Keeler Says Sam Houston Considering FBS

[FargoBison]

Not an invalid point, but I'm guessing NDSU's booster club donates maybe $2million a year out of an athletic budget that is approaching $20million.

I would love to be shown wrong, but I'm guessing NDSU's athletic department gets 50% to 75% of the money it uses to pay the bills from student fees, with the rest coming from donations (like those from TeamMakers), sales (tickets, concessions, direct merchandise) and royalties for third party merchandise.

I think the number was $2.8 million this year.

NDSU's total subsidy(school funds + student fees) is 43.16%. Only 6.32% of that is student fees.

Those numbers are from 2012 btw. The Booster club raised $2.6 million that year.

[MplsBison]

I think the number was $2.8 million this year.

NDSU's total subsidy(school funds + student fees) is 43.16%. Only 6.32% of that is student fees.

Those numbers are from 2012 btw. The Booster club raised $2.6 million that year.

If true, then I'm pleasantly surprised! By including the source of your numbers, you would remove any suspicion of mine. But I suspect you're correct based on the precision.

I don't like that school funds are spent on athletics. That means tax dollars and tuition dollars, which are meant to fund the school, are ending up in the athletic department coffers. That's wrong on principle, for me. Student fees should be paying 100% of the remaining costs that the athletic department can't cover from their own revenue streams. Athletics is a purely extra-curricular enterprise, that the students must desire to have and therefore support.

[FargoBison]

If true, then I'm pleasantly surprised! By including the source of your numbers, you would remove any suspicion of mine. But I suspect you're correct based on the precision.

I don't like that school funds are spent on athletics. That means tax dollars and tuition dollars, which are meant to fund the school, are ending up in the athletic department coffers. That's wrong on principle, for me. Student fees should be paying 100% of the remaining costs that the athletic department can't cover from their own revenue streams. Athletics is a purely extra-curricular enterprise, that the students must desire to have and therefore support.

Here are a few links of interest...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...ools/finances/



http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/16327/

[Mr. C]

Then by implication you view football scholarships as "dumb".

What a ridiculous argument. The troll crawls out of his hole to express his warped views again. We all know you are gung-ho for having schools like NDSU go to FBS. No one said anything about not wanting athletic scholarships. I'm fine with all these schools splitting 63 of them any way they like. But as has been state repeatedly and backed by studies, the teams that move from FCS to FBS and are in the bottom quadrant in spending stay in the bottom quadrant in spending. There is a direct correlation between spending and success at the FBS level. The goals of cost-containment major college football still work for FCS.

[MplsBison]

Here are a few links of interest...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...ools/finances/



http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/16327/

Excellent post! Thank you

NDSU's student fee for athletics should look a lot closer to what UND's fee is at.

[MplsBison]

What a ridiculous argument. The troll crawls out of his hole to express his warped views again. We all know you are gung-ho for having schools like NDSU go to FBS. No one said anything about not wanting athletic scholarships. I'm fine with all these schools splitting 63 of them any way they like. But as has been state repeatedly and backed by studies, the teams that move from FCS to FBS and are in the bottom quadrant in spending stay in the bottom quadrant in spending. There is a direct correlation between spending and success at the FBS level. The goals of cost-containment major college football still work for FCS.

A) Teams that move from FCS to FBS increase their scholarships provided from around 63 to around 85.

Thus, since you're not only against any remaining FCS team moving to FBS but actually want to see some FBS teams dragged down to FCS, you're against those additional scholarships.


B) You just contradicted yourself. First you said that spending equals success, then you immediately followed that by saying major college football works within a cost-containment basis.

Which is it?

[Bisonoline]

A) Teams that move from FCS to FBS increase their scholarships provided from around 63 to around 85.

Thus, since you're not only against any remaining FCS team moving to FBS but actually want to see some FBS teams dragged down to FCS, you're against those additional scholarships.


B) You just contradicted yourself. First you said that spending equals success, then you immediately followed that by saying major college football works within a cost-containment basis.

Which is it?

I think you need to go back and re-read his post. How you came up with your assertions from his post is really a stretch.

[Wallace]

I think you need to go back and re-read his post. How you came up with your assertions from his post is really a stretch.

it's not a stretch at all, in fact it is exact... if you have the football money and go fbs (and can keep spending) then no problem. If you are responsible and desire cost-containment then fcs is best.

[Bisonoline]

it's not a stretch at all, in fact it is exact... if you have the football money and go fbs (and can keep spending) then no problem. If you are responsible and desire cost-containment then fcs is best.

I totally understand what MR C was saying and dont find that a stretch at all. Its Mpls interpretation--assertion of his post are whats in question.