Self funded AD - why and who are the others?

[pu1985]

sorry if this has already been threaded but...we hear bragging constantly by the AD that they are one of only 5-6 self funded athletic departments in the country.
So:
1) why is this a source of pride?
2) who are the 5-6 others that self fund?
3) do they suck as much as we currently do?
4) aren't we well past time to toss that model and do what every other BT team is doing - especially with that $25mill check from the BTN every year

 

[Boiler8285]

sorry if this has already been threaded but...we hear bragging constantly by the AD that they are one of only 5-6 self funded athletic departments in the country.
So:
1) why is this a source of pride?
2) who are the 5-6 others that self fund?
3) do they suck as much as we currently do?
4) aren't we well past time to toss that model and do what every other BT team is doing - especially with that $25mill check from the BTN every year

Nothing else to brag about. Would be even better if you took the BTN money and stopped playing all sports.

 

[AJ Hidell]

Iowa has been self-funded for many years now.

 

[njm8845]

The goal should be to win. If we do so being cost efficient, then that's great. Sometimes I get the impression that Burke's goal is to be self funded, and if we happen to win, that's a bonus.

But you play to win the game!

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Texas
Oklahoma
LSU
Penn State
Ohio State
Nebraska
Purdue

That's it for 2014.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Texas
Oklahoma
LSU
Penn State
Ohio State
Nebraska
Purdue

That's it for 2014.

And we have to be self-funded - I believe - according to our bylaws.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Iowa has been self-funded for many years now.

Double check your math.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Double check your math.

To clarify, self funded means your AD receives $0 subsidy from the academic side of the school AND you operate in the black.

 

[SIBoiler2]

And we have to be self-funded - I believe - according to our bylaws.

We both know that bylaws mean nothing in a political world. Hell I live in IL and our state is required to have a balanced budget by the state's constitution. You see how that is working. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your statement. I don't really believe being self-funded or not is having any effect on our FB situation.

 

[lbodel]

sorry if this has already been threaded but...we hear bragging constantly by the AD that they are one of only 5-6 self funded athletic departments in the country.
So:
1) why is this a source of pride?
2) who are the 5-6 others that self fund?
3) do they suck as much as we currently do?
4) aren't we well past time to toss that model and do what every other BT team is doing - especially with that $25mill check from the BTN every year

This talking point...is basically just that - a talking point.

I've gone over multiple examples, but it's a matter of accounting. For example, a school in the Big Ten uses their university parking services to collect football parking gameday fees. This school then transfers the revenue to the athletic department. Thus, that school is not "self-funded". Purdue's AD does the parking themselves, keeps the revenue and does not have to transfer it. Thus, Purdue is "self-funded". There's literally no advantage one way or another that school A has over Purdue - but on the books, Purdue can say "we're self-funded!"....

 

[pu1985]

This talking point...is basically just that - a talking point.

I've gone over multiple examples, but it's a matter of accounting. For example, a school in the Big Ten uses their university parking services to collect football parking gameday fees. This school then transfers the revenue to the athletic department. Thus, that school is not "self-funded". Purdue's AD does the parking themselves, keeps the revenue and does not have to transfer it. Thus, Purdue is "self-funded". There's literally no advantage one way or another that school A has over Purdue - but on the books, Purdue can say "we're self-funded!"....

Gotcha - thanks for the info gents. This is one topic I never really looked into.

 

[ijustkrushalot]

...random Illini fan passing through...

as noted above there's really no uniform accounting on any of this. Pretty much all B1G schools are "self-funded" in the sense that they are able to run their athletic department with the resources they pull in from ticket sales, tv revenue, merchandise, etc....

Illinois, like a few Big Ten schools, has a student fee (I think like $35/40 semester) that supposedly goes towards offsetting the student ticket discount, and I think was also justified to fund Title IX compliance.

The profit numbers you see are kinda crap, all collegiate athletic programs are non-profits (that's one of the scams they get to pull, buy a suite, get a tax deduction). If Illinois or Iowa or Purdue had $10,000,000 more in a year they'd spend it on something. Just because a school spends nearly everything that comes in during a given year doesn't mean they would lose money if they lost the student fee. At some schools the fee might be to ensure students get seats as part of a facility upgrade (Wisconsin students famously rejected chipping in to the Kohl Center and as a result they have one of the smallest student sections in the Big Ten.)

