Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #41
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(05-23-2018 11:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd argue the whole profit and loss thing is a shell game anyway. The G5 schools get skewered because they require significant subsidies to operate---but the biggest athletic department cost at most G5 schools is scholarships. So, the school pays a 20 million dollar subsidy to the athletic department and----whats the first thing the athletic department does? It writes about a 20 million dollar check to the school to cover the tuition for its athletes. How much does it really cost a school to add one more kid to a class? I doubt the real incremental cost of educating the 200-400 athletes at a G5 university is anywhere near the actual "scholarships" line item in the athletic "budget".

The cost is not zero, so just wiping that item off of the "expense" column isn't the correct answer, either. Attributing it as merely an incremental cost is also not correct.

Each university with decent accounting should have, internally and not for public consumption, dollar amounts that they attribute to the cost of administering undergraduate education (i.e., not including graduate courses and not including research). The precise amount to charge for each athletic scholarship should be that dollar amount divided by the total number of full-time undergraduates, plus the cost of room and board that is charged to each non-scholarship student living on campus.

And there are other real expenses that most schools don't charge the athletic department for at all -- they don't charge the athletic department for renting space in buildings on campus, they don't charge for utilities, they don't charge a portion of campus security costs. There are other expenses where some schools bear the cost and others require the athletic department to pay, e.g., campus security on game day, cleaning up the stadium/arena and campus after the game, etc.
06-19-2018 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #42
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-23-2018 11:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd argue the whole profit and loss thing is a shell game anyway. The G5 schools get skewered because they require significant subsidies to operate---but the biggest athletic department cost at most G5 schools is scholarships. So, the school pays a 20 million dollar subsidy to the athletic department and----whats the first thing the athletic department does? It writes about a 20 million dollar check to the school to cover the tuition for its athletes. How much does it really cost a school to add one more kid to a class? I doubt the real incremental cost of educating the 200-400 athletes at a G5 university is anywhere near the actual "scholarships" line item in the athletic "budget".

The cost is not zero, so just wiping that item off of the "expense" column isn't the correct answer, either. Attributing it as merely an incremental cost is also not correct.

Each university with decent accounting should have, internally and not for public consumption, dollar amounts that they attribute to the cost of administering undergraduate education (i.e., not including graduate courses and not including research). The precise amount to charge for each athletic scholarship should be that dollar amount divided by the total number of full-time undergraduates, plus the cost of room and board that is charged to each non-scholarship student living on campus.

And there are other real expenses that most schools don't charge the athletic department for at all -- they don't charge the athletic department for renting space in buildings on campus, they don't charge for utilities, they don't charge a portion of campus security costs. There are other expenses where some schools bear the cost and others require the athletic department to pay, e.g., campus security on game day, cleaning up the stadium/arena and campus after the game, etc.

Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2018 01:24 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-19-2018 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #43
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-23-2018 11:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd argue the whole profit and loss thing is a shell game anyway. The G5 schools get skewered because they require significant subsidies to operate---but the biggest athletic department cost at most G5 schools is scholarships. So, the school pays a 20 million dollar subsidy to the athletic department and----whats the first thing the athletic department does? It writes about a 20 million dollar check to the school to cover the tuition for its athletes. How much does it really cost a school to add one more kid to a class? I doubt the real incremental cost of educating the 200-400 athletes at a G5 university is anywhere near the actual "scholarships" line item in the athletic "budget".

The cost is not zero, so just wiping that item off of the "expense" column isn't the correct answer, either. Attributing it as merely an incremental cost is also not correct.

Each university with decent accounting should have, internally and not for public consumption, dollar amounts that they attribute to the cost of administering undergraduate education (i.e., not including graduate courses and not including research). The precise amount to charge for each athletic scholarship should be that dollar amount divided by the total number of full-time undergraduates, plus the cost of room and board that is charged to each non-scholarship student living on campus.

And there are other real expenses that most schools don't charge the athletic department for at all -- they don't charge the athletic department for renting space in buildings on campus, they don't charge for utilities, they don't charge a portion of campus security costs. There are other expenses where some schools bear the cost and others require the athletic department to pay, e.g., campus security on game day, cleaning up the stadium/arena and campus after the game, etc.

Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers

The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.
06-19-2018 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #44
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-23-2018 11:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd argue the whole profit and loss thing is a shell game anyway. The G5 schools get skewered because they require significant subsidies to operate---but the biggest athletic department cost at most G5 schools is scholarships. So, the school pays a 20 million dollar subsidy to the athletic department and----whats the first thing the athletic department does? It writes about a 20 million dollar check to the school to cover the tuition for its athletes. How much does it really cost a school to add one more kid to a class? I doubt the real incremental cost of educating the 200-400 athletes at a G5 university is anywhere near the actual "scholarships" line item in the athletic "budget".

The cost is not zero, so just wiping that item off of the "expense" column isn't the correct answer, either. Attributing it as merely an incremental cost is also not correct.

Each university with decent accounting should have, internally and not for public consumption, dollar amounts that they attribute to the cost of administering undergraduate education (i.e., not including graduate courses and not including research). The precise amount to charge for each athletic scholarship should be that dollar amount divided by the total number of full-time undergraduates, plus the cost of room and board that is charged to each non-scholarship student living on campus.

And there are other real expenses that most schools don't charge the athletic department for at all -- they don't charge the athletic department for renting space in buildings on campus, they don't charge for utilities, they don't charge a portion of campus security costs. There are other expenses where some schools bear the cost and others require the athletic department to pay, e.g., campus security on game day, cleaning up the stadium/arena and campus after the game, etc.

Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers

The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.

You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2018 05:58 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-19-2018 05:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #45
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-23-2018 11:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd argue the whole profit and loss thing is a shell game anyway. The G5 schools get skewered because they require significant subsidies to operate---but the biggest athletic department cost at most G5 schools is scholarships. So, the school pays a 20 million dollar subsidy to the athletic department and----whats the first thing the athletic department does? It writes about a 20 million dollar check to the school to cover the tuition for its athletes. How much does it really cost a school to add one more kid to a class? I doubt the real incremental cost of educating the 200-400 athletes at a G5 university is anywhere near the actual "scholarships" line item in the athletic "budget".

The cost is not zero, so just wiping that item off of the "expense" column isn't the correct answer, either. Attributing it as merely an incremental cost is also not correct.

Each university with decent accounting should have, internally and not for public consumption, dollar amounts that they attribute to the cost of administering undergraduate education (i.e., not including graduate courses and not including research). The precise amount to charge for each athletic scholarship should be that dollar amount divided by the total number of full-time undergraduates, plus the cost of room and board that is charged to each non-scholarship student living on campus.

And there are other real expenses that most schools don't charge the athletic department for at all -- they don't charge the athletic department for renting space in buildings on campus, they don't charge for utilities, they don't charge a portion of campus security costs. There are other expenses where some schools bear the cost and others require the athletic department to pay, e.g., campus security on game day, cleaning up the stadium/arena and campus after the game, etc.

Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers

The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.

You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.

You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.
06-19-2018 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,010
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #46
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The cost is not zero, so just wiping that item off of the "expense" column isn't the correct answer, either. Attributing it as merely an incremental cost is also not correct.

Each university with decent accounting should have, internally and not for public consumption, dollar amounts that they attribute to the cost of administering undergraduate education (i.e., not including graduate courses and not including research). The precise amount to charge for each athletic scholarship should be that dollar amount divided by the total number of full-time undergraduates, plus the cost of room and board that is charged to each non-scholarship student living on campus.

And there are other real expenses that most schools don't charge the athletic department for at all -- they don't charge the athletic department for renting space in buildings on campus, they don't charge for utilities, they don't charge a portion of campus security costs. There are other expenses where some schools bear the cost and others require the athletic department to pay, e.g., campus security on game day, cleaning up the stadium/arena and campus after the game, etc.

Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers

The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.

You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.

You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. if you are saying that cutting a sport and 10 scholarships will save the UNIVERSITY (Avg Cost x 10) you would not be accurate, because the University would not save anywhere near that amount (as many costs are fixed, and do not change with the addition or subtraction of students).
06-19-2018 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #47
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(05-03-2018 12:26 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Don’t see much coming of this. Davie could be fired, his teams generally suck, and this gives them a good excuse to fire and not pay.

Davie was far better as an ESPN analyst than he's ever been as a head coach.
06-19-2018 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #48
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 06:42 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers

The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.

You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.

