Athletic Revenue

We were 92nd.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/?fullsite=true

Ranking those top 92 teams by subsidy percentage, we’re 14th at 69.97%

Amazing what TV and BCS money can do for the %subsidy. [font=verdana]The eventual separation is already apparent.[/font]

clt finds this interesting. Our facilities are certainly not 92nd best.

It will be interesting to see how that changes as the full impact of football rolls in (CUSA TV contract, expanded stadium etc.).

I’m no lawyer but sounds like something that could be used in a lawsuit if the P5 ever decide to split off.

We’ll at least we’re not at 90%+ subsidy like last year.

Looked like ECU spent close to 1,00,000 more than they took in… where does that dough come from?

[quote=“BleEDgreen49er, post:8, topic:28852”]Looked like ECU spent close to 1,00,000 more than they took in… where does that dough come from?[/quote]For them, it was probably because they had to pay an entry fee into the AAC. They can defer some of their tv contract money to pay that over time most likely.

Averaging close to 50,000 for football is a start.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.[/quote]

We rely far too much on student fees but that is due to a systematic failure of our athletic department to build a broader donor base and connect with a growing alumni pool.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.[/quote]

We rely far too much on student fees but that is due to a systematic failure of our athletic department to build a broader donor base and connect with a growing alumni pool.[/quote]

I think most would agree that Old Dominion has the athletic department most similar to ours. I believe they are slightly smaller than Charlotte but have a higher % of subsidy. Are they a systematic failure too?

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.[/quote]
Okay, if you prefer the data that way, of those top 92 teams, 78 (or 84.78%) have a lower subsidy percentage than we do. I don’t have per-student data, but I think we’d all like to be in the position of having 69.97% of our jobs done for us, with no effort required.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.[/quote]
Okay, if you prefer the data that way, of those top 92 teams, 78 (or 84.78%) have a lower subsidy percentage than we do. I don’t have per-student data, but I think we’d all like to be in the position of having 69.97% of our jobs done for us, with no effort required.[/quote]

You are doing it backwards. Count the schools from 93+ that have a lower subsidy % than us. If everything else is equal (number of students, etc) a school with higher revenues should always have a lower % subsidy.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.[/quote]

We rely far too much on student fees but that is due to a systematic failure of our athletic department to build a broader donor base and connect with a growing alumni pool.[/quote]

I think most would agree that Old Dominion has the athletic department most similar to ours. I believe they are slightly smaller than Charlotte but have a higher % of subsidy. Are they a systematic failure too?[/quote]

I really don’t give a rats ass what ODU does or has done. Our foundation has basically not grown the past 15-20 despite the fact our school has almost double in size and the alum base is growing at a amazing rate. We have yet to capitalize on that. Instead we depend on a few large donors and a growing student base for fee revenue.

NWA, what is the root cause of the lack of growth you think? I have given more every year as I have gotten older. I just don’t get it myself. The school grows in size and reputation, why aren’t more people supporting? Economy? Lack of marketing? A conspiracy by the folks in the triangle?? Do they need to change the font and type size in the alumni magazine??? Just don’t get it.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.[/quote]

We rely far too much on student fees but that is due to a systematic failure of our athletic department to build a broader donor base and connect with a growing alumni pool.[/quote]

I think most would agree that Old Dominion has the athletic department most similar to ours. I believe they are slightly smaller than Charlotte but have a higher % of subsidy. Are they a systematic failure too?[/quote]

I really don’t give a rats ass what ODU does or has done. Our foundation has basically not grown the past 15-20 despite the fact our school has almost double in size and the alum base is growing at a amazing rate. We have yet to capitalize on that. Instead we depend on a few large donors and a growing student base for fee revenue.[/quote]

I don’t really give two shits either about what ODU does but this thread is about comparing us to other athletic programs and the basis of the criticism is off.

Athletic Department should be on the hot seat, but they aren’t because no one cares.[/quote]

Not really. The reality is that if you are ranking 92 teams based on subsidy %, the 92nd team should have the highest % of subsidy. If you want to disparage the AD then find teams ranked higher than 92 that have a lower subsidy %. An even better statistic would look at subsidies on a per student basis versus the overall budget.[/quote]

We rely far too much on student fees but that is due to a systematic failure of our athletic department to build a broader donor base and connect with a growing alumni pool.[/quote]

I think most would agree that Old Dominion has the athletic department most similar to ours. I believe they are slightly smaller than Charlotte but have a higher % of subsidy. Are they a systematic failure too?[/quote]

I really don’t give a rats ass what ODU does or has done. Our foundation has basically not grown the past 15-20 despite the fact our school has almost double in size and the alum base is growing at a amazing rate. We have yet to capitalize on that. Instead we depend on a few large donors and a growing student base for fee revenue.[/quote]

Agree 100% NWA.