There's a really big difference between Big Ten schools that might get up to 5% of their budget from a student fee and MVC or MAC schools that basically have to gouge several hundred dollars from students each semester just to keep a football team on the field.

 

[AJ Hidell]

Double check your math.

Iowa has one of the most profitable athletic departments in the country and receives zero taxpayer dollars or any assistance from any entity outside of the university framework. I don't care what the technical definitions involved here are, Iowa has a "self-funding/sustaining" department by any reasonable, objective measure.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Iowa has one of the most profitable athletic departments in the country and receives zero taxpayer dollars or any assistance from any entity outside of the university framework. I don't care what the technical definitions involved here are, Iowa has a "self-funding/sustaining" department by any reasonable, objective measure.

IA receives a subsidy from the university. That's the critical distinction. USA Today publishes a list every year showing which schools make or lose money based on revenues and any subsidies. The list of schools that receive zero subsidy is simply the list of blue bloods I posted above plus Purdue. It's a classic "one of these schools doesn't belong" scenarios.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

This talking point...is basically just that - a talking point.

I've gone over multiple examples, but it's a matter of accounting. For example, a school in the Big Ten uses their university parking services to collect football parking gameday fees. This school then transfers the revenue to the athletic department. Thus, that school is not "self-funded". Purdue's AD does the parking themselves, keeps the revenue and does not have to transfer it. Thus, Purdue is "self-funded". There's literally no advantage one way or another that school A has over Purdue - but on the books, Purdue can say "we're self-funded!"....

There are examples like you posted. But there are plenty of schools who have required a subsidy beyond a services rendered agreement to cover operating loss.

 

[lbodel]

There are examples like you posted. But there are plenty of schools who have required a subsidy beyond a services rendered agreement to cover operating loss.

YES there are schools that get a big ole subsidy. It's not really a Big Ten thing though.

But again, it's not simply black and white. Purdue has a bare bones athletic department - it offers the fewest amount of sports. If an athletic department is receiving $2 million from the university - but offers 6 more sports than Purdue, is that some crazy advantage? 6 athletic programs certainly cost more than $2 million.

So again, it's a great talking point. But unless you compare line items for this school vs. Purdue, spewing stats like that is simply a handy talking point that is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[AJ Hidell]

IA receives a subsidy from the university. That's the critical distinction. USA Today publishes a list every year showing which schools make or lose money based on revenues and any subsidies. The list of schools that receive zero subsidy is simply the list of blue bloods I posted above plus Purdue. It's a classic "one of these schools doesn't belong" scenarios.

I don't even understand the point of the distinction that you're trying to make. The athletic department is a part of the university. It should be intermingled with shared funding streams. What you are advocating is some kind of quasi-corporate, professional sports franchise model where the AD is a separate entity entirely independent from the school.

 

[njm8845]

Well if you consider "shared funding streams", wouldn't any additional money that Iowa gives its athletic department be additional "profit"?

I agree that this is not an effective metric on which to judge an AD, due to all the difficulties in comparing different programs.

 

[AJ Hidell]

Well if you consider "shared funding streams", wouldn't any additional money that Iowa gives its athletic department be additional "profit"?

I agree that this is not an effective metric on which to judge an AD, due to all the difficulties in comparing different programs.

How does a university "give itself" money?

Since we are talking primarily of large, state-run universities, the relevant metric should be how much public tax money is used to prop up otherwise cash deficient programs. The entire university should be considered as a whole unit. Iowa has a medical complex with endowments and profits that total nearly a billion dollars. As long as the money used to run the athletic department comes entirely from the university itself, who the F cares precisely what pocket or account that it comes out of?

It's like saying that you and your wife have separate checking accounts, so if she pays for dinner, you somehow aren't pulling your own weight in the marriage. It's a completely frivolous and pointless distinction.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

I don't even understand the point of the distinction that you're trying to make. The athletic department is a part of the university. It should be intermingled with shared funding streams. What you are advocating is some kind of quasi-corporate, professional sports franchise model where the AD is a separate entity entirely independent from the school.