You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. if you are saying that cutting a sport and 10 scholarships will save the UNIVERSITY (Avg Cost x 10) you would not be accurate, because the University would not save anywhere near that amount (as many costs are fixed, and do not change with the addition or subtraction of students).

All I'm saying is that because a resident UNM student paying his or her own way will pay $7,322 for tuition this coming academic year, then anyone giving another (resident) student a full tuition scholarship, whether it's the athletic department or anyone else, should be sending $7,322 to the university general fund to cover that cost. Thus, every full tuition scholarship at UNM for a New Mexico resident is a $7,322 expense to whomever is funding the scholarship.

If my kid was a student there and I was paying the tuition, I'd dam sure want the tuition to be paid for every other student, regardless of who was supposed to pay it, and I'm pretty sure that everyone else here would feel the same way.
06-19-2018 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #49
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The cost is not zero, so just wiping that item off of the "expense" column isn't the correct answer, either. Attributing it as merely an incremental cost is also not correct.

Each university with decent accounting should have, internally and not for public consumption, dollar amounts that they attribute to the cost of administering undergraduate education (i.e., not including graduate courses and not including research). The precise amount to charge for each athletic scholarship should be that dollar amount divided by the total number of full-time undergraduates, plus the cost of room and board that is charged to each non-scholarship student living on campus.

And there are other real expenses that most schools don't charge the athletic department for at all -- they don't charge the athletic department for renting space in buildings on campus, they don't charge for utilities, they don't charge a portion of campus security costs. There are other expenses where some schools bear the cost and others require the athletic department to pay, e.g., campus security on game day, cleaning up the stadium/arena and campus after the game, etc.

Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers

The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.

You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.

You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.

I’m not trying to get the athletic department out of anything. I’m saying the budget/cost of athletic subsidies is overstated. It’s like bowl payouts that pay half the so called "million dollar payout" in tickets that will never be sold at their stated "value".
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2018 12:26 AM by Attackcoog.)
06-19-2018 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #50
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-19-2018 11:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually they do. Athletics will see an allocated costs on all such items. Every department on the university shares in that expense. Additionally, many buildings that are only used for athletics are encumbered by debt- That type of debt expense is typically borne completely by the athletic department.

As for scholarships---my point was simply that much or all of that 20 million subsidy is immediately returned to the school for scholarships. So, it never really leaves the campus. Lets be realistic---the incremental cost of adding a kid to an existing class is essentially zero. So the tuition portion of the scholarship represents a negligible cost. However, significant portion of the scholarship cost is real (housing, food, books, FCOA, etc). That portion of those costs is a very real very tangible expense. 04-cheers

The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.

You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.

You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.

I’m not trying to get the athletic department out of anything. I’m saying the budget/cost of athletic subsidies is overstated. It’s like bowl payouts that pay half the so called "million dollar payout" in tickets that will never be sold at their stated "value".

It's not overstated by much. The incremental cost argument doesn't work because it's: You already have 20,000 students paying full price to cover the expenses, it doesn't cost any more to have 20,200 students, thus the athletic department should only have to pay $1 each for the 200 "student-athletes". The reason that's a fallacy is: Why do the scholarship athletes get to be the 200 students who only cost $1 each? Why not have someone pay full price for the athletes and, say, take 200 students majoring in biology who have to work their way through college, call them the "incremental cost", and charge them only $1 each? The answer is: No one student costs only $1. The expense of educating the undergraduates should be allocated equally, and an equal "cost" assigned to each of them.
06-20-2018 01:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #51
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-20-2018 01:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 11:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The athletic department should pay an allocated cost of rent, utilities, etc., but not all schools do that; at schools that don't, it amounts to an off-the-books subsidy.

Each student's tuition isn't a negligible cost, it's a shared portion of a large communal cost that should be allocated equally among all students.

Also, if an academic department on campus gives out a full scholarship -- say, a star musician gets a full ride to attend School X -- the university charges the school of music the "sticker price", too. It's not just the athletic department, and it's not just pretending that money changes hands. If that music scholarship is funded by an endowment, for example, the endowment administrator has to actually send the money to the university's general fund. Which is what the athletic department should be doing, i.e., they should have to compensate the general fund for a scholarship in the same way that any academic department would.

You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.

You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.

