $20 million in expenses for the 13-14 season year. Including over $1.5 million for men's basketball and over $5 million for football.

So that is pretty significant.

I'd be curious to know where the department gets its money. The school must be picking up a pretty decent chunk of that, either with direct payments or from student fees. Otherwise, they have some sugar daddy donors.

Mostly from university funds and student fees, per USA Today.

ticket sales = $470,636
contributions = $1,135,630
rights / licensing = $2,021,141
student fees = $3,967,045
school funds = $15,191,036
other = $589,224
total revenues = $23,374,712

Thanks for the info, but I'd be curious to know why/how USA Today has access to it but not the U.S. Dept. of Education?

It's not shown on the OPE website, anyway.

(08-03-2015 11:44 AM)chantzilla Wrote:  Coastal has been getting capital project money from a county-wide penny sales tax implemented a few years back. So far, we've accumulated approximately $50 million with another $80-$90 million projected by the time it expires in about 9 years.

Thanks for the info. I would imagine they (the school overall) also receive funds from the state, for being a public school.

(08-03-2015 11:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

Fair enough.

I looked at the OPE details for Coastal, they reported more than $20 million in expenses for the 13-14 season year. Including over $1.5 million for men's basketball and over $5 million for football.

So that is pretty significant.

I'd be curious to know where the department gets its money. The school must be picking up a pretty decent chunk of that, either with direct payments or from student fees. Otherwise, they have some sugar daddy donors.

Mostly from university funds and student fees, per USA Today.

ticket sales = $470,636
contributions = $1,135,630
rights / licensing = $2,021,141
student fees = $3,967,045
school funds = $15,191,036
other = $589,224
total revenues = $23,374,712

Thanks for the info, but I'd be curious to know why/how USA Today has access to it but not the U.S. Dept. of Education?

It's not shown on the OPE website, anyway.

You mean, where do they get the data? The data is gathered by the "National Sports Journalism Center" at Indiana University. Presumably interns and grad students making a lot of emails and phone calls to the schools to get publicly-available data, and hundreds of FOIA requests. Maybe those requests get more data than is required by the Department of Education forms.

(08-03-2015 12:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:40 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

Fair enough.

I looked at the OPE details for Coastal, they reported more than $20 million in expenses for the 13-14 season year. Including over $1.5 million for men's basketball and over $5 million for football.

So that is pretty significant.

I'd be curious to know where the department gets its money. The school must be picking up a pretty decent chunk of that, either with direct payments or from student fees. Otherwise, they have some sugar daddy donors.

Mostly from university funds and student fees, per USA Today.

ticket sales = $470,636
contributions = $1,135,630
rights / licensing = $2,021,141
student fees = $3,967,045
school funds = $15,191,036
other = $589,224
total revenues = $23,374,712

Thanks for the info, but I'd be curious to know why/how USA Today has access to it but not the U.S. Dept. of Education?

It's not shown on the OPE website, anyway.

You mean, where do they get the data? The data is gathered by the "National Sports Journalism Center" at Indiana University. Presumably interns and grad students making a lot of emails and phone calls to the schools to get publicly-available data, and hundreds of FOIA requests. Maybe those requests get more data than is required by the Department of Education forms.

Why give the data, then? And can it be trusted?

I'll stick with the OPE data.

(08-03-2015 11:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:44 AM)chantzilla Wrote:  Coastal has been getting capital project money from a county-wide penny sales tax implemented a few years back. So far, we've accumulated approximately $50 million with another $80-$90 million projected by the time it expires in about 9 years.

Thanks for the info. I would imagine they (the school overall) also receive funds from the state, for being a public school.

Coastal is one of if not the worst funded state school for state allocations per student in SC. Coastal relies heavily on out of state students, as do a number of other SC colleges.

(08-03-2015 08:32 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I wasn't sure I was a believer in CCU's candidacy. It's one thing to pursue the subject, and maybe get a mention, but the site visit and the financials, even without the venue components in place, wow.

I'm one who thinks Coastal wouldn't even be in play if SoCon or CAA would get over themselves. Those were the doors Coastal kept knocking the last few years.

I think the facility issue plays to CCU's favor. There appears to be no sense of urgency to get another football school online while there is some urgency to get hoops to 12. A quality hoops add that is a later on add in football works nicely.

