Re: Montana AD Talks FCS Finances
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:02 pm
I just read that George Dennison is retiring as um pres. in August. A bit off topic, but a change in administration can alter things down the road.
FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12287
Great Points above!kemajic wrote:O'Day works for a president that uses the FB program as a cash generator. While O'Day cites a balanced budget, it is under some special tricks from the president's accounting system, like:
1. Scholarships are booked to the AD at full price, including out-of-state; not incremental, when in fact, no other professors are hired or other investments made that are not covered by the AD, due to adding 63 student athletes.
2. All concession profits at the games go to the food service, not to the AD.
3. All profits from gear sales and logo licence go to the bookstore, not to the AD. Montana is in the top 60 universities in this dept.
4. With all this, the Montana FB averages a surplus; O'Day selected a year where he claims it's balanced. Any surplus is not mananged by the AD, it's managed by the admin., not returned to the AD or to the customers. Yet coaches have low salaries, non-cash generating facilities are substandard and the FB schedule is weak, designed for home game profitability, not fan interest.
I suspect many other presidents have similar tricks. But Montana averages 25,000 a game with high ticket prices (higher than many FBS programs); it's easy to see that most FCS programs produce a lot of red ink.
AZGrizFan wrote:Maybe no BSC program can make money at 10,000 average, but keep in mind all the east coast teams travel expenses are considerably less than us out West.kemajic wrote: If you read previous posts, I have indicated some ways in which Montana FB revenue is slickly diverted by the UM president's accounting. The AD gets nothing from concessions and logo/gear sales, has to pay the expansion capital off within 5 years, and is booked full cost, not incremental for scholarships. Also, a portion of the attendance is allocated to students at no/low cost and $60 is on the high side for an average. Also, the net balance sheet for the playoffs is negative; the NCAA controls the receipts to pay their bills. Everyone loves the playoffs, but they cost more than they make. The Montana FB program is a gold mine, but I doubt an FCS FB program can make money at 10,000 average attendance @ $15. Many draw much less; only two BSC programs draw an average above.
Lets make it simple for you, if you are paying out more than you are bring in, then some is wrong. I under stand that there is other factors. If the numbers are correct and Montana in breaking even averaging 25,000 people a game then the teams that average 4000 or less are losing their ass. If a investment is not creating a fiscal return then it is not a very good investment. Your argument makes no sense.danefan wrote:I hate when people say that schools lose money on football.
No one is losing money. It may be an investment into something that may not create a fiscal return. But to say its a loss is just wrong, IMO.
Delaware reported a good profit for the 2008-09 fiscal year (I believe tops in FCS). App St reported even as by UNC system rules and state law I believe, you can't report a gain or loss in athletics. However, the funds are redistributed to level the books officially to the non-revenue sports so by the looks of things, App St is making more than their spending on football alone.JohnStOnge wrote:I see no indication that the football program lost money, for that fiscal year at least. And I have to wonder if programs like Appalachian State and Delaware are losing money as well.
I'm sure it does...because your team can hop on a bus to all their games. If my memory serves me correctly, the deficit followed trips to Maine, Albany, Hofstra, Sam Houston St., Cal Poly....not to mention our already expensive conference road trips to Nother Arizona, Portland St., Weber St., Sac St., etc...T-Dog wrote:
As for Montana, it still baffles me that they went $2 million in the hole a few years ago. Now they're saying that they need season ticket orders money to balance their books? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sorry, I didn't go back and check...but with the exception of Albany, we most certainly went to the others I listed...and charters to Hofstra and Maine combined with our conference road schedule were HUGE contributing factors to the deficit.UAalum72 wrote:The thought of Montana football players walking onto University Field is one of the more humorous concepts I"ve come across in this forum, but unfortunately the Grizz have never been to Albany.
It makes sense when you don't look at it purely form a dollars and cents standpoint. As I said before, when you boil football on a campus down to dollars and cents you are missing an awful lot of the "return".alphadouchebag wrote:Lets make it simple for you, if you are paying out more than you are bring in, then some is wrong. I under stand that there is other factors. If the numbers are correct and Montana in breaking even averaging 25,000 people a game then the teams that average 4000 or less are losing their ass. If a investment is not creating a fiscal return then it is not a very good investment. Your argument makes no sense.danefan wrote:I hate when people say that schools lose money on football.
No one is losing money. It may be an investment into something that may not create a fiscal return. But to say its a loss is just wrong, IMO.
It’s pure intellectual dishonesty to promote the notion that ADs are somehow autonomous from universities. In using concepts like 'institutional support' and 'rent', what we’re really saying is that a school is moving funds from one pocket to another to suit a particular agenda. And that’s the great thing about the higher ed racket. Universities have been granted the flexibility to play with financial figures in any manner they wish, given the general lack of oversight by outside sources. Not coincidentally, very few universities are going out of business, while most of the rest of the country is suffering.grizpack wrote:In addition to what Kem said, there are 3 other factors that Montana has to deal with (and MSU has on #3)
1. UM's administration provides MUCH less institutional funding to athletics than MSU's administration does...
2. UM athletic department also has the pleasure of paying "rent" to UM for its "use" of the athletic facilities. Not too sure how many other schools do that...
This lower figure is what all of us would believe is the proper way to calculate the cost of the football program, i.e. coaches' salaries, scholarships, recruiting, equipment, travel, etc.danefan wrote:They reported $4.2 million for the 2008-2009 year.BlackFalkin wrote:THER IS NO WAY, it takes 6 mill to run an fcs program.