Joe Glenn to Retire ?

[jackmd]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Reports are saying Nielsen salary is $255,000.

And there you have it......

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Reports are saying Nielsen salary is $255,000.

Almost $60k more than Stig. Interesting.

[Jacked_Up]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Annual budget cuts are hitting WIU very hard, according to online news reports. Enrollment has dropped by 1,800 student in the past nine years. 50 staff members have taken early retirement, and 50 more positions are going to be cut. I'm assuming similar budget challenges are hitting Southern Illinois University.

[slosho]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Over/Under on weither this hire happens if WIU doesn't beat the jacks this year?

[West-River_Jack]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Almost $60k more than Stig. Interesting.

It appears that the USD administration, athletic department, and financial donors deserve congratulations. To up the ante and get the coach they wanted, at least it appears he was a top choice of theirs, and implement COA at the same time indicates an ability to manage and raise funds.

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Or an ability to raise the general activity fee on your students....

[slosho]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Or an ability to raise the general activity fee on your students....

Well played sir, Well played!

[propar80]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

Or an ability to raise the general activity fee on your students....

yes...the students at UsD should definitely be congratulated also...wether they like it or not. ��

Takes me back to when we moved up and got the finger pointed at us by the BOR..."you will not fund this D1 move with anything other than donated $$".

[Nidaros]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

yes...the students at UsD should definitely be congratulated also...wether they like it or not. ��

Takes me back to when we moved up and got the finger pointed at us by the BOR..."you will not fund this D1 move with anything other than donated $$".

You raise an interesting point here. What gives?

[Jacked_Up]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

USD certainly has mastered the art of maximizing publicity. First, leak the story in advance to a couple of influential reporters that other sports reporters will copy. Ride the speculation for a few days. Then announce that you're going to make a formal announcement in another day or two. By the time the news is officially announced, everyone knows the story, but the media keeps covering it. The formal announcement is really a photo opp that leads to interviews and more stories. The only real news in the last 24 hours has been Nielsen's salary, which is more than 100 grand what Glenn was making. About the only remaining news is which of Glenn's assistants get retained.

[jacksfan29]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

You raise an interesting point here. What gives?

did I see where it is being raised, over a few years to over $13 per credit hour?

[UWMandSDSU]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

did I see where it is being raised, over a few years to over $13 per credit hour?

http://volanteonline.com/2015/02/stu...ding-approval/

[el_presidente]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

It appears that the USD administration, athletic department, and financial donors deserve congratulations. To up the ante and get the coach they wanted, at least it appears he was a top choice of theirs, and implement COA at the same time indicates an ability to manage and raise funds.

yes...the students at UsD should definitely be congratulated also...wether they like it or not. ��

Takes me back to when we moved up and got the finger pointed at us by the BOR..."you will not fund this D1 move with anything other than donated $$".

You raise an interesting point here. What gives?

They are referring to former BOR Policy 5:15 on funding for athletics. When SDSU went D1 it was put in place so that the move had to be funded completely by donor dollars. When USD went D1 it was repealed. It was a bad policy and needed to be repealed but it opened the door for USD to fund their athletic program mostly from students.

Here is a link to when the BOR Policy 5:15 was amended back in the spring of 2010. If you look at the scratched out paragraphs on page 2 you can see what the policy used to say when SDSU went D1. The old point “2.” covers that General Activity Fee (GAF) may increase only by inflation or increase in enrollment credit hours. https://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/items...LBOR0310L4.pdf

Now, USD has increased their GAF by $13.50 a credit hour in three steps. The first step of $4.50 was this year and there will be equal steps the next two years generating $1.5 million. This comes from the $500,000 this year mentioned in this USD Volante article where they hired 5 new staff members with the money this year. http://volanteonline.com/2015/09/ath...-gaf-increase/

Finally, go to the USA Today annual publication on subsidies for athletic departments: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
You will find that USD had revenues of $14,879,307 and a subsidy of $10,697,633 for a subsidy percent of 71.9% compared to SDSU with $15,617,366 of revenue but only $8,506,913 of subsidy for a percent of 54.47%.

Now, that is before the new USD fee which will add $1.5 million of subsidy to USD’s budget over the next three years. Their revenues will be around 16.4 million with a subsidy of $12.2 million. This would make their budget larger than SDSU’s depending on our revenue growth which for us would be 100% from donors, ticket sales, advertising, etc.

So they could have a larger budget with fewer sports but 75% of it from students versus 55% at SDSU. USD says the $741,600 they need for full cost of attendance is coming all from donors and “Donors and corporate sponsors are not willing to fund that which they perceive as base operating responsibilities of the university.”
(Page 4 https://sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda/20..._W_BOR1215.pdf)

According to the previously cited USA Today study USD received a $1,467,844 in contributions last year. Will that grow to $2.1 million to cover the Full Cost of Attendance at USD over the next three years?

