2021 Coaching Carousel

[murray87]

Once Fickle gets tired of their small time operation and leaves for greener ($$$) pastures, you may as well shut down all athletics in Clifton.

[bleedXblue]

It will be interesting to see the amount the students' "athletic fee" will go up to feed Bear Brannen's purse!

Never seen such a ridiculous thing as a parent paying tuition. Yes, my kid goes to UC. I know......they have some great programs. But, to make students pay a fee for athletics at an educational institution is preposterous. If it cant fund itself, shut it down.

[xubrew]

Never seen such a ridiculous thing as a parent paying tuition. Yes, my kid goes to UC. I know......they have some great programs. But, to make students pay a fee for athletics at an educational institution is preposterous. If it cant fund itself, shut it down.

At least they're honest about it (well....sort of). They could just call it something more generic like a "student activities fee." That's what a lot of schools do. The fact of the matter is that a lot of schools probably throw more money from student fees toward athletics than what UC does, but just call it something else.

And, I say "sort of" because I suspect the reality is that they are just looking for ways to take peoples' money, and having something called an "athletics fee" is a good way to do that. At least for now.

[MADXSTER]

But, to make students pay a fee for athletics at an educational institution is preposterous. If it cant fund itself, shut it down.

Last that I saw, Ohio State was the only university/college in Ohio that it's athletics were 100% self funded.

[XUGRAD80]

Never seen such a ridiculous thing as a parent paying tuition...... But, to make students pay a fee for athletics at an educational institution is preposterous. If it cant fund itself, shut it down.

Yet how many people are more than willing to pay higher taxes for "good schools"? In many cases what are they told will shut down if a new levy fails to pass? A...Athletics and extra curricular activities. So in essence, people are willing to pay higher taxes to support athletics, but aren't willing to pay fees for the same thing?

What is the argument there? A...that good schools keep your houses values up and make for a better community. So why is that only true for high schools, and not for colleges? Doesn't the fact that a college is part of a community or neighborhood improve the community as a whole? Doesn't it help when the college is well known and respected? Don't strong athletic departments usually help the reputation of the school too?

Yes, Xavier and UC are both urban campuses and all the communities around them are not the greatest today. But that wasn't always true, was it? When these schools were founded in their present locations, they weren't in 'urban' areas. Over time the areas grew around them, were considered very nice communities, and then went downhill. However, today much of that is reversing and many of these neighborhoods are coming back. The schools are a major draw and reason for that rebirth. And if the schools weren't also doing well, partly because of the successes of their athletic programs, then the rebirth of the neighborhoods around them probably wouldn't be taking place either. Successful athletic teams attract students to the colleges. More students attracts more investment in the schools and more private and public investment in the surrounding communities.

This is but one reason that getting the right coach for the teams....especially in the "money" sports...is so important, AND a reason why those coaches can get such high salaries.

[paulxu]

Last that I saw, Ohio State was the only university/college in Ohio that it's athletics were 100% self funded.

I probably well off base here, but doesn't Xavier self fund athletics. I remembering an article from a few years back from Forbes that showed (I think) that the revenue generated by basketball was far in excess of expenses, but perhaps enough to cover some other sports.

Would be interested to know from people who are close to the school and know its financial situations.

[XUGRAD80]

I probably well off base here, but doesn't Xavier self fund athletics. I remembering an article from a few years back from Forbes that showed (I think) that the revenue generated by basketball was far in excess of expenses, but perhaps enough to cover some other sports.

Would be interested to know from people who are close to the school and know its financial situations.

Probably BB, but I really doubt that the rest of the sports are covered within the department by just revenues from attendance,TV/radio, and fund raising.

This has been discussed before here (and elsewhere) but some of it comes down to what are the true costs and how is the accounting/bookkeeping done. I thought I remembered that OSU, by state law, has to be a self funding department, but it is only because of how they do the accounting that they can claim it is.

Would be very interesting to see the actual books laid out in detail, but that will never happen.

[xubrew]

Probably BB, but I really doubt that the rest of the sports are covered within the department by just revenues from attendance,TV/radio, and fund raising.

This has been discussed before here (and elsewhere) but some of it comes down to what are the true costs and how is the accounting/bookkeeping done. I thought I remembered that OSU, by state law, has to be a self funding department, but it is only because of how they do the accounting that they can claim it is.

Would be very interesting to see the actual books laid out in detail, but that will never happen.