I’m not trying to get the athletic department out of anything. I’m saying the budget/cost of athletic subsidies is overstated. It’s like bowl payouts that pay half the so called "million dollar payout" in tickets that will never be sold at their stated "value".

It's not overstated by much. The incremental cost argument doesn't work because it's: You already have 20,000 students paying full price to cover the expenses, it doesn't cost any more to have 20,200 students, thus the athletic department should only have to pay $1 each for the 200 "student-athletes". The reason that's a fallacy is: Why do the scholarship athletes get to be the 200 students who only cost $1 each? Why not have someone pay full price for the athletes and, say, take 200 students majoring in biology who have to work their way through college, call them the "incremental cost", and charge them only $1 each? The answer is: No one student costs only $1. The expense of educating the undergraduates should be allocated equally, and an equal "cost" assigned to each of them.

Incremental cost is pretty darn relevant if the point is to accurately determine savings from cutting athletics. If it costs the same to educate 20000 as 20,200—then cutting athletics isn’t going to save administrators as much as your average allocation model would predict. If the incremental cost is zero (or anything less that the allocated average cost) then all that would happen is the average cost of educating the remaining 20,000 students would rise.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2018 03:08 AM by Attackcoog.)
06-20-2018 03:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NotANewbie Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 565
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Tennesse, NMSU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-20-2018 03:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-20-2018 01:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 11:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You are talking about two different things. The "average" cost per student is not the same as the incremental cost for the next student added. In a scholarship situation, only the incremental cost of adding the next student falls all the way to the bottom line. All the other costs involved in educating that additional student were going to be paid whether that extra student is added or not.

You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.

I’m not trying to get the athletic department out of anything. I’m saying the budget/cost of athletic subsidies is overstated. It’s like bowl payouts that pay half the so called "million dollar payout" in tickets that will never be sold at their stated "value".

It's not overstated by much. The incremental cost argument doesn't work because it's: You already have 20,000 students paying full price to cover the expenses, it doesn't cost any more to have 20,200 students, thus the athletic department should only have to pay $1 each for the 200 "student-athletes". The reason that's a fallacy is: Why do the scholarship athletes get to be the 200 students who only cost $1 each? Why not have someone pay full price for the athletes and, say, take 200 students majoring in biology who have to work their way through college, call them the "incremental cost", and charge them only $1 each? The answer is: No one student costs only $1. The expense of educating the undergraduates should be allocated equally, and an equal "cost" assigned to each of them.

Incremental cost is pretty darn relevant if the point is to accurately determine savings from cutting athletics. If it costs the same to educate 20000 as 20,200—then cutting athletics isn’t going to save administrators as much as your average allocation model would predict. If the incremental cost is zero (or anything less that the allocated average cost) then all that would happen is the average cost of educating the remaining 20,000 students would rise.


I used to work as Dean of Graduate Studies. We faced a similar situation in how we allocated tuition remission for graduate students. It is a far from simple situation.

True, there is not an incremental instructional cost when you put another student into a class that is under-enrolled. However, there comes a point that additional students result in the need to increase the number of class sections offered. We tried to allocate tuition remission in areas in which the enrollment in classes was below the optimum level. (We also tended to do partial tuition remissions so that each student contributed at least something to the pot of funds, but that is not really a factor in D1 athletics.)

Most D1 athletic programs that sponsor football have upwards of 300 scholarship athletes. It would be unreasonable to expect that such a number of students can be absorbed without increasing the number of sections needed. If you look at it realistically,there will be about 160 lower division (Fr. Soph.) students in that. Since they are taking required general education and intro courses you might be having to add about two dozen sections to accommodate that need. (160 time 5 classes is 800 student course enrollments. When that is divided by 30/class is 26+ courses needed.) This assumes that upper division courses are spread out across many disciplines and can be added and/or that some space was available in lower division courses to balance any added upper division courses

There is simply no way to slip in that number of students without creating a need for more course sections.

Folks are right that to a large extent an institution will choose to absorb those costs for a variety of reasons. That is why most institutions provide a subsidy from general funds to partially cover the cost of the athletics program. However good institutional management requires that you account for those costs so that a reasonable cost/benefit analysis can be done to inform decisions on whether to continue, cease or modify the practice.
06-20-2018 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #53
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-20-2018 11:40 AM)NotANewbie Wrote:  
(06-20-2018 03:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-20-2018 01:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 11:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-19-2018 06:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  You are using the concept of incremental cost to try to get the athletic department out of paying what others would have to pay. I don't agree with that. The fair way to allocate the cost of educating undergraduates is to divide the total cost by the number of all undergraduates, not just by the number of undergraduates who actually pay their own tuition.

