NCAA Financial Data

[el_presidente]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

One thing I noticed was the student fee numbers didn't look right at USD. After doing some research though this report is only through 2017 and the 2018 report will be quite different when the USA Today data comes out next year. USD was originally going to increase their General Activity Fee (GAF) $13.50 a credit hour in three steps of $4.50 a year starting back in 2015. (http://volanteonline.com/2015/09/ath...-gaf-increase/).

However, with the couple years of tuition freezes funded by the legislature, I think they only did phase one in 2015 which would account for the $.5 million jump from $1.4 to $1.9 million. The rest of it came this last fiscal year FY18 and the linked USA today report is always one year behind when they get the data collected and reported

If you look at the athletic projections given to the Board of Regents in June of 2017 (1 year ago) but projecting through FY2019 and go to page 3 you will see that USD's student fees to athletics was projected to go up 82% this year. Those numbers won't be reflected until next years USA today report. https://www.sdbor.edu/the-board/agen..._H_BOR0617.pdf Page 3, General activity fee row, 82.3% between FY17 and FY18.

The other part I like about the BOR report above is that it shows projected expenses by sport. Between that Board of Regents report and the USA today report there is a lot of data that could be broken into segments and posts

[UWMandSDSU]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

And guaranteed not 1 story about the discrepancy will be in any of the state’s largest news outlets.

Zim wrote about it (not sure if I got the correct weblink).

*I can't get the link to work for me today.


Try the Facebook posting.
https://www.facebook.com/argusleader...26304897430662

[propar80]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

Zim wrote about it (not sure if I got the correct weblink).

*I can't get the link to work for me today.


Try the Facebook posting.
https://www.facebook.com/argusleader...26304897430662

Good reporting Zim...I stand corrected!

Hoping for an editorial piece from Stu with some reporting/Opinions and maybe some quotes from Herbster or the new UsD President on why their students are footing so much of the bill for athletics compared to their local peers.

Taxpayers would like to know.

[thumper_76]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

This is a good breakdown by NovaBison on AGS. Interesting to see.

]If you subtract the allocated portions of the revenue (student fees and school funding), since the remaining funds are what the athletic department generates itself, you get a different look... here is that Top 10:

1 Montana $19,739,927
2 NDSU $19,387,274
3 UND $15,093,410
4 SDSU $14,063,297
5 W&M $12,743,126
6 Montana State $11,734,187
7 Idaho $10,485,963
8 UNI $10,212,620
9 Missouri St $9,853,013
10 New Hampshire $9,821,259

I also compared these non allocated revenues to the rest of the G5, and Montana and NDSU have larger "non allocated" revenues than all the teams in the MAC, CUSA, and everyone in the Sun Belt (except Arkansas State who generated $26.8M. Largest non allocated revenue team in the MAC was Western Michigan at $13.6M, and the largest non allocated revenue team in CUSA was Southern Miss at $15.2M. Also, the #2 non allocated Sun Belt team was UL Lafayette at $15.5M. For the most part the MWC and AAC teams have larger non allocated revenues except for a few outliers.

So the argument for moving to the FBS to get additional revenue appears to not holdup too well if we are talking about CUSA, MAC or Sunbelt.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BTownJack]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

Zim wrote about it (not sure if I got the correct weblink).

*I can't get the link to work for me today.


Try the Facebook posting.
https://www.facebook.com/argusleader...26304897430662

It's an article but more like a regurgitation of the numbers in the USA Today article.

[Nidaros]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

It's an article but more like a regurgitation of the numbers in the USA Today article.

This what I thought too, after reading the great Zimmer, who is on a hard earned vacation by the way.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

The question that needs to be asked about the USD numbers is the fact that 62% of their income comes from "allocated sources". Allocated sources include student fees (which were $1.6 million for USD and $2.4 for us), but the rest of the "62%' is from institutional funds or state funds. USD had $11+ million in allocated funds (but only 1.6 million from student fees, while SDSU had $8+ million in allocated funds (which included our higher $2.4 million student fees). So does that mean USD's administration is using state funds to subsidize the athletic program? I don't know, but I would sure like to see where those funds come from for the Yotes.

[CondeJack]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

The question that needs to be asked about the USD numbers is the fact that 62% of their income comes from "allocated sources". Allocated sources include student fees (which were $1.6 million for USD and $2.4 for us), but the rest of the "62%' is from institutional funds or state funds. USD had $11+ million in allocated funds (but only 1.6 million from student fees, while SDSU had $8+ million in allocated funds (which included our higher $2.4 million student fees). So does that mean USD's administration is using state funds to subsidize the athletic program? I don't know, but I would sure like to see where those funds come from for the Yotes.

Post #18 of this thread says that the Argus should do an article on why the USD students should have to bear the burden of the athletics budget, but now that it is apparent that our students pay a greater share than USD, now the Argus should look into “allocated sources” spending at USD? LOL. What happened to the article about the students having to pay so much? What changed?? Why should SDSU students have such high fees?

[Mr_Tibbs]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

The student fees discrepancy is a product of SDSU enrolling approximately 10,500 Full time equivalent students, while USD enrolls about 6,700 FTE students. Not only about are there about 2000 more total students at SDSU, a larger share of our students are full time equivalent, meaning that they are taking at least 15 credits in a semester, therefore paying more in fees.

After looking at both schools website, USD general activity fee is 53.75 per credit. At SDSU, it's 43.75 per credit. I can't see exactly how each fee is broken down into what is going to athletics vs other services on campus, but Usd students are paying more per credit hour in fees than SDSU students, and I'd be surprised if the rate going to athletics isn't higher as well.

The Argus fee article misrepresents the per capita impact on each student. We have the larger university, and it would make sense that our fee total is higher.

[Mr_Tibbs]

Re: NCAA Financial Data

Further explanation, USD has 6100 degree seeking (probably at normal credit load) undergraduates as of fall 2017. Sdsu has 9700 degree seeking undergraduates as of fall 2017. 3600 more full time students paying fees will have a large impact on our total number.

Dividing it out, each degree seeking undergrad at USD student is paying 262 dollars in fees to athletics over a given year. Each degree seeking undergrad at SDSU is paying 247 dollars in athletic fees per year. This calculation doesn't include graduate students, who normally are taking 3-9 credits per semester and contribute far less to the budget than undergrads who are taking twice the class load. This also doesn't include non-degree seeking students, but it does include online/off campus/part time degree seeking students, of which neither SDSU or USD have a large population.