The answer remains to be seen but what I do know is the numbers are all public and we can all be watching.

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

They are referring to former BOR Policy 5:15 on funding for athletics. When SDSU went D1 it was put in place so that the move had to be funded completely by donor dollars. When USD went D1 it was repealed. It was a bad policy and needed to be repealed but it opened the door for USD to fund their athletic program mostly from students.

Here is a link to when the BOR Policy 5:15 was amended back in the spring of 2010. If you look at the scratched out paragraphs on page 2 you can see what the policy used to say when SDSU went D1. The old point “2.” covers that General Activity Fee (GAF) may increase only by inflation or increase in enrollment credit hours. https://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/items...LBOR0310L4.pdf

Now, USD has increased their GAF by $13.50 a credit hour in three steps. The first step of $4.50 was this year and there will be equal steps the next two years generating $1.5 million. This comes from the $500,000 this year mentioned in this USD Volante article where they hired 5 new staff members with the money this year. http://volanteonline.com/2015/09/ath...-gaf-increase/

Finally, go to the USA Today annual publication on subsidies for athletic departments: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
You will find that USD had revenues of $14,879,307 and a subsidy of $10,697,633 for a subsidy percent of 71.9% compared to SDSU with $15,617,366 of revenue but only $8,506,913 of subsidy for a percent of 54.47%.

Now, that is before the new USD fee which will add $1.5 million of subsidy to USD’s budget over the next three years. Their revenues will be around 16.4 million with a subsidy of $12.2 million. This would make their budget larger than SDSU’s depending on our revenue growth which for us would be 100% from donors, ticket sales, advertising, etc.

So they could have a larger budget with fewer sports but 75% of it from students versus 55% at SDSU. USD says the $741,600 they need for full cost of attendance is coming all from donors and “Donors and corporate sponsors are not willing to fund that which they perceive as base operating responsibilities of the university.”
(Page 4 https://sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda/20..._W_BOR1215.pdf)

According to the previously cited USA Today study USD received a $1,467,844 in contributions last year. Will that grow to $2.1 million to cover the Full Cost of Attendance at USD over the next three years?

The answer remains to be seen but what I do know is the numbers are all public and we can all be watching.

Great info, as always.

I just laugh at the old bait and switch of, "our donors won't fund operating expenses so we need a 1.5 million subsidy to our base budget in order to keep operating, but we'll have the funds to offer full COA and up our FB coach's salary by 100k."

I hope their students realize where there money is really going.

[jack power]

Re: Joe Glenn to Retire ?

They are referring to former BOR Policy 5:15 on funding for athletics. When SDSU went D1 it was put in place so that the move had to be funded completely by donor dollars. When USD went D1 it was repealed. It was a bad policy and needed to be repealed but it opened the door for USD to fund their athletic program mostly from students.

Here is a link to when the BOR Policy 5:15 was amended back in the spring of 2010. If you look at the scratched out paragraphs on page 2 you can see what the policy used to say when SDSU went D1. The old point “2.” covers that General Activity Fee (GAF) may increase only by inflation or increase in enrollment credit hours. https://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/items...LBOR0310L4.pdf

Now, USD has increased their GAF by $13.50 a credit hour in three steps. The first step of $4.50 was this year and there will be equal steps the next two years generating $1.5 million. This comes from the $500,000 this year mentioned in this USD Volante article where they hired 5 new staff members with the money this year. http://volanteonline.com/2015/09/ath...-gaf-increase/

Finally, go to the USA Today annual publication on subsidies for athletic departments: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
You will find that USD had revenues of $14,879,307 and a subsidy of $10,697,633 for a subsidy percent of 71.9% compared to SDSU with $15,617,366 of revenue but only $8,506,913 of subsidy for a percent of 54.47%.

Now, that is before the new USD fee which will add $1.5 million of subsidy to USD’s budget over the next three years. Their revenues will be around 16.4 million with a subsidy of $12.2 million. This would make their budget larger than SDSU’s depending on our revenue growth which for us would be 100% from donors, ticket sales, advertising, etc.

So they could have a larger budget with fewer sports but 75% of it from students versus 55% at SDSU. USD says the $741,600 they need for full cost of attendance is coming all from donors and “Donors and corporate sponsors are not willing to fund that which they perceive as base operating responsibilities of the university.”
(Page 4 https://sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda/20..._W_BOR1215.pdf)

According to the previously cited USA Today study USD received a $1,467,844 in contributions last year. Will that grow to $2.1 million to cover the Full Cost of Attendance at USD over the next three years?

The answer remains to be seen but what I do know is the numbers are all public and we can all be watching.

Translation: USD athletics built like a house of cards.