Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[Kolumbo]

A mean average for tuition seems fairly simple. Take total tuition and divide by total students.
Apply that value to the scholarship players.

How do you calculate total tuition. You have: In state students. Out of state students. Academic Scholarships. Athletic Scholarships. Grants. Cash payments. Loan payments. Full time. Part time. Room and board. Work study. Just figuring out the numerator and denominator requires a PhD in mathematics.

 

[upstater]

Yeah, this one really meandered. You seem to be reduced to tossing around red herrings.

In summary, I don't find the notion that academics are somehow victimized by athletics, particularly persuasive. Nor do I find it particularly persuasive that every president of any university participating athletics is somehow being extorted into doing it. A far less tortured explanation is that decision-makers at universities realize that athletics bring value to the university in excess of their cost.

As Occam postulated, the simplest answer is the most likely to be the correct one.

I didn't say they were victimized. I'm showing you why the tuition reimbursement is important because otherwise the departments are on the hook. It's not meandering at all. It is about the central point of the discussion, the one all this started with. Whether the tuition reimbursement is artificially inflated.

Athletics do bring value. They just don't bring anywhere near the many tens of millions of losses that some are paying, especially now when colleges are shutting down core academics.

I'm not sure what you're doing with Occam here, but I can tell you that many of these presidents think the whole college sports craziness is insane and nutty. Many of them aren't even from the USA and they just go with the flow to attend to the other 95% of their job. The AD makes so much money because it's their job to keep the heat off the president.

Frankly it's perplexing that this very common thing in American life (the short-termerism of CEOs and such) is somehow not credible to you. I've even given you examples in which some presidents have indeed done what they felt was right and proper for the future of the school. There are actual cases to look at; we don't even have to speculate here.

 

[upstater]

UConn provides the support. It isn’t like they are expecting the athletics to break even. They know what their numbers are and it is budgeted. It depends if they come under or over that number that matters.

The money UConn gets from the school in institutional support is part of the athletic dept budget. So, in essence, their books are balancerd.

I am sure they knew when they made an $80M budget that revenues would only make up about half. Benedict doesn’t make his budget expecting $80m in revenue to cover expenses. He knows there is gonna be a huge support. His goal is to not have to ask for more support every year, not expect zero support.

If you eliminate football, all the scholarships. It still leaves the school $20-$25m short and absolutely no ability to expand revenue dramatically.

Folks, football revenue is vastly underperforming. Basketball, women’s hoops, it’s about maxed out.

My only point here is that despite the huge billion+ budget, the money that's discussed when they talk about deficits and cutting is always under $100m. That's the fungible part. You can't look at the research budget which is all spoken for, the buildings, debt service on construction, state and federal regulations and administration, food & housing, etc., and compare it to college budgets or athletic budgets.

My main point is that both the AD and the academic side are running a deficit right now, and the two together must mean that something somewhere is being cut.

 

[upstater]

How do you calculate total tuition. You have: In state students. Out of state students. Academic Scholarships. Athletic Scholarships. Grants. Cash payments. Loan payments. Full time. Part time. Room and board. Work study. Just figuring out the numerator and denominator requires a PhD in mathematics.

Total expenditures to educate each student. That's the bottom line. They know that number, whatever it is. Since the tuition is subsidized by 3 things (more than 3, but the main ones are taxpayer subsidy, research grants, & endowment), we know that tuition is below the total expenditures per student.

So indeed, whatever number they choose, it's not the exact expenditure per student, which is always higher. They know the numbers.

 

[Kolumbo]

Total expenditures to educate each student. That's the bottom line. They know that number, whatever it is. Since the tuition is subsidized by 3 things (more than 3, but the main ones are taxpayer subsidy, research grants, & endowment), we know that tuition is below the total expenditures per student.

So indeed, whatever number they choose, it's not the exact expenditure per student, which is always higher. They know the numbers.

Not at all. Expenditures are the expense side, tuition is the revenue side. Completely different. And they don't even know the expenditure side that easily. One professor teaches multiple classes which include all kinds of students, fulltime, parttime, day, evening, on campus, sattelite campus. Grad students are teaching classes. TA's are teaching. It's extremely complicated.

 

[CL82]

I didn't say they were victimized. I'm showing you why the tuition reimbursement is important because otherwise the departments are on the hook. It's not meandering at all. It is about the central point of the discussion, the one all this started with. Whether the tuition reimbursement is artificially inflated.

Athletics do bring value. They just don't bring anywhere near the many tens of millions of losses that some are paying, especially now when colleges are shutting down core academics.

I'm not sure what you're doing with Occam here, but I can tell you that many of these presidents think the whole college sports craziness is insane and nutty. Many of them aren't even from the USA and they just go with the flow to attend to the other 95% of their job. The AD makes so much money because it's their job to keep the heat off the president.

