Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
G5 Debt Mounting
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?

That's because business aren't underwritten by the taxpayer. They are built by a clientele base. The successful schools pander to their clientele base which is why some of the proposed moves in realignment are far fetched in spite of revenue differences. What does it profit a good business to move into a new market if their old markets are alienated?

With enrollment declining it only seems that sports are important as an attractant of enrollment. Reduced tuition (partly achieved by the elimination of subsidies) will be more important to less sports oriented students in the future than how loved their football team or basketball team is. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved. But even then it was an extravagance. Extravagances are fine when everything is flush. But the generations inheriting the Boomer and soon to be X'er world don't have the posh times that we did to afford that extravagance. They are fighting for a good living and charging them for other people's entertainment is simply morally wrong. Give them the most affordable educations possible.

And product lines that are exclusive tend to do quite well, even during downturns. So if football is to be an extravagance then making it as competitive and as elite as possible will only help it keeps its value. The demand is shrinking Ken D. Therefore to keep values high the supply of product needs to shrink as well, and its quality needs to improve. The quality stays higher if the supply of talent is concentrated. The demand stays high when the audience selection is focused.

So I just don't buy your argument. Market forces, and economic ones, are forming a synergy in this direction naturally. Schools who have had associations for over 100 years don't simply move for more money. They move for the survival of a major revenue stream. Like all things in life the productive and efficient will survive.
06-30-2018 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 550
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 37
I Root For: UMass, Army, Rutgers
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Post: #22
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I don't know how other schools do it but the fees students pay at Kent State allow them to go to any sporting event without paying anything extra. I couldn't find the exact amount each student pays per semester but the general is 195.50 for FT students. That also gives them access to the student wellness center for no additional charges as well. The students are also able to attend any theater event, art or fashion show and any other on campus event without additional fees.

So what is better one flat fee per semester to attend everything or no fee like Ohio State and pay out of pocket for all events?

At UMass we have that flat-fee/free-entry policy too. They also throw in family tickets to a hockey game during family weekend I believe.
06-30-2018 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,615
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 162
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
Post: #23
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
in Mass & Conn case, the state is trying to build thier land grant school
that would be thier prerogative
06-30-2018 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #24
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 04:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:33 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think the best solution is too enact spending limits NCAA wide.

I respectfully dissent. First, it's probably anti-trust or something, wouldn't stand up in the courts.

Second, why should school X be prevented from improving itself just because school Y might bankrupt itself trying to keep up? That's school Y's problem, not X's.

The pro leagues have salary caps...why couldn't the NCAA teams collectively agree to some spending parameters? Ultimately, excess profits above a predetermined threshold should be plowed back into the academic side.
06-30-2018 07:38 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #25
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 01:11 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  A bunch of state supported G5 teams are growing debt and slapping on student fees trying to stay close to the P5 teams that actually make money from sports.

No question, many G5 are soaking their students to fund athletic ambitions. But the article you linked was almost entirely about a P5 school, Washington State's, struggles with this.

As ArkansasStateFan has pointed out in another thread there are no G5 schools with less than a 26% subsidy rate. There are fewer than 20 with less than a 50% subsidy rate. Taxpayers and parents are getting screwed over for all of this.

There is only 1 P5 school with a subsidy over 18.5%: Rutgers at 34.15%. There are only 9 with a subsidy exceeding 10%.

Yes, but the interesting thing about this article that Tex posted is that it talks about 'deficits', not subsidies. We talk a lot about subsidies around here but not much about deficits. Washington State is "only" running a 8% subsidy, but it is running a $7 million deficit anyway. Cal, Arizona, and Oregon State are also all running deficits.

I count 5 ACC teams running deficits as well.

You can be bringing in $120m a year in revenue with no subsidy but if you are spending $130m, that's a deficit, and a problem.
Yup...that was a major point. Probably the best way to look at the health of a school
06-30-2018 07:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,449
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 429
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #26
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
Athletic departments are part of the whole university. Departments don’t do go into debt. Schools do.

Last I checked, Houston was closing in on a $1B endowment. Then there’s the value of all the land and improvements. That includes $283M in recent athletic facilities.

Now - athletic departments can be cost centers or revenue generators. The latter is only a recent phenomenon. And only for a handful of D1 schools, relatively speaking.
06-30-2018 08:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #27
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?

