Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/7/13 at 6:44 pm to townestoldme2
Let's just say he's not being honest where he's trying to paint a picture that's not true by revealing facts and hiding others.
Who cares if Alabama subsidizes $100,000, for example, for accounting purposes...if they pay back $1 million?
If you talk about the $100,000 & purposefully not talk about the $1 million to fit your opinion...then yhat's essentially lying.
Who cares if Alabama subsidizes $100,000, for example, for accounting purposes...if they pay back $1 million?
If you talk about the $100,000 & purposefully not talk about the $1 million to fit your opinion...then yhat's essentially lying.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 6:57 pm to townestoldme2
Well the big thesis of his article is this:
Which is pointless. If a university cut taxpayer athletic subsidies by $100, and then raised other basic tuition costs by $100 (and also reduced the amount of athletic profit kicked back to the university by $100), what would be the net difference? Nada.
Are SEC public schools known for socking it (relative to the Big Ten's public schools) to their taxpayers with high overall university subsidies and to their students with high overall tuition rates? Hardly. So who's taxpayers and students are really getting the shaft?
Pffft. Money is fungible. It makes no difference.
It's better PR to do it the LSU way, but economically speaking, it makes no difference.
quote:
But more importantly, as you look at the gaping disparity between the investment in athletes and non-athletes, Big Ten athletics truly separate themselves by how they're funded: By and large, they don't force regular students and taxpayers to fund athletics.
Which is pointless. If a university cut taxpayer athletic subsidies by $100, and then raised other basic tuition costs by $100 (and also reduced the amount of athletic profit kicked back to the university by $100), what would be the net difference? Nada.
Are SEC public schools known for socking it (relative to the Big Ten's public schools) to their taxpayers with high overall university subsidies and to their students with high overall tuition rates? Hardly. So who's taxpayers and students are really getting the shaft?
quote:
They should be be paid, but it shouldn't be the financial priority.That should be holding publicly-funded schools with booming athletic departments in power conferences that have the means to be sustainable exclusively through non-tuition and non-tax dollars accountable for doing exactly that.
They should be expected to spend institutional funds and tuition dollars strictly on institutional and academic expenditures.
Pffft. Money is fungible. It makes no difference.
It's better PR to do it the LSU way, but economically speaking, it makes no difference.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 7:20 pm to Springfield XD
Not sure what its like now, but Ohio state charged triple for in state tuition to what auburn did, maybe more, when I went to school. It was cheaper for out of state tuition at auburn than in state Ohio.
Also, I know a lot of the sec ad's do their accounting differently than osu. As far as taking from and for budgets in the ad and charging for certain things.
Also, I know a lot of the sec ad's do their accounting differently than osu. As far as taking from and for budgets in the ad and charging for certain things.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 8:38 pm to FrankWhite'56
all i got to say is, roll tide! deal with it.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 8:40 pm to Springfield XD
Those stats are BAD for the Big Ten. That means they use more student fees to support athletics than any other conference, with inferior results.
Posted on 5/7/13 at 9:39 pm to FrankWhite'56
addabamma and dem are do-do heads...and....and...waaaaa
Posted on 5/7/13 at 11:14 pm to Springfield XD
quote:
Arkansas take millions out of their own institutional funding to cover athletics' costs
actually it's the other way around...
Posted on 5/8/13 at 3:50 am to Springfield XD
quote:
America's third and fifth-poorest states use tax money to pay for, basically, college football.
When states like California have a debt over $600 billion, New York over $300 billion, and Illinois over $270 billion, how do you define poorest states?
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:08 am to Springfield XD
quote:
Are state or student funds used to support athletics?
No funds from the State of Arkansas go toward the University Athletic programs. Likewise, Athletics receives no student tuition or fees from the campus, with the exception of waiving non-resident tuition. The University Athletics programs are self-sufficient. They pay for all costs unique to their activities, including tuition and fees of scholarship student athletes.
This is from the Arkansas chancellor's FAQ on finances for the university. I wonder where these data come from?
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:17 am to Pigimus Prime
quote:
This is from the Arkansas chancellor's FAQ on finances for the university. I wonder where these data come from?
a pissed off tOSU fan.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:32 am to Sheetbend
quote:
When states like California have a debt over $600 billion, New York over $300 billion, and Illinois over $270 billion, how do you define poorest states?
He probably used average income without factoring in the cost of living for each state and comparing.
Just about all the states in the south are "right to work" states, while most of the states in the B1G are union states, union jobs mean higher wages, but the cost of living in these states is also higher so making 50k a year in Ohio, for example, is nothing like making 50k a year in Arkansas.
Same with property/houses, both are cheap compared to what you would be able to buy the same for up north, a 200k house on 10 acres in the south would be probably be a 1 million dollar estate up north.
But none of this is ever considered.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:32 am to Pigimus Prime
quote:
This is from the Arkansas chancellor's FAQ on finances for the university. I wonder where these data come from?
It's accounting related. Where the AD may be entirely self sufficient in reality, however on their accounting it may say they receive money from the school. What that doesnt say it what the money is for. Usually it's to pay the AD for leases or fees for something, it's not to support the AD.
For instance some schools student act's are actually under the AD, so the student's fee for the usage are paid to the AD. Therefore on the accounting side you can make it look like the school is funding the AD
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:33 am to Springfield XD
Bama athletics dept gives much more than it takes and Arkansas ' athletic capital projects are underwritten by donors, mostly Walmarks. LSU athletics Is in a class by itself though in terms of helping out academics. 
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:33 am to DaleDenton
quote:
Same with property/houses, both are cheap compared to what you would be able to buy the same for up north, a 200k house on 10 acres in the south would be probably be a 1 million dollar estate up north.
Not really, I can buy a house/property pretty damn cheap in Ohio right now
Their real estate market collasped big time
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:36 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Not really, I can buy a house/property pretty damn cheap in Ohio right now
Their real estate market collasped big time
Nobody wants to live in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, etc.
By up north I wasn't just talking about Ohio.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:39 am to Ldrake53
quote:
Arkansas ' athletic capital projects are underwritten by donors, mostly Walmarks.
Wal-Mart only donates to the academic side, the last athletic project "they" funded for Arkansas was BWA in 1993 as it also gives them a place for their shareholder's meeting.
Wal-Mart and the older Waltons donate a ton of money to most of the Universities in the state for academics, not just Arkansas, FWIW.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 8:41 am to DaleDenton
quote:
Nobody wants to live in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, etc. By up north I wasn't just talking about Ohio.
Thats why housing is so cheap up there. In some parts of michigan, I could buy 10 houses for 100k, maybe more, it's that bad up there.
Posted on 5/8/13 at 9:02 am to Springfield XD
quote:
Only LSU's athletic department is completely subsidy-free.
suck it, whores
Posted on 5/8/13 at 9:33 am to FrankWhite'56
quote:
+1
Not to be condescending in the least bit, but until you truly understand how the money flows through these public institutions, you may not even be getting 1/4 of the story.
College football is big business in many states. Big business always means state legislative influence. Legislative influence always means budgetary shenanigans that lead to figures an author like this can (and will) spin in any light they wish.
All we need do is look at the Penn State situation to get a feel for what college football brings to a town. I've heard it likened to having a military base in town in terms of economic impact.
Penn State's Happy Valley - University Park, claimed they lost what, 100+ million when they were hit with the sanctions?
Columbia, SC is a combo military base town (Fort Jackson) and university town (USC) and it has been a well known fact for awhile that USC brings in more money than Fort Jackson in the overall scheme of things.
That's the impact columns like the one the OP shared does not take into account - especially when it comes to smallish Southern towns and cities.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News