Frankly it's perplexing that this very common thing in American life (the short-termerism of CEOs and such) is somehow not credible to you. I've even given you examples in which some presidents have indeed done what they felt was right and proper for the future of the school. There are actual cases to look at; we don't even have to speculate here.

Lol, you've listed an unsourced instance that you perceive to be undue influence upon a certain university president At best, that's opinion, not fact. Do you understand the difference?

I think you're moving the goalposts a bit. But I'm glad to see that you are willing to acknowledge that athletics bring value to universities. They do, considerable value value. How do we determine value? Well fair market values generally described as the agreed-upon cost by willing buyer and a willing seller, each being reasonably aware of the circumstances. If we apply that to college athletics, then we can accept that the cost of college athletics must be at fair market value. Again, and it's just unclear to me why this point continuously allude you, if there wasn't a perception of value by the administration, they would not do it. Unless you're going to go back to this notion that they are somehow bullied, badgered, or otherwise coerced.

Whether or not the tuition reimbursement is inflated, depends upon what the true cost of tuition would be. Let me go back to the example I've already discussed. If you have a student athlete, who would be eligible for need-based scholarships, is it appropriate to charge a full tuition then? In essence you're charging more because he's an athlete. Does that seem fair?

 

[UConnJim]

I already addressed everything in this discussion except the last part. I addressed them by mentioning all the other schools that are doing just as well as UConn without a sports brand. Heck, Vermont is now at well over 50% out of state and they pay exorbitant sums to go there, and their applications are through the roof. Since I already write that and you apparently don't agree, let's skip to the last part.

I was a Vermont resident at one point and kind of follow UVM. UVM has some issues and it is now 75% out of state students. Why? UVM gets one of the lowest state subsidies of any state university so they are dependent on out of state tuition to fund the school plus Vermont has a declining student population. UVM focuses their marketing efforts on out of state students so think of UVM as almost a private school.

Applications to UVM declined from 2015/2016 to 2020/2021 and had 2 years of application increases but declined by 7% last year, so I wouldn't say UVM's applications are through the roof.

The role of UVM in Vermont is constantly being debated in the state and it's role is not similar to UConn's in Connecticut.

 

[upstater]

I was a Vermont resident at one point and kind of follow UVM. UVM has some issues and it is now 75% out of state students. Why? UVM gets one of the lowest state subsidies of any state university so they are dependent on out of state tuition to fund the school plus Vermont has a declining student population. UVM focuses their marketing efforts on out of state students so think of UVM as almost a private school.

Applications to UVM declined from 2015/2016 to 2020/2021 and had 2 years of application increases but declined by 7% last year, so I wouldn't say UVM's applications are through the roof.

The role of UVM in Vermont is constantly being debated in the state and it's role is not similar to UConn's in Connecticut.

Someone just posted showing UVM is still one of the top application schools in the nation. A lot of applications for it still. I'd call that through the roof. All colleges have huge issues now and most of them are at least 50% out of state

 

[JohnFSilver]

My only point here is that despite the huge billion+ budget, the money that's discussed when they talk about deficits and cutting is always under $100m. That's the fungible part. You can't look at the research budget which is all spoken for, the buildings, debt service on construction, state and federal regulations and administration, food & housing, etc., and compare it to college budgets or athletic budgets.

My main point is that both the AD and the academic side are running a deficit right now, and the two together must mean that something somewhere is being cut.

The money is allocated for athletics.

This isn’t Dave Benedict falling $40m short of his budget. They have committed institutional support at the beginning of the fiscal year. He has to stay within those budget parameters.

 

[Forte]

Former Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson

 

[upstater]

Not at all. Expenditures are the expense side, tuition is the revenue side. Completely different. And they don't even know the expenditure side that easily. One professor teaches multiple classes which include all kinds of students, fulltime, parttime, day, evening, on campus, sattelite campus. Grad students are teaching classes. TA's are teaching. It's extremely complicated.

?? Expenditures far far exceed tuition revenue. Which necessarily means that the expenditures per student are higher than the tuition per student.

 

[upstater]

Lol, you've listed an unsourced instance that you perceive to be undue influence upon a certain university president At best, that's opinion, not fact. Do you understand the difference?

I think you're moving the goalposts a bit. But I'm glad to see that you are willing to acknowledge that athletics bring value to universities. They do, considerable value value. How do we determine value? Well fair market values generally described as the agreed-upon cost by willing buyer and a willing seller, each being reasonably aware of the circumstances. If we apply that to college athletics, then we can accept that the cost of college athletics must be at fair market value. Again, and it's just unclear to me why this point continuously allude you, if there wasn't a perception of value by the administration, they would not do it. Unless you're going to go back to this notion that they are somehow bullied, badgered, or otherwise coerced.

