We jumped about 20% but that’s to be expected.
[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:1, topic:25515”]http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip
We jumped about 20% but that’s to be expected.[/quote]
How is that to be expected?
Old Dominion’s percentage didn’t go up. We aren’t full into the student fee. Sounds like to me the students are pushing more weight than ever, and they haven’t even reached their full payment amount.
Private donations should have kept up the pace with the rise in student fees.
What is the status of that capital campaign? Are we still just over a million when 1 million was donated day 1?
How should the capital campaign for an FCS till Dubois is dead and buried football program be going?
[quote=“ninerID, post:2, topic:25515”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:1, topic:25515”]http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip
We jumped about 20% but that’s to be expected.[/quote]
How is that to be expected?
Old Dominion’s percentage didn’t go up. We aren’t full into the student fee. Sounds like to me the students are pushing more weight than ever, and they haven’t even reached their full payment amount.
Private donations should have kept up the pace with the rise in student fees.
What is the status of that capital campaign? Are we still just over a million when 1 million was donated day 1?[/quote]
Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?
[quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial][size=14px]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/size][/font]
[quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial][size=14px]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/size][/font][/quote]
So if if I follow your math correctly, this means that our private donations saw a significant decrease from 2006 (without football) to 2010 (with football). I had a feeling that our foundation was not growing, but these numbers make it look like it is shrinking. Is this true?
[quote=“Mr. Bojangles, post:7, topic:25515”][quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial][size=14px]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/size][/font]
[font=arial][size=14px]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/size][/font][/quote]
So if if I follow your math correctly, this means that our private donations saw a significant decrease from 2006 (without football) to 2010 (with football). I had a feeling that our foundation was not growing, but these numbers make it look like it is shrinking. Is this true?[/quote]
short answer, our overall non-student fee dollars are decreasing.
Long answer, i don’t know what data is taken as 2010 and what is for 2006. For instance the NCAA data on graduation rates for 2011 was for the 2009-2010 season. I know we lost money leaving CUSA and the NCAA revenue generation that brought.
It would really suck if our increased student fee for football (which again hasn’t reached its full total) was simply to bring us back to 2006 levels.
[quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/font]
[font=arial]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/font]
[font=arial]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/font]
[font=arial]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/font]
[font=arial]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/font]
[font=arial]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/font][/quote]
[size=3]I’ll admit I’m not certain about this, but this doesn’t seem right to me. I think the % shown includes private donations (direct and indirect support) , fees, etc. (ie; everything except merchandise, media, ticket revenues, etc.). It makes perfect sense. Where would we get $12M (~every year) from if it didn’t include private donations and is separate from “[/size][font=arial][size=3]media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising”? This would also explain why the schools like UNC-CH have such a low %. They make tons from merchandise and media (80+ %).[/size] [/font]
[quote=“919R, post:9, topic:25515”][quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/font]
[font=arial]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/font]
[font=arial]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/font]
[font=arial]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/font]
[font=arial]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/font]
[font=arial]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/font][/quote]
I’ll admit I’m not certain about this, but this doesn’t seem right to me. I think the % shown includes private donations (direct and indirect support) , fees, etc. (ie; everything except merchandise, media, ticket revenues, etc.). It makes perfect sense. Where would we get $12M (~every year) from if it didn’t include private donations and is separate from “[font=arial]media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising”? This would also explain why the schools like UNC-CH have such a low %. They make tons from merchandise and media (80+ %).[/font][/quote]
by that argument, as a total subsidy, LSU, Nebraska, Texas receive ZERO donations?
[quote=“ninerID, post:10, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:9, topic:25515”][quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/font]
[font=arial]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/font]
[font=arial]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/font]
[font=arial]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/font]
[font=arial]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/font]
[font=arial]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/font][/quote]
I’ll admit I’m not certain about this, but this doesn’t seem right to me. I think the % shown includes private donations (direct and indirect support) , fees, etc. (ie; everything except merchandise, media, ticket revenues, etc.). It makes perfect sense. Where would we get $12M (~every year) from if it didn’t include private donations and is separate from “[font=arial]media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising”? This would also explain why the schools like UNC-CH have such a low %. They make tons from merchandise and media (80+ %).[/font][/quote]
by that argument, as a total subsidy, LSU, Nebraska, Texas receive ZERO donations?[/quote]
That plus UNC-CH’s student fees plus donations equals more than $8 million.
[quote=“ninerID, post:10, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:9, topic:25515”][quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/font]
[font=arial]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/font]
[font=arial]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/font]
[font=arial]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/font]
[font=arial]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/font]
[font=arial]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/font][/quote]
I’ll admit I’m not certain about this, but this doesn’t seem right to me. I think the % shown includes private donations (direct and indirect support) , fees, etc. (ie; everything except merchandise, media, ticket revenues, etc.). It makes perfect sense. Where would we get $12M (~every year) from if it didn’t include private donations and is separate from “[font=arial]media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising”? This would also explain why the schools like UNC-CH have such a low %. They make tons from merchandise and media (80+ %).[/font][/quote]
by that argument, as a total subsidy, LSU, Nebraska, Texas receive ZERO donations?
[/quote]
[font=arial]No, of course not. There has to be something different about how they are reporting their numbers. By the same to token, do you think they receive no “student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support” because it would have to mean that as well, right?[/font]
[quote=“49erAlumnus, post:11, topic:25515”][quote=“ninerID, post:10, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:9, topic:25515”][quote=“ninerID, post:5, topic:25515”][quote=“919R, post:4, topic:25515”]Are you mis-interpreting this or am I? I think the % shown includes (per the notes) not only student fees, but also private support (ie; booster donations, etc.). If this is the case, the main thing it does not include would be revenue from media deals, merchandising, etc. This makes sense as all the “bigger name” schools make a much higher % of their money from those things.
Right or wrong?[/quote]
[font=arial]Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support and direct state support; the percentage is the portion of revenue that comes from such funds.[/font]
[font=arial]It doesn’t say private support (boosters, donations). This is simply the money that the school (students) spends on athletics to cover the cost that private donations, media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising do not cover.[/font]
[font=arial]Good news is of the schools listed in the A10 we have the lowest subsidy. [/font]
[font=arial]Bad News is we increased 21% in the amount of subsidy.[/font]
[font=arial]UGLY News is that if our subsidy in 2006 was 50% at $8,820,324 that means total athletics funding was $17,640,648.[/font]
[font=arial]and our subsidy in 2010 was 71% at $12,473,452 that means total athletics funding was $17,568,242.[/font][/quote]
I’ll admit I’m not certain about this, but this doesn’t seem right to me. I think the % shown includes private donations (direct and indirect support) , fees, etc. (ie; everything except merchandise, media, ticket revenues, etc.). It makes perfect sense. Where would we get $12M (~every year) from if it didn’t include private donations and is separate from “[font=arial]media, NCAA revenues, ticket sales, merchandising”? This would also explain why the schools like UNC-CH have such a low %. They make tons from merchandise and media (80+ %).[/font][/quote]
by that argument, as a total subsidy, LSU, Nebraska, Texas receive ZERO donations?[/quote]
That plus UNC-CH’s student fees plus donations equals more than $8 million.
[/quote]
Maybe not, especially in regards to their student athletic fees (they are lower than ours). Also, I know I’ve read in the past that “capital project” donations are sometimes categorized differently. That might account for their numbers. ???