• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

The truth about funding athletics

tornado

tornado

New member
not that we needed to put a dagger into the haggard old argument that athletics pays it's own bills....as we have heard the ISU folks say so many times..
that their athletics programs and department are self-sufficient and don't cost the taxpayers anything..

Anyway - I ran across this searchable database...and checked ISU...
here's the truth...

Their college athletics is funded by
-$7.2 million in student fees (what the kids pay in tuition+extras) - which accounts for 50% of their athletic budget!
-"direct institutional support" - meaning money direct from the school that comes from taxpayers - is $2.2 million more, another 15% of what floats their sports
-ticket sales and donor contributions account for LESS THAN 20% of their costs!! (contrary to what they have claimed that it covers MOST of their costs!)

I checked virtually all the nearby state schools and except for the BCS guys, all the rest of the state schools fund 50-75% of their athletics budget
via money that comes from taxpayer revenue one way or another, and less than 25% that comes from ticket sales and funds generated by the sports!!

so what do the ISU people have to say??
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm
 
Even if people rationalize that the student "fees" aren't really directly out of the taxpayers' pockets, indirectly they are. By Illinois taxpayers paying the bulk of the tuition costs for every one of the 20,000 ISU students, as is the case at all state schools, it allows the university a huge population of subsidized students to nail with the fees they need to run the athletic department and the facilities.
 
T your findings should come to no surprise because this has been the case for decades. Only a few college programs can claim that their programs are profitable especially if you have a football program. I would guess that ISU's basketball team if you look at numbers is probably at break even but the rest of the sport programs take in public funds to operate. I would also guess that BU sports program overall without the basketball team would have a hard time being funded. The difference is that BU sports program is not taking anything away from the state coffers.

Schools will have to chose eventually between which programs to keep funding and Title IX make a bit harder to keep a football program alive especially when it is a drain on your budget. BU made the decision decades ago and a smart one in not to sacrifice the other sports for a program that would take resources beyond our limits to compete at the highest level. I believe if you cannot see yourself as a top team in your conference, why bother?
 
I am countering the oft claimed statement that certain state schools' athletics department is self-funded, or that their revenue generated pays all the expenses,
and that taxpayers never actually foot the bills for the operating expenses, nor expansion, projects, recruiting, etc...
I have to laugh every time I still see someone make those claims....and yet some still do despite the evidence to the contrary.
 
I just had to mention this horrific waste of taxpayer money...

Iowa State had just made an offer to hire an assistant for Greg McDermott named Nick Nurse...
then, 4 days later, before any agreement was reached....McDermott leaves, and Iowa State then rescinds the offer and no agreement ever got signed.....

then..... the new coach Fred Hoiberg does not want to hire Nurse as an assistant so they decide not to hire him, but nonetheless...Iowa State buys him out for $175,000,
even though he was offered $130,000 per year and never signed a contract!

In effect, Nurse works a total of zero days and actually never even officially agreed to the terms......yet still earns almost $175,000 ...

"..the department agreed to the payment (of $175,000) despite Nurse having only verbally agreed to join McDermott's staff" and having never actually even working a single day!!!
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...tball-Cyclones-paying-departed-assistant-175K

I want a job like this........!
 
tornado said:
I just had to mention this horrific waste of taxpayer money...

"..the department agreed to the payment (of $175,000) despite Nurse having only verbally agreed to join McDermott's staff" and having never actually even working a single day!!!
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...tball-Cyclones-paying-departed-assistant-175K

I want a job like this........!
Click to expand...