Whether or not the tuition reimbursement is inflated, depends upon what the true cost of tuition would be. Let me go back to the example I've already discussed. If you have a student athlete, who would be eligible for need-based scholarships, is it appropriate to charge a full tuition then? In essence you're charging more because he's an athlete. Does that seem fair?

Unsourced? Do you want links? I'll give them to you if you like but you can also look up Elsa Benitez and what happened to her at TAM when the AD essentially deposed her, or what happened to the UAB President when he shut down football. These aren't mysteries at all.

To answer your last question: yes it seems more than fair since the school will hold the lack of revenue against whatever department the student takes classes in. As a rule, state schools give very little money for need based scholarships so this isn't really in play as much as you think, UNLESS the school has a free tuition plan (which some states do) and that same state doesn't reimburse the school for the students who get free tuition (that's also a thing).

Let me just say, you don't know college presidents as well as you think you know them; you don't know what makes them tick. They are indeed political animals and they make a lot of wrong decisions.

 

[upstater]

The money is allocated for athletics.

This isn’t Dave Benedict falling $40m short of his budget. They have committed institutional support at the beginning of the fiscal year. He has to stay within those budget parameters.

Agreed. I never blamed Benedict here. All I said is that there are institutional pressures which can't continue into the future. Not when they are slashing things. If you had a surplus somewhere and a deficit elsewhere, you could paper things over. But when you have twin deficits, choices must be made.

 

[Forte]

Former Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson in video above doesn't seem eye to eye with what is happening. Potentially a view into why Fox is hesitant. He thinks the money seems high for its value.

"There's not a lot of people buying basketball only..... you dont really see a lot of people clamoring throwing around a lot of money for regular season basketball."

... "it's a bit of a commodity because there is so much out there"

"Let ESPN foot the bill."

"It's not technically NY DMA. But its close." ... There ya all go.

 

[CL82]

Unsourced? Do you want links?

If you actually post them, I'll look at them.

To answer your last question: yes it seems more than fair since the school will hold the lack of revenue against whatever department the student takes classes in. As a rule, state schools give very little money for need based scholarships so this isn't really in play as much as you think, UNLESS the school has a free tuition plan (which some states do) and that same state doesn't reimburse the school for the students who get free tuition (that's also a thing)

I think you're missing the point. It's inconsistent for the school to charge full freight for kid that would be otherwise heavily subsidized due to a need scholarship. Basically it is the academic side, taking advantage of the fact that the kid has an athletic scholarship to pump up its internal accounting. It seems more intellectually, honest to to look at what a particular student athlete would actually be charged, based upon his economic circumstances, and then make that the inter department charge back rather than arbitrarily charge him on discounted tuition, which very few people actually pay.

Let me just say, you don't know college presidents as well as you think you know them; you don't know what makes them tick. They are indeed political animals and they make a lot of wrong decisions.

Perhaps, or perhaps your view on this is so jaundiced you're unable to recognize that the reasonable decision to invest in college athletics that so many institutions make across the country isn't somehow victimizing the academic missions of universities and instead, in fact, enhances it by creating visibility and brand awareness for the universities.

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Former Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson in video above doesn't seem eye to eye with what is happening. Potentially a view into why Fox is hesitant. He thinks the money seems high for its value.

"There's not a lot of people buying basketball only..... you dont really see a lot of people clamoring throwing around a lot of money for regular season basketball."

... "it's a bit of a commodity because there is so much out there"

"Let ESPN foot the bill."

"It's not technically NY DMA. But its close." ... There ya all go.

Seems pretty stuck in his old school, linear tv bubble.

 

[NCHuskie919]

Seems pretty stuck in his old school, linear tv bubble.

Met a sales rep yesterday at work. Dude saw my UConn hat and we started chopping it up about CBB. Guy was born and raised in Barcelona, Real Madrid fan. Lived in Texas for awhile, now in Miami. We both mutually agreed CBB is the most exciting sport to watch. Huge amount of respect for UConn. Thought it was interesting a European born and raised LA Liga fan is that high on American Collegiate Basketball. T

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Met a sales rep yesterday at work. Dude saw my UConn hat and we started chopping it up about CBB. Guy was born and raised in Barcelona, Real Madrid fan. Lived in Texas for awhile, now in Miami. We both mutually agreed CBB is the most exciting sport to watch. Huge amount of respect for UConn. Thought it was interesting a European born and raised LA Liga fan is that high on American Collegiate Basketball. T

Global game and people want to watch any game anywhere.

