How Much Does Your University Give to Athletics?

[TexasTerror]

Intriguing...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[TheBisonator]

NDSU recieved just over 7.1 million, or 49 percent of the athletic budget, from the university. I would assume 49 percent seems to be around average, the numbers range wildly. I see schools like Georgia State at 88 percent and the big elites at nothing. (I can understand Georgia State getting almost 90 percent from the school, the year in question, 2009-2010, their marquee sport at the time, men's basketball, only averaged 1,385 fans per game)

NDSU's TeamMakers (our boosters) are responsible for funding all athletic scholarships.

[Longhorn]

Intriguing...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Misleading article in the extreme. Virginia law does not allow state monies to be spent on varsity athletics. What the story lists as "Subsidies" do not (in the case of JMU and ODU) come from the university (or state) general budget. In JMU's case over 80% of the athletic budget comes from student fees, the rest from booster donations and revenue from ticket sales, NCAA payouts, etc. But there are zero state dollars.

[Twentysix]

NDSU recieved just over 7.1 million, or 49 percent of the athletic budget, from the university. I would assume 49 percent seems to be around average, the numbers range wildly. I see schools like Georgia State at 88 percent and the big elites at nothing. (I can understand Georgia State getting almost 90 percent from the school, the year in question, 2009-2010, their marquee sport at the time, men's basketball, only averaged 1,385 fans per game)

NDSU's TeamMakers (our boosters) are responsible for funding all athletic scholarships.

NDSU generates around 1.5 million dollars from the student activity fee. Which counts as money "From the university".

Georgia State on the other hand has a 251 dollar athletic fee that as far as i can tell all students full time or part time pay. Where as NDSU charges 10.90 per credit up to 12 credits for an athletic fee (Working out to a maximum of $130)

This quote and pie chart are from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwdos/2009_feesallocation.html


The Athletic Fee is used to support varsity intercollegiate athletics. This fee is used for athletic scholarships and other costs associated with competitive athletics. The athletic fee allows students to use their Panther Card for free access to athletic events.

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwdos/siteimages/2010feeAllocationPie.jpg

[GannonFan]

Misleading article in the extreme. Virginia law does not allow state monies to be spent on varsity athletics. What the story lists as "Subsidies" do not (in the case of JMU and ODU) come from the university (or state) general budget. In JMU's case over 80% of the athletic budget comes from student fees, the rest from booster donations and revenue from ticket sales, NCAA payouts, etc. But there are zero state dollars.

I don't understand what is misleading - the article says that subsidies can include...


Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school's NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.


The article says that 84% of athletic funding comes from these subsidies. You say that over 80% comes from student fees (one of the subsidies listed in the article). Sounds like you're both saying the same thing.

[bostonspider]

Well at Richmond, the athletic budget is approximately 19 million or so. I would say that UR takes in 2 million in attendance revenue, maybe another 500K in coporate revenue, another 1.5 million in athletic gifts. 5 million comes from the Athletic Endowment, maybe 1 million from the NCAA in basketball revenue. From the general accounting, it appears that most of the scholarship money, about 9 Million in expenses, is called out as Financial Aid. Also the Athletic Department looks to get a maybe 500K from the University General Fund each year. All in all this appears to be about 8-9% of the general University Budget of over 200 Million

[TTUEagles]

Others are disputing this article as well:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110629/SPORTS0601/110628041/UT-disputes-athletics-funding-report?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

[darell1976]

North Dakota Great West 32% 46% $4,138,655 $8,391,262
South Dakota State Summit 58% 60% $4,736,683 $7,308,491
North Dakota State Summit 44% 49% $4,202,317 $7,127,206
South Dakota Great West 62% 67% $3,371,630 $5,096,673

school, conference, 2006 sub, 2010 sub, 2006 total, 2010 total

[panama]

I don't understand what is misleading - the article says that subsidies can include...



The article says that 84% of athletic funding comes from these subsidies. You say that over 80% comes from student fees (one of the subsidies listed in the article). Sounds like you're both saying the same thing.
I think the misleading part is that we do not know how much is coming from fees and how much is a check written by the state to the institution.

[GannonFan]

I think the misleading part is that we do not know how much is coming from fees and how much is a check written by the state to the institution.

But that's not the point of the data. I think they're trying to show how outside revenues (i.e. ticket sales, merchandise) etc, compare with internal funding (student fees, state money, etc). Kind of a self-supporting or not kind of view.

[panama]

I would love to see what our numbers for 2011 look like.

[Longhorn]

I think the misleading part is that we do not know how much is coming from fees and how much is a check written by the state to the institution.

Bingo. Which obfuscates the "point of the data" (using GF's phrase). The notion the data is attempting to clarify whether a program is "self-supporting or not" misses the point when funds from a state's general coffers are mixed (as co-equal) with funds procured from fees paid by student users.

In the end, no program except a select few major players like Ohio State and Texas are "self-supporting" (or better yet, profitable) from pure ticket revenue, TV fees, etc. In sum, I repeat, the article is misleading because it skews the data by failing to make distinctions between public monies and user fees.