(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

The data for Arkansas State is at least 4 years old as we exceed $20 Million now.

(08-03-2015 01:11 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

The data for Arkansas State is at least 4 years old as we exceed $20 Million now.

No its 13-14 data.
While revenue is up, AState previously did not report direct payments by the booster club in the athletic budget since that data isn't reported to the state.

So a portion of the bump that will come with the 14-15 data is just a change in how the school reports.

(08-03-2015 12:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:32 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I wasn't sure I was a believer in CCU's candidacy. It's one thing to pursue the subject, and maybe get a mention, but the site visit and the financials, even without the venue components in place, wow.

I'm one who thinks Coastal wouldn't even be in play if SoCon or CAA would get over themselves. Those were the doors Coastal kept knocking the last few years.

I think the facility issue plays to CCU's favor. There appears to be no sense of urgency to get another football school online while there is some urgency to get hoops to 12. A quality hoops add that is a later on add in football works nicely.

Lingering around Big South football will only make Coastal's admins more pushy on the subject of full SBC membership. Big South's got rentals and other programs with wandering eyes and aspirations. If someone's program moves on before Coastal's, then what?

(08-03-2015 01:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 01:11 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  According to USA Today's database, Coastal spent $23.8 million on athletics in 2013-14. Only four of the current SBC schools had a larger budget for that year.

So, it's likely that their salaries, facility expenditures, etc. are already very competitive with SBC schools, other than in football.

The data for Arkansas State is at least 4 years old as we exceed $20 Million now.

No its 13-14 data.
While revenue is up, AState previously did not report direct payments by the booster club in the athletic budget since that data isn't reported to the state.

So a portion of the bump that will come with the 14-15 data is just a change in how the school reports.

That's why people should take the budget numbers with a grain of salt - schools liked report some things different from others. Also, there are things like scholarship cost. If an athletic program was completely self sufficient then that may make a difference but for schools that are subsidized then it is largely a paper cost. In Coastal's case - since the state doesn't fund the school sufficiently the tuition is higher than schools in neighboring states so the tuition and thus budget increases but the expense isn't a direct cost.

(08-03-2015 01:38 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:32 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I wasn't sure I was a believer in CCU's candidacy. It's one thing to pursue the subject, and maybe get a mention, but the site visit and the financials, even without the venue components in place, wow.

I'm one who thinks Coastal wouldn't even be in play if SoCon or CAA would get over themselves. Those were the doors Coastal kept knocking the last few years.

I think the facility issue plays to CCU's favor. There appears to be no sense of urgency to get another football school online while there is some urgency to get hoops to 12. A quality hoops add that is a later on add in football works nicely.

Lingering around Big South football will only make Coastal's admins more pushy on the subject of full SBC membership. Big South's got rentals and other programs with wandering eyes and aspirations. If someone's program moves on before Coastal's, then what?

I think there is no urgency from the SBC except that they don't get the full CFP money. I think Coastal will have urgency to upgrade - but even then it just takes time working through the state to get a capital improvement project approved. If Coastal is indeed the next school to be chosen, i think the SBC understands the timing issues and is comfortable with allowing Coastal the time they need to make it happen. This goes back to Benson's comments about it not being a football focus - he's helping set expectations that there will be some time needed for the new program.

(08-03-2015 01:47 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  I think there is no urgency from the SBC except that they don't get the full CFP money. I think Coastal will have urgency to upgrade - but even then it just takes time working through the state to get a capital improvement project approved. If Coastal is indeed the next school to be chosen, i think the SBC understands the timing issues and is comfortable with allowing Coastal the time they need to make it happen. This goes back to Benson's comments about it not being a football focus - he's helping set expectations that there will be some time needed for the new program.

SBC doesn't have to be proactive. I just wonder if they can endure a Coastal program who might be slamming them hard for full entry should Big South drop membership and lose AQ in FCS. It's fine if Coastal controls their own destiny in this, no skin off their backs if Big South is a dumpster fire trying to pick up the pieces once Coastal begins the transition process, but the 'Cleers might not be in any sort of control with its football. If SBC isn't ready for them, and Big South flirts with danger, Coastal's football is in a bad place.

With EKU in the OVC, it's not nearly as stressful. Heck, EKU football could be told to scram from OVC if it leaves with everything else for SBC. We know Big South will probably take them, beggars' inabilities with choice and all that...

http://www.953theticket.com/?p=11120

Interview with the Coastal Carolina AD about the Sun Belt provided by chantzilla on the Sun Belt forum.

