Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/5/19 at 12:06 pm to McMillan
You don't have to operate in the black to put a competitive program on the field.
Posted on 2/5/19 at 1:25 pm to navynuke
quote:
You don't have to operate in the black to put a competitive program on the field.
Then you don't understand how the UM system is setup, specifically with regards to Mizzou AD budget.
Posted on 2/5/19 at 1:32 pm to notsince98
in the four seasons that Missouri won their division how many times did the AD turn a profit?
I will make it easy for you, two of them. Missouri operated at a loss the last five years they were in the Big 12. I remember being very competitive in both major sports during that time.
Regardless this situation with the NCAA is far from over.
I will make it easy for you, two of them. Missouri operated at a loss the last five years they were in the Big 12. I remember being very competitive in both major sports during that time.
Regardless this situation with the NCAA is far from over.
This post was edited on 2/5/19 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 2/5/19 at 3:21 pm to navynuke
quote:
in the four seasons that Missouri won their division how many times did the AD turn a profit?
I will make it easy for you, two of them. Missouri operated at a loss the last five years they were in the Big 12. I remember being very competitive in both major sports during that time.
Regardless this situation with the NCAA is far from over.
Someone needs to recheck their numbers.
And the point is Mizzou won't subsidize its AD. It has to be in the black or the AD has to make cuts. Cutting means less winning.
This post was edited on 2/5/19 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 2/6/19 at 6:38 am to notsince98
Nm
This post was edited on 2/6/19 at 7:18 am
Posted on 2/6/19 at 7:57 am to notsince98
Please remember, most of the "subsidies" that come from the schools to their athletic departments is not really money. In reality the schools will charge the AD in state tuition for its out of state athletes. By doing this the AD saves a few million dollars but it is written off by the school as a subsidy to the AD.
When it is reported that the AD is in the red, it often gives the impression that there needs to be cutbacks. ADs are non profits and as such have interesting accounting methods. And especially when announcing a campaign to increase the donor base.
When it is reported that the AD is in the red, it often gives the impression that there needs to be cutbacks. ADs are non profits and as such have interesting accounting methods. And especially when announcing a campaign to increase the donor base.
Posted on 2/6/19 at 10:17 am to surgicalvenom
quote:
Please remember, most of the "subsidies" that come from the schools to their athletic departments is not really money. In reality the schools will charge the AD in state tuition for its out of state athletes. By doing this the AD saves a few million dollars but it is written off by the school as a subsidy to the AD.
When it is reported that the AD is in the red, it often gives the impression that there needs to be cutbacks. ADs are non profits and as such have interesting accounting methods. And especially when announcing a campaign to increase the donor base.
It varies greatly by school. Many schools do subsidize the AD. For example, I think duke charges all their students a mandatory fee that goes to their AD. Some schools flat out give their AD a few million a year to keep it operating.
The situations run the gammut but the fact of the matter is "for Mizzou" the school will not allow it. The AD has to be self sustained other than rare situations like the conference change. Even that, the school only gave the AD a loan which the AD paid back.
Yes I realize there are times where Mizzou gives the AD money that isn't really a subsidy, but that isn't what I'm talking about and that is no longer the norm at Mizzou.
Here is a good read on the amount of schools having to subsidize athletics from tuition and other student fees.
LINK /
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News