The nature of a (non-profit, public) college budget is that projections have to match up to the dollar - I'm sure you'll understand why, if you consider the accounting issues for a bit.

Obviously they won't at the end of the year (although it will be close) - last year, I believe the final #s put a couple hundred grand back into the general fund, but I don't have a source readily available (just what I recall from the last time I used this example).

Yeah I know, that's the intended budget, my point is that those are indeed estimates - the budget, not the financial reports for years past.

It's pretty common for people to assume it just applies to UT and A&M since those are the only schools that are really negatively affected by it.

OK - well, here are the actuals for '08 (pg 10) and estimated for '09 (pg 42) showing an operating profit (latest of each I can find). I think you underestimate the accountability required of a public institution's projections here, but hey.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2009_comp_fiscal_rpt.pdf
http://www.uiowa.edu/~fusbudg/2010_f...udget_narr.pdf

Hopefully that's soup-to-nuts enough?

Ok, you're overestimating exactly how much I was emphasizing that point. It was an aside at best. Yay they're making a profit, that's nice for them, but it doesn't really matter to me as my position is based on principle more than profit.

And why would you think that I didn't think such reports existed? I'm well aware of reporting requirements for public institutions.

Your hand-waving of the initial data (which was intended only to show that the scale is in the hundreds of millions, which I think most people don't understand) and statement of disbelief of the numbers given is why I posted - I know you're smart enough to know this stuff exists, but you literally said "I don't believe ..." etc.

Your larger point, though, is that no amount of money is worth emphasizing money over principle? That seems ... awkward at best, since we can show that money furthers the ability to seek the things that colleges are designed to seek. Should schools stop (largely student-driven and uncompensated) research that lead to lucrative patents, as that isn't learning in its purest form? Aren't we ignoring the "life-learning" realities of modern colleges (who seek to take an active role in every part of student life) when we limit the type of education/profit connection to only the type of thing that happens in a classroom?

And what about the fact that football gives a very real educational opportunity to students who would otherwise not qualify for college at all?

Whether or not Title IX should apply to football programs in the way the statute is currently applied was our starting point, but I find it narrow-sighted to ignore the vast positives of major-college athletics while looking at the exceptionally small portion of actual students that are affected by the "seedy" parts of major-college football. We're literally talking 125 students out of 30,000.

Yes. I'm sure they've dropped somewhat, but there was never a "bubble" in the sense that the cost didn't have a rational relationship to supply and demand. There are always tons of new people wanting to live in Harvard Square, many of whom have a lot of disposable income, and a very limited number of spaces in a low-rise area defined by its walkability. Then, too, the university and groups like final clubs own a lot of the property. The upshot is that the number of spaces on the open market is always far too low to accommodate all the interest, so prices will stay very high unless there's some kind of radical change in the character of the neighborhood (giant upsurge in crime rates or something). The national housing/credit market has almost nothing to do with it.

A nice 2-bed-2-bath half a mile from the T station went for $400k or more in the year 2000. I haven't looked them up lately, but...the prospect of getting an apartment big enough for the membership to squeeze into is daunting. And an undergrad social space really needs to be closer to the T station than that. Each of the final club houses is a multimillion-dollar property, and nobody even lives there. The real estate situation is much, much more relaxed at Yale.

Well, the realness of the education that football players receive varies from school to school. Some major programs have abysmal graduation rates despite giving the players Mickey Mouse courses. It's not much of a gift in exchange for the millions of dollars the players generate for the schools. And if we're giving credit to the schools for opening their doors to poor and underserved students due to athletic talent, I'd rather see the generosity go to high schoolers who prepared themselves for college by studying hard. IMHO, people near the NCAA minimums generally are not ready for a four-year college.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[QUOTE=KSig RC;2030339]Your hand-waving of the initial data (which was intended only to show that the scale is in the hundreds of millions, which I think most people don't understand) and statement of disbelief of the numbers given is why I posted - I know you're smart enough to know this stuff exists, but you literally said "I don't believe ..." etc.[quote] Because budgets aren't the same thing as the reality.

I really don't see television deals as comparable to research, internships or out-of-the-classroom learning. The latter are for the primary purpose of learning, the former are for the money. See the difference?