[GannonFan]

Bingo. Which obfuscates the "point of the data" (using GF's phrase). The notion the data is attempting to clarify whether a program is "self-supporting or not" misses the point when funds from a state's general coffers are mixed (as co-equal) with funds procured from fees paid by student users.

In the end, no program except a select few major players like Ohio State and Texas are "self-supporting" (or better yet, profitable) from pure ticket revenue, TV fees, etc. In sum, I repeat, the article is misleading because it skews the data by failing to make distinctions between public monies and user fees.

And your argument itself is misleading in that you think that student fees automatically equate to user fees. Even at the most football or basketball rabid schools, a good portion of the student populace never attends a sporting event, let alone the number of events that they would have to attend in order to come close to realizing the amount of money that they end up spending on athletics.

The idea that it does look at what is self supporting and what isn't is perfectly valid. So only a few athletic programs truly stand on their own without state support or indirect state support by high student fees (especially with in state students) - does that really bother you when really most felt that was the case anyway?

[Silenoz]

Montana is by far the lowest in the Big Sky. Yet the students/community cry foul when student fees increase to pay for softball. What a joke

Sacramento State Big Sky 80% 78% $10,317,453 $11,918,562
Portland State Big Sky 78% 76% $6,892,023 $7,956,565
Northern Colorado Big Sky 53% 62% $4,120,226 $6,281,715
Northern Arizona Big Sky 73% 73% $7,603,083 $7,635,260
Montana State Big Sky 55% 62% $6,949,153 $9,295,821
Montana Big Sky 37% 39% $6,157,898 $6,629,571
Idaho State Big Sky 64% 61% $6,360,351 $6,759,143
Eastern Washington Big Sky 68% 77% $4,848,554 $7,024,922

[Redhawk2010]

And your argument itself is misleading in that you think that student fees automatically equate to user fees. Even at the most football or basketball rabid schools, a good portion of the student populace never attends a sporting event, let alone the number of events that they would have to attend in order to come close to realizing the amount of money that they end up spending on athletics.

The idea that it does look at what is self supporting and what isn't is perfectly valid. So only a few athletic programs truly stand on their own without state support or indirect state support by high student fees (especially with in state students) - does that really bother you when really most felt that was the case anyway?

This is no different than any other student fees. I was on a board at the Rec Center when I was in college and the director would show us how many (or how few!) students used the rec centers each year. All students were paying for the use of the facility, but nowhere near half were actually doing so. Also, we paid fees to support the fine arts programs. Can you guess how many shows and concerts I went to in 3.5 years?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This is no different than any other student fees. I was on a board at the Rec Center when I was in college and the director would show us how many (or how few!) students used the rec centers each year. All students were paying for the use of the facility, but nowhere near half were actually doing so. Also, we paid fees to support the fine arts programs. Can you guess how many shows and concerts I went to in 3.5 years?
About 20 yrs. ago I had an argument with a female student about how she didn't want to pay an athletic fee since she didn't use it. She was an Art student. I used that same exact point that I didn't use the crap she cherished as part of her campus experience and would love to get out paying those fees. I asked her which she thought would survive on it's own if only the people using it were paying for it. Her stupid Liberal mouth didn't have to answer that one.

Ooh, kinda got off on a tangent there.

[lionsrking2]

About 20 yrs. ago [QUOTE]I had an argument with a female student about how she didn't want to pay an athletic fee since she didn't use it. She was an Art student. I used that same exact point that I didn't use the crap she cherished as part of her campus experience and would love to get out paying those fees. I asked her which she thought would survive on it's own if only the people using it were paying for it. Her stupid Liberal mouth didn't have to answer that one.

Think about what you said.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

[QUOTE=ursus arctos horribilis;1637836]About 20 yrs. ago

Think about what you said.

I can't.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The problem with this article, like many of its ilk, is that it makes the assumption that an athletics' department's sole purpose is to "make money" instead of being a method of educating students and making a better student and community experience.

[Tod]

About 20 yrs. ago I had an argument with a female student about how she didn't want to pay an athletic fee since she didn't use it. She was an Art student. I used that same exact point that I didn't use the crap she cherished as part of her campus experience and would love to get out paying those fees. I asked her which she thought would survive on it's own if only the people using it were paying for it. Her stupid Liberal mouth didn't have to answer that one.

Ooh, kinda got off on a tangent there.

You made the liberal argument, not her. xeyebrowx

[GannonFan]

The problem with this article, like many of its ilk, is that it makes the assumption that an athletics' department's sole purpose is to "make money" instead of being a method of educating students and making a better student and community experience.

Well, that's not necessarily the article's fault. Athletic deparments and schools have been trumpeting for years now (and really since the inception of athletics) about how athletics raise the profile of the school and bring in so much money that they do indeed "make money" for the school when it's all added up. If athletics are being unfairly looked at in terms of their revenue potential, they often only have themselves to blame for that focus.

[Dignan]

Well, that's not necessarily the article's fault. Athletic deparments and schools have been trumpeting for years now (and really since the inception of athletics) about how athletics raise the profile of the school and bring in so much money that they do indeed "make money" for the school when it's all added up. If athletics are being unfairly looked at in terms of their revenue potential, they often only have themselves to blame for that focus.

Not all benefits from raising the profile of a university via sports can be directly measured by direct revenues to the sports program.