I’m not trying to get the athletic department out of anything. I’m saying the budget/cost of athletic subsidies is overstated. It’s like bowl payouts that pay half the so called "million dollar payout" in tickets that will never be sold at their stated "value".

It's not overstated by much. The incremental cost argument doesn't work because it's: You already have 20,000 students paying full price to cover the expenses, it doesn't cost any more to have 20,200 students, thus the athletic department should only have to pay $1 each for the 200 "student-athletes". The reason that's a fallacy is: Why do the scholarship athletes get to be the 200 students who only cost $1 each? Why not have someone pay full price for the athletes and, say, take 200 students majoring in biology who have to work their way through college, call them the "incremental cost", and charge them only $1 each? The answer is: No one student costs only $1. The expense of educating the undergraduates should be allocated equally, and an equal "cost" assigned to each of them.

Incremental cost is pretty darn relevant if the point is to accurately determine savings from cutting athletics. If it costs the same to educate 20000 as 20,200—then cutting athletics isn’t going to save administrators as much as your average allocation model would predict. If the incremental cost is zero (or anything less that the allocated average cost) then all that would happen is the average cost of educating the remaining 20,000 students would rise.


I used to work as Dean of Graduate Studies. We faced a similar situation in how we allocated tuition remission for graduate students. It is a far from simple situation.

True, there is not an incremental instructional cost when you put another student into a class that is under-enrolled. However, there comes a point that additional students result in the need to increase the number of class sections offered. We tried to allocate tuition remission in areas in which the enrollment in classes was below the optimum level. (We also tended to do partial tuition remissions so that each student contributed at least something to the pot of funds, but that is not really a factor in D1 athletics.)

Most D1 athletic programs that sponsor football have upwards of 300 scholarship athletes. It would be unreasonable to expect that such a number of students can be absorbed without increasing the number of sections needed. If you look at it realistically,there will be about 160 lower division (Fr. Soph.) students in that. Since they are taking required general education and intro courses you might be having to add about two dozen sections to accommodate that need. (160 time 5 classes is 800 student course enrollments. When that is divided by 30/class is 26+ courses needed.) This assumes that upper division courses are spread out across many disciplines and can be added and/or that some space was available in lower division courses to balance any added upper division courses

There is simply no way to slip in that number of students without creating a need for more course sections.

Folks are right that to a large extent an institution will choose to absorb those costs for a variety of reasons. That is why most institutions provide a subsidy from general funds to partially cover the cost of the athletics program. However good institutional management requires that you account for those costs so that a reasonable cost/benefit analysis can be done to inform decisions on whether to continue, cease or modify the practice.

And for the record---I'm not arguing the incremental cost to educate 400 athletes is zero. I am arguing it is likely significantly less than the cost shown in the athletic budget. I also am suggesting that reproducing the goodwill/PR/marketing value of the program also likely carries a significant cost that would further offset a good chunk of any predicted savings.
06-20-2018 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,176
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #54
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
NotANewbie,

Nice post. The problem I see is a lack of consistent standard of accounting practice in Athletics. That is where I'd like the NCAA to step in and set up book of standard practices and provide guidelines for institutions and the public reporting (since most of these are public institutions funded by directly and indirectly to a large extent by tax payer money). I do not think it is an onerous task, and many institutions already have good practices. I definitely want to see the "not allocated by team" 40% of the typical athletic budget properly accounted for, and allocated to the correct buckets (e.g., if I spend 15% of my time as a compliance officer working on the Basketball teams, then I should charge my time card to those teams, not to generic overhead).

But why leave those good practices some institutions use in the dark, and why not openly discuss those practices and develop a minimum standard to follow in the industry? That is the role I think the NCAA can and should play. I think it would also help the NCAA in making rules to help the system be financially healthy and affordable for more participating institutions.
06-20-2018 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #55
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-20-2018 12:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  NotANewbie,

Nice post. The problem I see is a lack of consistent standard of accounting practice in Athletics. That is where I'd like the NCAA to step in and set up book of standard practices and provide guidelines for institutions and the public reporting (since most of these are public institutions funded by directly and indirectly to a large extent by tax payer money). I do not think it is an onerous task, and many institutions already have good practices. I definitely want to see the "not allocated by team" 40% of the typical athletic budget properly accounted for, and allocated to the correct buckets (e.g., if I spend 15% of my time as a compliance officer working on the Basketball teams, then I should charge my time card to those teams, not to generic overhead).