Hey, it's awesome, until you consider graduation rates aren't necessarily so hot and athletics are prioritized over scholarship even at non-D1 schools. How many people are we actually helping, and how many students are actually graduating with degrees and job skills rather than lost hopes at NFL/NBA/MLB stardom. I don't know that there's an answer.

I don't think I ignored the positives of college athletics, I've mentioned several times that they're important, and that they should exist, just not, in my opinion, in their current form. It is the prioritization of those 125 students OVER the 30,000 for the sake of the all mighty hand-egg that brings in the dough that bothers me.

[QUOTE=Drolefille;2030349]So I was showing the reality matches the budgets, almost to the dollar.

I really don't, to be honest. Should the school stop selling sweatshirts and keeping the profit? That's primarily for money, too.

Money is an enabler for so many things - it's why we pay students to hustle you for donations, even though you're only a few years out of school. Hell, some might even say that football is the easiest money the school makes, since it only requires 125 kids and associated staff for a massive amount of money.

That's fair - I guess it's 'glass half full' on some level, even if only 50% graduate, this still happens. It's not a primary benefit, but it is a benefit, and I agree that it comes with other attendant issues.

I see what you're saying, but students are prioritized differently all the time - I got to register first and got preferential housing, for instance, due to the program I entered through.

The skill set of those 125 is obviously very valuable, and the ROI on that prioritization/scholarship money is absurd. Much higher than on a lawyer or doctor on average, and much higher than a moe like me.

Shouldn't be about ROI, should be about the benefit of the students, not the benefit of the school.

As I said, it's about the principle. For me.

ETA: And no, selling sweatshirts is not comparable. Find something comparable, then compare it, and ask me, and we'll discuss it.

ROI does equal benefit. Tangible, delicious, dollar-value benefit.

Well, if you believe some of the guys on here, NPC rush definitely stems from the bolded. ;)

On another note, I didn't know that the NCAA hates directional names. Maybe that's why all the schools in Missouri are changing and screwing me up so I don't know where the heck our chapters are.

Not necessarily.

Directional names
 

I don't know that the NCAA "hates" them - I think athletic departments and some administrators believe that directional names indicate Podunk U.

I will try again to find the actual numbers, but in the case of my alma mater I believe the fact that the athletic department is NOT talking about all the money football is bringing in for US points to the fact that like the vast majority of programs, it is not self-sustaining or profitible. Yes, you can point to programs that make money hand over fist; you just can't say it is true of most of them.

I am not indulging in hyperbole when I say the Strutters are probably more profitible than the football team. You wouldn't believe what those alumnae give!

As to Texas' top 10 admission rule - yes, I'm aware it applies to all public schools, but as pointed out earlier, it is UT and A & M admissions which it has most affected.

Sorry, I'm just catching the end of this conversation. Hope you don't mind if I interject.

Don't remember where I saw the article, but TxState is funding the football program I think 9mil and change next year. That's a big jump and will go up again as they start WAC play.

The program for sure loses a ton of money. It is baseline funded at nearly the same rate as many years ago. The additional money comes from a fee assessment on students (they voted for it) to support the move to FBS.

I read an article (don't know if I could find it again) right after UT signed their new TV deal explaining that something like fewer than 50 programs in the country make a profit. Only a handful make enough to fund all other sports, and maybe half a dozen made enough to return any support to other university needs. Programs that make money tend to be a regional draw that would not support an NFL team, but serve the same market. Places like Austin, Alabama, Ohio State, etc.

In terms of enrollment vs money. TxState endured budget cuts by massively increasing enrollment. The trend in the economic downturn has been from 1st tier (UT/A&M) to cheaper 2nd tier (TxState) schools. They've massively increased enrollment from something like 12k to 32k in a decade. That money has sustained them. But they're supposed to be capped at 30k (so as not to compete with 1st tiers, and because they city wants more road money based on enrollment), so now they're talking about reducing enrollment while facing a 10% budget cut. And, because of the rapid enrollment increase, they're heavily overcrowded and under staffed. So, no matter what, it's going to hurt.