That's because business aren't underwritten by the taxpayer. They are built by a clientele base. The successful schools pander to their clientele base which is why some of the proposed moves in realignment are far fetched in spite of revenue differences. What does it profit a good business to move into a new market if their old markets are alienated?

With enrollment declining it only seems that sports are important as an attractant of enrollment. Reduced tuition (partly achieved by the elimination of subsidies) will be more important to less sports oriented students in the future than how loved their football team or basketball team is. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved. But even then it was an extravagance. Extravagances are fine when everything is flush. But the generations inheriting the Boomer and soon to be X'er world don't have the posh times that we did to afford that extravagance. They are fighting for a good living and charging them for other people's entertainment is simply morally wrong. Give them the most affordable educations possible.

And product lines that are exclusive tend to do quite well, even during downturns. So if football is to be an extravagance then making it as competitive and as elite as possible will only help it keeps its value. The demand is shrinking Ken D. Therefore to keep values high the supply of product needs to shrink as well, and its quality needs to improve. The quality stays higher if the supply of talent is concentrated. The demand stays high when the audience selection is focused.

So I just don't buy your argument. Market forces, and economic ones, are forming a synergy in this direction naturally. Schools who have had associations for over 100 years don't simply move for more money. They move for the survival of a major revenue stream. Like all things in life the productive and efficient will survive.

Actually, JR, what you said tells me you do buy it. You just didn't understand what my argument really was.

My argument was that athletics were always an extravagence, and never about the canard that they were the marketing arm for the university. That canard was always just "an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved" as you put it. It's just more obvious now.

And now that it has become a lucrative enterprise, it no longer needs to hide behind the fiction that it ever had something to do with the university's mission. It's a stand alone market to be exploited and optimized. And the model for optimizing that revenue stream is professional sports. So let our favorite schools drop the hypocrisy and put athletic success as a priority unto itself. It is, after all more highly valued by the clientele those schools serve.
06-30-2018 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 09:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  For most of my adult life, most colleges who had football teams among other sports all ran deficits. This was uniformly justified by all those schools by the argument that underwriting sports was a marketing expense that benefited the university as a whole.

Now that some of those schools are bringing in more cash than any of them ever imagined possible, it seems that they feel like that's no longer a valid argument. Instead, they (or at least their fans) argue that those who don't have that cash should curtail this marketing expense and drop down in class - to thin the herd, as it were.

I've never known a business whose success was improved by reducing its advertising budget. Does it work differently for schools?

That's because business aren't underwritten by the taxpayer. They are built by a clientele base. The successful schools pander to their clientele base which is why some of the proposed moves in realignment are far fetched in spite of revenue differences. What does it profit a good business to move into a new market if their old markets are alienated?

With enrollment declining it only seems that sports are important as an attractant of enrollment. Reduced tuition (partly achieved by the elimination of subsidies) will be more important to less sports oriented students in the future than how loved their football team or basketball team is. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved. But even then it was an extravagance. Extravagances are fine when everything is flush. But the generations inheriting the Boomer and soon to be X'er world don't have the posh times that we did to afford that extravagance. They are fighting for a good living and charging them for other people's entertainment is simply morally wrong. Give them the most affordable educations possible.

And product lines that are exclusive tend to do quite well, even during downturns. So if football is to be an extravagance then making it as competitive and as elite as possible will only help it keeps its value. The demand is shrinking Ken D. Therefore to keep values high the supply of product needs to shrink as well, and its quality needs to improve. The quality stays higher if the supply of talent is concentrated. The demand stays high when the audience selection is focused.

So I just don't buy your argument. Market forces, and economic ones, are forming a synergy in this direction naturally. Schools who have had associations for over 100 years don't simply move for more money. They move for the survival of a major revenue stream. Like all things in life the productive and efficient will survive.

Actually, JR, what you said tells me you do buy it. You just didn't understand what my argument really was.

My argument was that athletics were always an extravagence, and never about the canard that they were the marketing arm for the university. That canard was always just "an excuse for the old guys of the world to justify keeping something around that we loved" as you put it. It's just more obvious now.