(08-03-2015 01:43 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  That's why people should take the budget numbers with a grain of salt - schools liked report some things different from others. Also, there are things like scholarship cost. If an athletic program was completely self sufficient then that may make a difference but for schools that are subsidized then it is largely a paper cost. In Coastal's case - since the state doesn't fund the school sufficiently the tuition is higher than schools in neighboring states so the tuition and thus budget increases but the expense isn't a direct cost.

That works both ways, though. Let's say that a school books 150 athletic scholarships/year on its books at $30,000 each even if it's a paper cost, i.e. the school doesn't give real money to the athletic department and the athletic department doesn't give money back to "pay for" the scholarships. Even though no money changes hands, the school reports $4.5 million in revenue from the school as part of its "subsidy" and $4.5 million in its budget as the "cost" of those scholarships, even though the athletic department neither received that $4.5 million in revenue nor spent $4.5 million to pay for the scholarships.

(08-03-2015 04:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 01:43 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  That's why people should take the budget numbers with a grain of salt - schools liked report some things different from others. Also, there are things like scholarship cost. If an athletic program was completely self sufficient then that may make a difference but for schools that are subsidized then it is largely a paper cost. In Coastal's case - since the state doesn't fund the school sufficiently the tuition is higher than schools in neighboring states so the tuition and thus budget increases but the expense isn't a direct cost.

That works both ways, though. Let's say that a school books 150 athletic scholarships/year on its books at $30,000 each even if it's a paper cost, i.e. the school doesn't give real money to the athletic department and the athletic department doesn't give money back to "pay for" the scholarships. Even though no money changes hands, the school reports $4.5 million in revenue from the school as part of its "subsidy" and $4.5 million in its budget as the "cost" of those scholarships, even though the athletic department neither received that $4.5 million in revenue nor spent $4.5 million to pay for the scholarships.

I won't claim it's the same everywhere, but at Minnesota the athletic department pays the student costs of every athlete on athletic scholarship. The school doesn't waive those costs.

(08-03-2015 10:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 04:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 01:43 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  That's why people should take the budget numbers with a grain of salt - schools liked report some things different from others. Also, there are things like scholarship cost. If an athletic program was completely self sufficient then that may make a difference but for schools that are subsidized then it is largely a paper cost. In Coastal's case - since the state doesn't fund the school sufficiently the tuition is higher than schools in neighboring states so the tuition and thus budget increases but the expense isn't a direct cost.

That works both ways, though. Let's say that a school books 150 athletic scholarships/year on its books at $30,000 each even if it's a paper cost, i.e. the school doesn't give real money to the athletic department and the athletic department doesn't give money back to "pay for" the scholarships. Even though no money changes hands, the school reports $4.5 million in revenue from the school as part of its "subsidy" and $4.5 million in its budget as the "cost" of those scholarships, even though the athletic department neither received that $4.5 million in revenue nor spent $4.5 million to pay for the scholarships.

I won't claim it's the same everywhere, but at Minnesota the athletic department pays the student costs of every athlete on athletic scholarship. The school doesn't waive those costs.

Yes, I'm referring to schools that receive a true a subsidy and are not self-sufficient and only for scholarship costs and maybe room and board. Some say student-fees and subsidies are the same thing but they typically aren't since the student fee is real money they can use for many things. The subsidy may be 'real', so again I'm really just referring to those costs that the athletic department pays to the school but the school is providing a subsidy from institutional funds to cover. If I owe you $100 but don't have, so you give me $100 to pay for it - what really was accomplished?

Schools like SC, the athletic dept pays the school the tuition cost and it is a true expense for the dept. They receive a student fee but no institutional subsidy, I believe. Schools like Coastal are heavily subsidized by the school - so for the scholarship budget / cost it is mostly on paper. There is some true cost to the school but it isn't the list rate for tuition.

(08-03-2015 01:47 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  I think there is no urgency from the SBC except that they don't get the full CFP money.

But since most of the CFP money is distributed to the schools, grabbing more CFP money for the conference and slightly less per school is not a net reason for an existing member to support expansion.

If an add is likely to push the SBC up the rankings to take a higher third tier distribution, that would be a factor.