Cheaper than the impending lawsuit, I'm sure. But, I agree, the whole Iowa State coaching situation was a mess from the very beginning...... and it appeared to be the AD's fault by not firing McD like he should have and allowing the situation to persist in a "lame duck" state. The people of Iowa should demand that this $175,000 come out of either the AD's salary or the President's salary since, in the end, this whole mess was their fault.
 
tornado said:
it is only time 'til they find a way to tax the very air you breathe...plus they need more dough to file lawsuits against other states...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html
http://www.wfaa.com/news/Lawmaker-t...-type-immigration-law-for-Texas-96700454.html
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that they will ask for more taxes to help correct their mess instead of reducing their run away expenditures. In SF the pensions that city workers get will bankrupt this city if it continues as is. A very rich person though has stepped up and funded a petition drive in order to end this welfare practice as is, to be voted on in the next election. It will take the people getting off their butts and demanding the changes that can bring in financial restraints. I'm a fan of Regean when he said ,"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
 
Yup ..some people think when a man knocks on his door and says
"I am from the government and I am here to help"..
that their problems are solved......

Instead, I believe when someone knocks on my door and says...
"I am from the government and I am here to help"..
..that my problems are only going to get far worse and I would ask the guy to get lost...
 
Cut military budgets, tax marijuana, outlaw health insurance outside of disaster coverage, promote HSA's, recreate zoning laws to promote small business, tax internet sales, rabble rabble rabble, etc. etc.
 
BU students pay $274 per semester for Activities and Health Fees. With the majority getting some form of Federal or State financial aid to offset the cost of attending BU, are you saying that part of those student fees aren't used in Athletics?

If so, would that also mean that the State in part subsidizes Bradley athletics as well?

I find it odd that none of the private schools (Bradley, Creighton, Duke, Notre Dame, USC) were listed when I know students receive funding from State and Federal sources to attend those schools.

Surely the privates are not on the honors system, and they don't use student fees to help fund athletics? I'm sure they are just less forthcoming about how they allocate fees.

I can see on ISU's site where they allocate funds for athletics from student fee's, BU's site is very vague on how fees are distributed.
 
NSBF said:
..
If so, would that also mean that the State in part subsidizes Bradley athletics as well?..
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this...

if allowed to use this logic, then you could also say that if I receive Social Security, and go see the movie Shrek III,
then the movie theater is being subsidized by the federal government, and BWW too since we went there to eat...
because that's where (the government) some of my money comes from...

In the end, everyone on the planet gets some money that in part came from the US govt.

Instead -- to qualify in my judgment the $$ would need to go direct to BU from Uncle Sam, and not go to the student from the govt.
Likewise people sometimes pay me with $$ they get from the feds - so I guess I am government subsidized, too?
 
Agree to disagree! Money from the state is money from the state. Can't twist it to use for your own purposes, then use it against another institution.

ISU just seems to outline where they're money goes toward Athletics, and privates like BU don't.

I'm sure we could ask BU how much from student fees goes toward athletics and get an answer, or maybe not.

If they wanted everyone to know there would be more transparency.
 
NSBF said:
Agree to disagree! Money from the state is money from the state. Can't twist it to use for your own purposes, then use it against another institution.
..
Click to expand...

sure that's exactly what we're talking about...
there are no state dollars nor federal dollars that go to support Bradley -- only private funds..
If the state gives someone a scholarship then the recipient can use it any way he wants - thus if he goes to Bradley the money isn't being put in Bradley's pockets by the government but by the student -- big difference.
The only people who twist are those saying otherwise...
don't you think if the government sent $$ to Bradley or Creighton, or Bob Jones University that they'd demand to have a few of those private schools' rules changed..
yet they don't because they know what the word "private" means.....



It never fails...those who are embarrassed by the horrid shape of public education at all levels, from elementary to high school to college never fail to try to stretch logic and sanity so far as to try to make the argument that the private schools also get taxpayer dollars...

I am terribly sorry that you have to face the fact, though, but the private schools DO not get taxpayer dollars...
they don't want to!! They want to stay free of the entanglements and political absurdity (like what's happening at U of I) and they want to be free to run their private schools the way they want to...(click my signature and read about it)
But as I said, it never fails, those who hate private schools still try like crazy to throw weak little stones and make up ridiculous arguments..
but the "private schools get state dollars" argument failed decades ago and it is not true.
 