And now that it has become a lucrative enterprise, it no longer needs to hide behind the fiction that it ever had something to do with the university's mission. It's a stand alone market to be exploited and optimized. And the model for optimizing that revenue stream is professional sports. So let our favorite schools drop the hypocrisy and put athletic success as a priority unto itself. It is, after all more highly valued by the clientele those schools serve.

Oh no Ken D. If that is what you are claiming now then you had an argument against your own position which was in conflict with what you are now stating. You were arguing for greater latitude of inclusion of schools as an advertising means for the schools and decrying a needed culling claiming that no business had succeeded by cutting their advertising which within the context of the statement implied the use of more schools as a form of advertising. And doing so while blaiming the fans of the better funded schools. (Bolded and in Red)

I've always been for stipends, and while our schools won't be completely a professional organization, they should be taxable for anything that exceeds the education benefits. But we don't need an NCAA welfare system for every tom, richard and harry that wants to declare themselves FBS and get their snoot to the trough.

At the level of investment we are talking about, including stipends, and some taxable income over and above grant & aids, the schools investing at this level should not have any potential revenue withheld which are utilized to assist other lesser programs play at their tier. A new tier needs to be created with rules that are in sync with the risks and with unencumbered rewards devoid of social support for anyone. And yes according to the data we've been perusing that number will likely be smaller than 64.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2018 09:27 PM by JRsec.)
06-30-2018 09:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
utpotts Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,969
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Toledo
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Post: #29
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I don't know how other schools do it but the fees students pay at Kent State allow them to go to any sporting event without paying anything extra. I couldn't find the exact amount each student pays per semester but the general is 195.50 for FT students. That also gives them access to the student wellness center for no additional charges as well. The students are also able to attend any theater event, art or fashion show and any other on campus event without additional fees.

So what is better one flat fee per semester to attend everything or no fee like Ohio State and pay out of pocket for all events?

Same holds true for Toledo as well. Even bus trips to road games were only $5 extra and that included transportation, ticket and food.
06-30-2018 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,628
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 602
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #30
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
It might sound harsh, but for the G5, there is no catching up. The game ended in 2013. The amount of revenue being distributed by the P5 is in a completely different universe than what the G5 is currently earning. With each passing year, that distance grows wider and more substantial. In the past several years, P5 programs are earning 30, 40 or even 50 times as much as G5 schools in television revenue alone. They are pumping those funds back into the school, the athletic programs and other ways to support the school. With no expansion for the next several years, we are looking at ten years of dramatically unequal revenue distribution - which will have created two official divisions within FBS. It is no longer a race, it is a marathon to see how long until members of the G5 concede defeat and throw in the towel, or financially collapse due to the rising astronomical costs it takes in order to just compete with the P5. It is a losing game no matter how it is played.

Even if the AAC somehow gets a true tweener designation with its new TV deal, it still is on the outside looking in and once again playing catch up. The P5 will never let a new conference into their club (heck, they destroyed the Big East in order to lower the numbers to share with), and they certainly not let an outsider piggy-back of their revenues. A select few programs might get called up within the decade, but using and leveraging student fees and taxpayer money for most of these schools to better compete against the P5 goes against many of these university's missions. No one wants to be the first out, but it is inevitable - the only question is when does that happen. Frankly, an official split within the FBS (P5/G5) will end up saving many of these schools a substantial amount of money as well as the inevitable heartbreak that will be caused once the door is shut officially.
06-30-2018 10:13 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: #31
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 08:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Athletic departments are part of the whole university. Departments don’t do go into debt. Schools do.

But they can run a deficit - and get chopped for it. E.g., in Louisiana, at state schools the board of regents now has a process by which enrollment in majors and departments are assessed over a two year rolling period, and those that don't generate enough fee-credits can (and are) being eliminated.

At Washington State, the athletic department is running a deficit of around $8m a year for the past several years. That's a real case of spending more than you bring in, and that loss can't be 'written off', it has to be paid for some how, some way.

Only creditors can 'write off' a debt. E.g., if I owe you money, you can choose to write it off (cancel the debt) if you want, or you could be forced to by a court if i successfully declare bankruptcy. But i, the debtor, can't just write it off.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 12:16 AM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2018 12:14 AM
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: #32
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:02 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  People don't know the difference between debt and deficit.

There is no debt. There is deficit spending that is written off.