 

[KryHavok]

Former Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson

I liked the comments that followed the video, especially by AdmiralSnackbar247 (whose avatar is Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars, ^_^):
"I'm certain the networks are downplaying the real value of basketball to get an artificially low price on the rights"...kinda feels like the recent Big East contract.
Back to the video at the 9:45 mark "I'm sure a ton of those folks at ESPN attended UConn"...okay, now this guy is just shooting from the hip. If that EVER mattered, then ESPN would've pushed UConn into a Px conference much earlier. The guy is merely a minion, and I just regard his words as Fox lobbying to keep UConn as an undervalued asset.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

Gonna disagree with you here.

As a new Michigan State dad (2 weeks since drop off) of an out of state student, I have never seen so much Green and White of everything on everyone, everywhere. From my short stay, I would rank the merchandising reasons as school pride, regional tradition, and then sports.

Isn't school pride also related to sports? I assume you didn't ask a bunch of people why they're wearing MSU gear, so your comments are really just opinion. I can't quite wrap my ahead around what "regional tradition" means in regard to merch.
I went to UConn because my oldest brother went there from 77-81. He would bring me to the men's soccer games and I was an avid fan of Husky Hoops on the B&W TV in my room. There was nowhere else I wanted to go. So even back then, the sports kicked off my love of and pride in UConn. I'm not suggesting sports is the end all for why people buy merch, but successful sports teams, like back-to-back natties, can really amplify the purchases.

 

[upstater]

If you actually post them, I'll look at them.



I think you're missing the point. It's inconsistent for the school to charge full freight for kid that would be otherwise heavily subsidized due to a need scholarship. Basically it is the academic side, taking advantage of the fact that the kid has an athletic scholarship to pump up its internal accounting. It seems more intellectually, honest to to look at what a particular student athlete would actually be charged, based upon his economic circumstances, and then make that the inter department charge back rather than arbitrarily charge him on discounted tuition, which very few people actually pay.


Perhaps, or perhaps your view on this is so jaundiced you're unable to recognize that the reasonable decision to invest in college athletics that so many institutions make across the country isn't somehow victimizing the academic missions of universities and instead, in fact, enhances it by creating visibility and brand awareness for the universities.

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way.

I just explained it to you how it really works and you somehow got the complete opposite viewpoint of what's happening.

1. State schools don't give scholarships. 95% of students are full payers.
2. If a student does receive such scholarships or tuition is defrayed by state programs, those numbers are held against the departments for enrolling a lot of non-full payers.
3. Tuition doesn't cover the true cost that a school expends on each student.

You evidently don't know the true costs.

I am off for now but will provide links to the Elsa Murano case at A&M and also the UAB situation with football later.

 

[BlueandOG]

Here are the 2023 numbers. 50 Most Applied to Colleges in 2023 I did say the UC system dominated.

I don't doubt that @bendm is right about the common app. Also, the Covid era changed the whole application process, from 5-6 schools to 12-15 schools. NEU is getting a boost from Co-op and perception that college needs to lead to employment.

The point is about sports. Do schools need sports to drive applications? In the absence of something else, maybe. But if you have that something else, whether great academics, a great campus, location like Boston, affordability, a fun granola vibe in a cool small city (UVM), you don't need football.

Psyched to see UConn is number 25 on the list, behind Duke and ahead of Notre Dame and Boston College!

 

[Forte]

I liked the comments that followed the video, especially by AdmiralSnackbar247 (whose avatar is Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars, ^_^):
"I'm certain the networks are downplaying the real value of basketball to get an artificially low price on the rights"...kinda feels like the recent Big East contract.
Back to the video at the 9:45 mark "I'm sure a ton of those folks at ESPN attended UConn"...okay, now this guy is just shooting from the hip. If that EVER mattered, then ESPN would've pushed UConn into a Px conference much earlier. The guy is merely a minion, and I just regard his words as Fox lobbying to keep UConn as an undervalued asset.

To be fair Thompson mentioned at the end he mentioned that we (FOX) use to have a lot of UCLA and USC alumn worked at in LA and really the only thing that mattered from that was the LA market.

 

[CL82]

1. State schools don't give scholarships. 95% of students are full payers.

95%, huh? Are you sure about that?

Here's another interesting statistic, 99% of the percentages you see listed on the Internet are made up

 

[CL82]

Tuition doesn't cover the true cost that a school expends on each student.

Fully aware of this, for public institutions. Those costs are subsidized by the state legislature, who intern are influenced by athletics. Thus, universities see the wisdom in supporting athletics, because it promotes goodwill with the state legislature who provide a significant percentage of the universities annual income.

Do you now see why it is in universities economic advantage to fund athletics. Seriously, this isn't hard stuff. You seem to have an attitude that every dollar spent on athletics would otherwise be spent on academics, and that's just wrong. If you eliminate athletics, I think it's very likely that the overall pie decreases significantly.