More...

"Financial data recently released by the NCAA show that only 14 college
athletic departments turned an operating profit in 2009..
.. only seven of these programs..have generated an operating profit in each
of the past five years"

"When athletic programs can’t pay their own way, they rely on institutions for
help in the form of student fees, transfers from general fund allocations and
state appropriations.
NCAA data show that the median subsidies — or the dollars provided to
balance athletic budgets — rose 25 percent from 2008, to more than $10
million in 2009."
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/college-sports-spending-out-615830.html?cxtype=ynews_rss


so -- there are only 7 colleges that haven't at some time in the past 5 years (and most do it heavily every year)
taken student fees and taxpayer money to support, bolster, and balance their athletic budgets
and pay all their staff in the athletic departments...
AND this uses only cash accounting, and fails, as I have said and Da Coach has said, to take into account
that at state schools, the value of the scholarship is way more than the actual cost - and the taxpayers
have funded the rest -- and the facilities everyone uses from the rooms, to the gyms, to the bathrooms
are also all paid for by taxpayer funds...and that fails to get into the accounting..

Thus, let's put an end to the ridiculous talk, some by people from our own conference, of having fully self-funded athletic departments....
 
another article on how colleges fund their athletics secretly by hiding the costs in the general students' billing for tuition......

"Hidden student fees diverted to college athletics"

"nearly $1,000 a year in (student) fees (go secretly) to the school's athletics department."
"Like most other schools in NCAA Division I, Radford relies on student fees to
help support ever-expanding athletics budgets. Many schools..do not itemize
where those fees go for those who pay the tuition bills
..The amounts going to athletics are soaring, and account for as much as 23
percent of the required annual bill for in-state students."
"Students were charged more than $795 million to support sports programs at
222 Division I public schools during the 2008-09 school year"
http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=149843&catid=3

...this story simply confirms what some already knew...even when schools like ISU claim that they do not use taxpayer funds or student fees for running or supporting the athletic department, they all do and those fees are hidden...


and this article was linked elsewhere on the board but it says likewise -- too much money is inappropriately taken from academics to run the sports for reasons of GREED!
http://education.newsweek.com/2010/09/22/the-case-against-college-athletic-recruiting.html
 
Last edited:
Here's a comment by the head of the NCAA that I find a little deceptive and interesting...

to me it sounds like he's using doublespeak and yet the press and ESPN seem to buy it and report it as fact...
BUT -- there's a real problem with what he's saying...

"NCAA president Mark Emmert: NCAA does not make 'tsunami of cash'"
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6047149&campaign=rss&source=NCAAHeadlines

NCAA president is crying foul over any suggestion that NCAA acts on the basis of money -- and get this...
he's trying to claim the NCAA does not have a bunch of money and kinda suggests they're not making money at all!!

He says this:
"...that's a perception Emmert plans to change. The NCAA does not have
a "tsunami of cash," he said Friday, despite the organization's new, 14-year,
$10.6 billion deal with CBS ..

"There's confusion about that ...

But Michigan, Emmert pointed out, was among just 14 out of more than 1,100
NCAA member schools who made money on athletics last year. "The rest
didn't," Emmert said.

People think the NCAA is a business group chasing money. "We hear that all
the time," he said. "All they care about is money. They shape everything
around money."


BUT -- here's where Emmert's words are phony and false...
he is using the line that since the NCAA member schools don't make money on their athletic programs, then that's the same as claiming the NCAA itself doesn't make money!

Baloney -- the NCAA makes so much money that they are rolling in it and have that guarantee of billions of dollars into the future with their TV contracts.

How come ESPN can't see through his phony answer -- that's like saying I don't make any money because the store owners where I shop haven't retired as millionaires!
How does the schools not making money translate into the NCAA not making money??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top