In Wazzu's case, what the school administration is calling "debt to the university" is what is called "subsidy to the athletic department" any place else, except that because the university itself is having financial issues, the school president wants to call it a debt that the athletic department has to pay back to the university general fund. The university president said "I delivered a similar message to the medical school" -- presumably meaning that he thinks the athletic department and medical school, unlike other departments at the university, have cash flow that the president wants to use to make the university's balance sheet closer to balanced (however they define balanced).
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 12:53 AM by Wedge.)
07-01-2018 12:53 AM
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: #33
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
Rather than quoting and responding to multiple posts.

There is some marketing value to a football team. I tend to suspect that there is no school that is getting $20 million in marketing value from athletics to warrant plowing $20 million in university and student funds into athletics, when the school isn't generating as much in athletic revenue from all other sources.

Eastern Michigan was long the poster child for inept football. The 7 win bowl season of 2016 was the first 7 win season since 1989. EMU got no positive publicity from football for nearly 30 years but their enrollment grew. One has to wonder if EMU might have grown even faster without the negative attention.

When a university is exceeding 25,000 full-time students and now wants football to market the university, I'm not buying the argument.

Value of athletics debates almost never include the argument that athletics are an amenity. I don't think it is an accident that smaller metros are heavily represented in FBS because those communities have fewer entertainment options for students and the community at-large. There is some value to having a sports program to provide an alternative to driving around the courthouse square down the main drag to Sonic and turning around and repeating the drive.

Taxpayers are generally not the ones getting "soaked" by transfers. Government in most if not all states just sends a pile of money to colleges and it neither rises nor falls based on the athletic activities of the college. The transfers to athletics become dollars not available to maintain buildings or pay salaries or to stave off increases in tuition and fees.
07-01-2018 05:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #34
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I don't know how other schools do it but the fees students pay at Kent State allow them to go to any sporting event without paying anything extra. I couldn't find the exact amount each student pays per semester but the general is 195.50 for FT students. That also gives them access to the student wellness center for no additional charges as well. The students are also able to attend any theater event, art or fashion show and any other on campus event without additional fees.

So what is better one flat fee per semester to attend everything or no fee like Ohio State and pay out of pocket for all events?
If a school can sell out a 100,000 seat football stadium, it almost has to charge the students just to manage capacity - demand will exceed supply at every price point, but especially for “free” student tickets.

For a smaller program that doesn’t consistently sell out football games, “free” student tickets are certainly a manageable option.

If Kent State is charging less than $200/semester for athletics, arts, and a recreation center, that’s actually pretty cheap, and athletics likely isn’t carrying a huge part of it.
07-01-2018 06:41 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ESE84 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,596
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 205
I Root For: Rice then UH
Location: Houston

New Orleans BowlDonators
Post: #35
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 08:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Athletic departments are part of the whole university. Departments don’t do go into debt. Schools do.

Last I checked, Houston was closing in on a $1B endowment. Then there’s the value of all the land and improvements. That includes $283M in recent athletic facilities.

Now - athletic departments can be cost centers or revenue generators. The latter is only a recent phenomenon. And only for a handful of D1 schools, relatively speaking.

This endowment angle has been in the back of my mind while reading this thread. Rice is emulating the Stanford model. That objective is to build a dedicated part of the endowment to generate the expenses needed for the athletic department. In these summary numbers, would that look like deficit spending?

I agree overall that this spending will reach a point where it is unsustainable for those who don't have a dedicated endowment or big dollar donors directing funds toward athletics.
07-01-2018 07:08 AM
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: #36
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 05:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Rather than quoting and responding to multiple posts.

There is some marketing value to a football team. I tend to suspect that there is no school that is getting $20 million in marketing value from athletics to warrant plowing $20 million in university and student funds into athletics, when the school isn't generating as much in athletic revenue from all other sources.

Yes, and also USF and UCF are good natural experiments. Both schools are doing fine now in terms of enrollment growth, but both were also doing fine before they had football teams. Football doesn't seem to have had any impact in that area. I'm glad USF has a football team now, but only because I love football and like that we are participating in that. If we didn't have it, i wouldn't have the pleasure of supporting the team and watching the games, but the university would be essentially otherwise the same.

Sure, a school like Notre Dame, which has been nationally famous for decades because of football, has received tremendous marketing and other benefits from its football team. But the notion that a 6-7 barely FBS football team at Eastern Tennessee Tech is vital to the enrollment or other success of the university is sheer nonsense.

