Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA Today's Finance Analysis of Athletic Departments - WSU ranked 104

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Royals85 View Post
    It's unfortunate private schools are not included. Would be curious to see how WSU matches up with the top Big East schools and Gonzaga.
    Private schools (or many of them) are included in the database at ope.ed.gov, the source for the information that is generally used in these media write-ups (and the one at hand). There is debate about the accuracy or "apples-to-apples" of the data, but the truth is it is the only data publically-available without great pains, and the national media seems to have no problem using it as a source.

    According to that site (Revenues/Expenses):

    Gonzaga - $23M/$20M

    Georgetown - $37M/$34M
    Villanova - $34M/$34M
    Marquette - $29M/$29M
    St Johns's - $27M/$27M
    DePaul - $25M/$25M
    Providence - $24M/$24M
    Seton Hall - $22M/$22M
    Butler - $19M/$19M
    Xavier - $18M/$18M
    Creighton - $18M/$18M

    So WSU would slot-in about middle of the pack in the NBE, and certainly in a stronger position than any of the 2013 newcomers. Creighton, as in most instances, has a higher opinion of themselves than they should. CU is the bottom rung in the NBE.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by _kai_ View Post
      Akin? I'd say literally. I'd gaurantee that a majority of those fees are paid with some sort of financial aid loan.
      Even worse, on somebody else's parents' credit card.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SHOCKvalue View Post
        It is akin to running a business on a credit card.
        I don't understand why you say this. The income will rise and fall with enrollment, but so will their budgets. I don't understand how using student fees is equivalent to taking on debt (especially terrible credit card debt). Learn me!
        Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

        Comment


        • #19
          Anybody know why the anomoly in 2009 with the contributions that are nearly double those of the previous years? Is that the CKA contribution that resulted in rennovations to the arena?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
            I don't understand why you say this. The income will rise and fall with enrollment, but so will their budgets. I don't understand how using student fees is equivalent to taking on debt (especially terrible credit card debt). Learn me!
            Just meant it was an irresponsible way to fund your AD. Not a direct analogy.

            It is a way to "keep up with the Joneses" via the path of least (available for recourse) resistance. It is not as if the funder can suddenly opt-out like a season ticket holder or booster can.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
              I don't understand why you say this. The income will rise and fall with enrollment, but so will their budgets. I don't understand how using student fees is equivalent to taking on debt (especially terrible credit card debt). Learn me!
              Originally posted by _kai_ View Post
              Akin? I'd say literally. I'd gaurantee that a majority of those fees are paid with some sort of financial aid loan.
              I think @_kai_:'s point is well taken. Given that increasing student debt levels/degree cost is perhaps the single biggest issue facing higher education in America, funding athletic programs primarily on the backs of students seems unwise and unsustainable. It may not be the school directly taking on debt, but it is the school tapping into a largely debt based pool of money.
              "Cotton scared me - I left him alone." - B4MSU (Bear Nation poster) in reference to heckling players

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Mad Hatter View Post
                I think @_kai_'s point is well taken. Given that increasing student debt levels/degree cost is perhaps the single biggest issue facing higher education in America, funding athletic programs primarily on the backs of students seems unwise and unsustainable. It may not be the school directly taking on debt, but it is the school tapping into a largely debt based pool of money.
                Absolutely this. As well as a possibility of relying on a revenue stream that would mirror enrollment numbers. Not that enrollment will go down, but if you're basing your operating off that stream, it better stay consistent. If they have a downturn on enrollment, revenue generated by those fees would also drop. Then they have the problem of either A) reducing expenditures, or B) increasing student fees to offset the lost student fees in smaller enrollment putting a heavier burden on the already over-taxed student.

                To me, it is nearly predatory in nature to do that. Because I would imagine the average student doesn't even look at the breakout of their tuition and fees. They probably see the $X per credit hour and simply think that's it. Similar to cable companies saying "Cable for $100/month* *plus fees & taxes" and it turns out you're paying $145 a month.
                ShockerHoops.net - A Wichita State Basketball Blog

                Comment


                • #23
                  This gets into an interesting discussion surrounding player stipends. I for one, as a student, would not want to pay student fees that subsidized a salary for a union-working college football player. I want my money going to my education, as I'm interested in ROI. As a student, it's easy to sell me "campus environment" and "college experience" that go along with how college athletics currently operate, including the scholarships for students and student athletes that contribute to that end. Not so much if I'm paying one of my peer's income check as part of my student fees.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by SHOCKvalue View Post
                    So WSU would slot-in about middle of the pack in the NBE, and certainly in a stronger position than any of the 2013 newcomers. Creighton, as in most instances, has a higher opinion of themselves than they should. CU is the bottom rung in the NBE.
                    sCUm is a sinking ship.

                    And the ship is just now getting its hole. I can't wait to watch the action.
                    Deuces Valley.
                    ... No really, deuces.
                    ________________
                    "Enjoy the ride."

                    - a smart man

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Funding an athletic department with heavy student fees is pretty much saying, "We don't want to go into debt, but we want to spend more money than we can generate. How about if we have our students go into debt and give that money to us instead of our borrowing it or going to the effort of raising it?" That's kind of the "Lew Perkins School of Athletic Administration".
                      The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
                      We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Looks like the deficit might have been due to the double dipping in fHCGS receiving pay for the year. Long term benefits though with increased baseball season tickets. I plan on buying a pair next year and I don't even live there.
                        Additionally, looks like you have to smartly spend money to make money. HCGM is a heck of an investment!

                        To Fever's point, it will be interesting to see how CU is negatively impacted with high rent at TD and the Quiet Center (whatever it's called now) and waning programs.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X