| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/17/17 9:50 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
It's not like student tuition or state funding is going into the athletics. |
What? A year or so ago, the Chronicle of Higher Education studied subsidies and found "In the past five years, public universities pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs."
Indeed, they found South Carolina's athletic department received $3M in subsidies and $2.6M in student fees in 2014 alone.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
The athletic revenues generated by Stanford University aren't going back into their academic facilities either...... |
I don't think that's correct at Stanford. It's certainly not true at Notre Dame where the athletic department contributes millions to the university general fund every year, most of which is used for academic (non-athletic) student aid funds. Among other things, ND reported last fall that the NBC football TV contract alone has generated over $103million in funding for undergraduate financial aid and doctoral fellowships. All football playoff and bowl revenue also goes to the general scholarship fund as well, as I recall.
Some state schools like Texas allow their athletic departments to keep and spend every dime they generate. Private schools don't have that luxury. Those that turn a profit use athletic income to help fund the university.
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/17 9:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
It's not like student tuition or state funding is going into the athletics. |
What? A year or so ago, the Chronicle of Higher Education studied subsidies and found "In the past five years, public universities pumped[b] more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs."[/b]
Indeed, they found South Carolina's athletic department received $3M in subsidies and $2.6M in student fees in 2014 alone.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
The athletic revenues generated by Stanford University aren't going back into their academic facilities either...... |
I don't think that's correct at Stanford. It's certainly not true at Notre Dame where the athletic department contributes millions to the university general fund every year, most of which is used for academic (non-athletic) student aid funds. Among other things, ND reported last fall that the NBC football TV contract alone has generated over $103million in funding for undergraduate financial aid and doctoral fellowships. All football playoff and bowl revenue also goes to the general scholarship fund as well, as I recall.
Some state schools like Texas allow their athletic departments to keep and spend every dime they generate. Private schools don't have that luxury. Those that turn a profit use athletic income to help fund the university. |
LMAO definitely need to see a link of this "study" of yours: over the past 4-5 years South Carolina's Athletic Department has been working in the black from revenues it's earned from its athletic programs. The past 2-3 years were the highest revenues the AD has ever earned in 120+ years of history, taking in $100+ million each year, based largely on revenues received from the new SEC Network. There has been absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Athletic Department to take one red penny of subsidies for anything. Please share your source....
As to "public universities", are they referring to the SEC, which was what I was focusing on primarily - or ANY Power 5 universities for that matter? If they are referring to smaller universities in smaller conferences, I would understand that, but that's really outside of what I was talking about, and responding to.....
Your "source" of info: please share.....
EDIT:
Nevermind: I found the link. It was a story primarily focused on Georgia State, LOL. The fees listed by South Carolina was - as I said - NOT tuition fees, or any fees having to do with the education of it's students. It special admissions fees for its faculty/admin, and special student admission fees for when they opt to get student tickets to athletic events, at a sharply reduced price from what the non-students pay. The can opt out of even paying for them if they choose not to go to sporting events. Unfortunately, students at South Carolina are not able to attend football games for free. Faculty and Admin aren't even, for that matter.
But it only supports my my point: student fees that pay for textbooks, electronic support, classes, and room and board are NOT being sent to the USC Athletic Department to subsidized sporting events. And they most likely aren't for the SEC either......
Last edited by Conway Gamecock on 07/19/17 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/17 10:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
LMAO definitely need to see a link of this "study" of yours: |
Are you just that lazy? Or hasn't Google made its way to South Carolina yet?
Seriously, it just took me 15 seconds to find the Iink again, but I'm not going to post it. I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself.
Hint - November 15, 2015 is the date of release.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/17 11:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
Nevermind: I found the link. It was a story primarily focused on Georgia State, LOL. The fees listed by South Carolina was - as I said - NOT tuition fees, or any fees having to do with the education of it's students. It special admissions fees for its faculty/admin, and special student admission fees for when they opt to get student tickets to athletic events, at a sharply reduced price from what the non-students pay. |
Don't know what you're looking at. The Chronicle of Higher Education report uses Georgia St as the most extreme example but it certainly doesn't "primarily focus" on GaSt. And it includes several years of data for every Div I public university in the country. Did you actually bother to read it? And for someone so hung up on links and sources, I don't see any supporting your effort to try and explain away South Carolina's fees and subsidies, because there is certainly nothing close to that in the report. Nor have you provided a shred of support for your conclusion. Is that some spin you found on Cockeytalk?
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/24/17 5:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
Nevermind: I found the link. It was a story primarily focused on Georgia State, LOL. The fees listed by South Carolina was - as I said - NOT tuition fees, or any fees having to do with the education of it's students. It special admissions fees for its faculty/admin, and special student admission fees for when they opt to get student tickets to athletic events, at a sharply reduced price from what the non-students pay. |
Don't know what you're looking at. The Chronicle of Higher Education report uses Georgia St as the most extreme example but it certainly doesn't "primarily focus" on GaSt. And it includes several years of data for every Div I public university in the country. Did you actually bother to read it? And for someone so hung up on links and sources, I don't see any supporting your effort to try and explain away South Carolina's fees and subsidies, because there is certainly nothing close to that in the report. Nor have you provided a shred of support for your conclusion. Is that some spin you found on Cockeytalk? |
I'm sorry, are you just that lazy? Or hasn't Google made its way to wherever the hell you crawl out from under?
The article does primarily focus on Georgia State. It consists of five paragraphs that are about 1) the introduction to the article's main story line, describing GSU playing in a mostly empty Georgia Dome, and the financial pitfalls and dangers of smaller institutions maintaining big-time CFB programs, 2) GSU's first head coach, Bill Curry, 3) GSU's President who chose to start up the FB program, 4) the reactions and responses from the GSU student-body and faculty, and 5) the closing conclusions to its opening in Paragraph 1: Georgia State playing - and losing badly and clumsily - in that game in the Georgia Dome. They had other similar situations from other smaller institutions like GSU who are trying to juggle big-time FB programs on small budgets, but the spine to this entire article is all Georgia State.
It has no less than five photos all over it, all of the Georgia State football arena, its President (photo AND a video). its first head coach (Bill Curry), cheerleaders for GSU, as well as a photo of a GSU undergraduate student. How many other photos of other universities is included in this article, Art?? That's right. Not a single one....
| Quote: |
What? A year or so ago, the Chronicle of Higher Education studied subsidies and found "In the past five years, public universities pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs."
|
Yes, and the title of that article that I found is "The $10-Billion Sports Tab - How Colleges Are Funding the Athletics Arms Race". But still its a different article???? LMAO....
As to the data, yes I read it but you didn't. It gives an unspecific description of what portions of fees are, and you didn't bother to look deeper to make sure they supported your argument. And again, if you're trying to make your argument about ALL of Division I CFB to argue against my points regarding the Southeastern Conference member institutions, then you had better do your homework better than this 3rd grade shit, as pitting Georgia State against the likes of Alabama, Georgia, etc. doesn't even rate my radar enough for me to laugh at it.....
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7819
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/25/17 5:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Why don't you two take it outside? This discussion has become a waste of space.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
|
|