The Purdue AD is a separate entity entirely from the school. That's the distinction in Purdue's. In the case of the big name schools on the list, I think they are quasi-corporate models.

I completely agree that much of this is accounting semantics. But there are distinctions to be made in terms of how ADs cover operating losses when/if they occur. SB Nation has a decent article laying out the different ways student fees, scholarship tuition cross charging, etc. are handled. Iowa is specifically mentioned as receiving one of the smaller subsidies.

 

[njm8845]

Iowa has one of the most profitable athletic departments in the country ....

I'm having trouble reconciling how on the one hand you can claim the above, then the next post say that the entire university should be considered one unit. If one shouldn't separate the AD from the university, then you can't claim that Iowa has a profitable AD.

I think we're all in agreement in that it doesn't really matter. But when people evaluate the value of an AD, it makes sense to create an arbitrary distinction between academics and the AD. And that's something I'm interested in, although I take all results with a grain of salt.

 

[Statey]

The Purdue AD is a separate entity entirely from the school. That's the distinction in Purdue's. In the case of the big name schools on the list, I think they are quasi-corporate models.

Where did you read this about Purdue's Athletic Dept being a separate legal entity from the University? That would be quite abnormal in today's college athletics landscape. Maybe you're right, but I'd never heard that, and I'd have to imagine that would put Purdue in a very small minority compared to how other universities and ADs are structured.

 

[rgarlitz]

Personally, I think being self-funded (in the sense of the athletic department not collecting student fees or university subsidies) IS a point of pride - especially in this era of skyrocketing costs of higher education and seemingly uncontrollable arms races in athletics facilities and coaches pay.

I don't think Purdue should ask students to subsidize the athletic department, regardless of winning and losing.

Students who want to support athletics financially are free to do so via purchasing tickets.

Just my $.02.

 

[banshee90]

Personally, I think being self-funded (in the sense of the athletic department not collecting student fees or university subsidies) IS a point of pride - especially in this era of skyrocketing costs of higher education and seemingly uncontrollable arms races in athletics facilities and coaches pay.

I don't think Purdue should ask students to subsidize the athletic department, regardless of winning and losing.

Students who want to support athletics financially are free to do so via purchasing tickets.

Just my $.02.

there are still plenty of stupid fees. I would have much rather paid an sports package fee than all the dumb fees france started to add. Have to make Purdue look healthy lets add a fee that goes to health and wellness. Have to make Purdue look good lets build a stupid building in one of the few open lots where people like to get physical activity, oh and let us siphon off 4 mill/year from AD to do it.

 

[pboiler18]

I don't understand the perception of this....or it being a big deal. Most ADs are self funded entities. Doesn't mean they are all turning a profit but the system is designed that way to insulate their potential failure from the school which has a much less likely rate of failure.

Most ADs are set up this way also because of the "football/basketball school" perception....these schools want the AD to be seen as a completely separate entity and not sponsored by the school...even if the name is shared.

I would like to see the university more willing to step up and give $$$ to the major programs for improvements....but as long as Purdue the school isn't DRAINING money from the AD (which it seems they are no longer doing) then that should be the extent of the relationship....outside of a few million here or there for like a coach buyout.... IMO

 

[BoilerBulldog]

I don't understand the perception of this....or it being a big deal. Most ADs are self funded entities. Doesn't mean they are all turning a profit but the system is designed that way to insulate their potential failure from the school which has a much less likely rate of failure.

Most ADs are set up this way also because of the "football/basketball school" perception....these schools want the AD to be seen as a completely separate entity and not sponsored by the school...even if the name is shared.

I would like to see the university more willing to step up and give $$$ to the major programs for improvements....but as long as Purdue the school isn't DRAINING money from the AD (which it seems they are no longer doing) then that should be the extent of the relationship....outside of a few million here or there for like a coach buyout.... IMO

I don't disagree with your points, but that's never happened in the past here and I doubt Mitch is going to be the person to change it. The buyout will have to be funded by big dollar earmarked JPC donations, the same way Hope's was.