But why leave those good practices some institutions use in the dark, and why not openly discuss those practices and develop a minimum standard to follow in the industry? That is the role I think the NCAA can and should play. I think it would also help the NCAA in making rules to help the system be financially healthy and affordable for more participating institutions.


I have seen cases of athletics department had issues of missing money that have been written off for things not related to athletics. This happened a lot in high school, middle school and colleges. We had coaches and ADs getting busted and sent to jail. My high school basketball coach got busted near the end of the season and convicted of fraud. He went to jail. Our team went downhill in chaos when a beloved coach got into trouble. The issues of corruption can also take place in all areas of colleges like in the academic departments and the school president. I remember UCA's President got busted himself several years ago. The faculty at the time did not realized that athletics department and academics money are separate and wanted UCA move back down to D2 to rejoin Arkansas Tech and the rest.
06-20-2018 03:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #56
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(06-20-2018 03:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(06-20-2018 12:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  NotANewbie,

Nice post. The problem I see is a lack of consistent standard of accounting practice in Athletics. That is where I'd like the NCAA to step in and set up book of standard practices and provide guidelines for institutions and the public reporting (since most of these are public institutions funded by directly and indirectly to a large extent by tax payer money). I do not think it is an onerous task, and many institutions already have good practices. I definitely want to see the "not allocated by team" 40% of the typical athletic budget properly accounted for, and allocated to the correct buckets (e.g., if I spend 15% of my time as a compliance officer working on the Basketball teams, then I should charge my time card to those teams, not to generic overhead).

But why leave those good practices some institutions use in the dark, and why not openly discuss those practices and develop a minimum standard to follow in the industry? That is the role I think the NCAA can and should play. I think it would also help the NCAA in making rules to help the system be financially healthy and affordable for more participating institutions.


I have seen cases of athletics department had issues of missing money that have been written off for things not related to athletics. This happened a lot in high school, middle school and colleges. We had coaches and ADs getting busted and sent to jail. My high school basketball coach got busted near the end of the season and convicted of fraud. He went to jail. Our team went downhill in chaos when a beloved coach got into trouble. The issues of corruption can also take place in all areas of colleges like in the academic departments and the school president. I remember UCA's President got busted himself several years ago. The faculty at the time did not realized that athletics department and academics money are separate and wanted UCA move back down to D2 to rejoin Arkansas Tech and the rest.

Actually Central Arkansas had TWO presidents busted. One forged the signature of vice-presidents on a memo to the board requesting a raise for the president. The other agreed to extend Sedoxo's contract without bid in exchange for a donation to renovate the president's university owned residence. Somewhere in that mess the school also basically committed fraud by giving a sum to an ad agency that was used to purchase advertisements on the coach's show to funnel extra earnings to the coach.
06-20-2018 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joeben69 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 997
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 45
I Root For: sdsu, ucsd, usd
Location:
Post: #57
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
UNM fires Deputy AD, negotiates $175,000 buyout
https://www.abqjournal.com/1254223
12-06-2018 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #58
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(12-06-2018 01:00 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  UNM fires Deputy AD, negotiates $175,000 buyout
https://www.abqjournal.com/1254223

Did Bob Davie get canned?
12-07-2018 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joeben69 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 997
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 45
I Root For: sdsu, ucsd, usd
Location:
Post: #59
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
(12-07-2018 03:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 01:00 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  UNM fires Deputy AD, negotiates $175,000 buyout
https://www.abqjournal.com/1254223

Did Bob Davie get canned?

Bob Davie Set To Return in 2019
https://www.mwcconnection.com/2018/12/6/...rn-in-2019
12-08-2018 12:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joeben69 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 997
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 45
I Root For: sdsu, ucsd, usd
Location:
Post: #60
RE: University Of New Mexico Athletics On The Chopping Block
House budget bill would revive men’s soccer at UNM
https://www.abqjournal.com/1282682
02-20-2019 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.