The vast majority of FBS schools that are soaking students (and again you are correct, it's not taxpayers paying for this) for athletic fees aren't getting any marketing advantage from it. It might be a desired amenity by the students, though compared to other sports football is really poor at that, as there are at most 5-6 home games a year.

That doesn't save many spins to and from Sonic, LOL.
07-01-2018 07:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gulfcoastgal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,299
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:
Post: #37
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(07-01-2018 06:41 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I don't know how other schools do it but the fees students pay at Kent State allow them to go to any sporting event without paying anything extra. I couldn't find the exact amount each student pays per semester but the general is 195.50 for FT students. That also gives them access to the student wellness center for no additional charges as well. The students are also able to attend any theater event, art or fashion show and any other on campus event without additional fees.

So what is better one flat fee per semester to attend everything or no fee like Ohio State and pay out of pocket for all events?
If a school can sell out a 100,000 seat football stadium, it almost has to charge the students just to manage capacity - demand will exceed supply at every price point, but especially for “free” student tickets.

For a smaller program that doesn’t consistently sell out football games, “free” student tickets are certainly a manageable option.

If Kent State is charging less than $200/semester for athletics, arts, and a recreation center, that’s actually pretty cheap, and athletics likely isn’t carrying a huge part of it.

Agree that all fees aren't treated equally and even using total % doesn't necessarily give an accurate picture of subsidies either. For example, a smaller school with a lower % subsidy of total rev. could actually be "soaking" students more than a larger school with a higher subsidy to rev. ratio. The difference being volume (enrollment numbers). Students at growing schools are in better shape than those at stagnating schools or those facing declining enrollment on a per student fee basis. I'm badly pointing out that total subsidy % doesn't automatically mean that a student at X school (with a higher sub. %) pays more in athletic fees than does a student at Y school (with a lower sub. %).
07-01-2018 07:47 AM
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: #38
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
(06-30-2018 06:39 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I don't know how other schools do it but the fees students pay at Kent State allow them to go to any sporting event without paying anything extra. I couldn't find the exact amount each student pays per semester but the general is 195.50 for FT students. That also gives them access to the student wellness center for no additional charges as well. The students are also able to attend any theater event, art or fashion show and any other on campus event without additional fees.

So what is better one flat fee per semester to attend everything or no fee like Ohio State and pay out of pocket for all events?

Well first, IIRC at Ohio State students do get in to all sporting events for free, save for men's hoops and football.

Second, regarding football the one obvious difference is that at Kent State, there are usually lots of empty seats in the football stadium so allowing students to attend for free (or for the $200 blanket fee) isn't costing the university anything, the seats would be empty.

But those Ohio State student tickets would be worth good money on the market, so students are actually getting a bargain. For example, last year, student tickets for football were $34, but for the general public the lowest ticket price to any tOSU football game was $67, and for most they were $95 and up, so that's a real steal.

Plus, and let's face it this matters, at Kent State you are seeing a bad team play, at Ohio State, a good team. That's why there's a lottery system to allocate football tickets to students - the demand exceeds the supply in a big way, which means students think $34 a game is a very good bargain.

In contrast, the fact that Kent State often has empty seats (2017 attendance was 11,000 per game in a 25,000 seat stadium) even with students getting in free suggests that collectively they don't think even "free" (for that $200 fee) is a good deal.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2018 08:22 AM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2018 08:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ilovegymnast Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,011
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Kent State
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Post: #39
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
College athletics were meant to give students something to do to distract from schoolwork. No matter what the demand for non students is, the students shouldnt be punished. No student should be turned away from a stadium that can hold all of them. $34/game is alot of money after paying 10s of 1000s of dollars a year to attend the school. Not only that but they put the students in the corner of the upperdeck. Most kids go to OSU for the sports and spend their Saturdays watching it in the dorm or at the bar because they didnt get selected to buy tickets.
07-01-2018 09:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppManDG Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,125
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 308
I Root For: App State
Location: Gastonia, NC
Post: #40
RE: G5 Debt Mounting
Prior to TV money infesting collegiate athletic programs with excess, living within your means was pretty much commonplace. Today it's a concept that is lost on just about everyone.
07-01-2018 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 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.