You pretty much nailed it.

Most people don't really understand how the finances of college athletics work...including many who work in college athletics.

When you hear things like "every department loses money on athletics," notice that you often hear the word 'DEPARTMENT' and not the 'INSTITUTION.' Most (not all) of what a typical athletic department spends is money that does not leave the school. The best way I've heard someone put this is that it does not cost you $10,000 to write yourself a check for $10,000. Scholarships really do not cost the university a cent. It is, perhaps, and expense to the athletic department, but they are writing those checks right back to the university. At a school like Xavier where there is limited enrollment it is arguably an expense to the institution on the grounds that if a basketball player were not getting a full scholarship then another regular student would be paying full tuition in his/her place. But, at a school like UC, that is actually looking to grow its enrollment, athletes are not taking the place of any tuition paying students. They are there in addition to those paying tuition, not in place of them. So, for them, scholarships don't cost the overall institution a thing. Neither does housing, or meal plans, or books, or anything else that is basically paid to another part of the campus.

Departments find some creative ways to spend money. My favorite is the "facilities fee." The university "charges" the athletic department rent to use the facilities. This is really just a way for schools to make it look like athletics is spending money and not turning a profit, when in reality they are just writing a check to the athletic department for the use of the football and baseball fields.

A few years ago, UAB shut down its football program to save money. It was reported about how much the school was spending on football, and everyone assumed that this would turn into money saved. When it was reported that tuition was not going to decrease by an even negligible amount, and it was then discovered that while football did spend a lot of money, the vast majority of it was spent on campus and really wasn't costing the school anything, it was back in less than six months. They discovered that they were actually making money on football in the overall grand scheme of things.

It all depends on how you count the money. For sports at Xavier that aren't full scholarship sports, are you counting the tuition those players are paying out of their own pocket as revenue generated? After all, they probably wouldn't be at Xavier at all if it weren't for that sport. Jacksonville recently cut it's non scholarship football program as a money saving measure only to have a lot of their students who were on the football team suddenly not paying tuition anymore. I have some friends that work and/or coach at the D2 and D3 levels, and they say that those schools would not be able to keep the doors open if it weren't for athletics because of how many students it attracts. If a school like Mount Saint Joseph's or Thomas More were to cut athletics, or just cut football, they'd lose over ten percent of their tuition paying students. Even at the FBS level, UAB quickly discovered that in addition to 85 scholarships not costing anything, the 40-50 walk-ons who are paying tuition were going to leave as well, and that would mean lost revenue.

Another favorite story of mine was at (I think) Eastern Illinois. A group of faculty senate members were railing on athletics for all the money it was costing the school and wanted the number of scholarships cut. They finally got their way. When the next fiscal year rolled around, they were astounded to find less money in the general fund. The reason was because there were fewer checks being written by athletics. So...it didn't save them anything. They reduced the amount of money given to athletics to cover scholarships, but the amount of money that athletics paid to the school was also reduced, so they ended up in exactly the same spot.

If UC, and other schools like htem, shut down athletics entirely, I bet the overall dollar amount that students pay to go there would not decrease at all. It may even increase. Athletics does not generate the billions of dollars for a single institution that a lot of critics seem to think that it does, but it also does not cost the schools billions of dollars the way a lot of critics seem to think that it does.

[MHettel]

Yet how many people are more than willing to pay higher taxes for "good schools"? In many cases what are they told will shut down if a new levy fails to pass? A...Athletics and extra curricular activities. So in essence, people are willing to pay higher taxes to support athletics, but aren't willing to pay fees for the same thing?

What is the argument there? A...that good schools keep your houses values up and make for a better community. So why is that only true for high schools, and not for colleges? Doesn't the fact that a college is part of a community or neighborhood improve the community as a whole? Doesn't it help when the college is well known and respected? Don't strong athletic departments usually help the reputation of the school too?


.

I dont think you can compare the willingness of homeowners to pay increased taxes for a "better" school district to the idea that people should pay taxes to support a local university.

The distinction here is that the tax payers who fund a school district are also the direct recipients of the improvements because their children attend those (presumably better) schools, and their home value could appreciate due to the attractiveness of the district. To take it further, their kids MUST attend those schools (assuming public, and with FEW exceptions), and other out of district children CANNOT attend those schools. So the incremental taxes are kind of like an investment.

But colleges do not have requirements to attend one near where you live, nor do they exclude attendance from those that don't live nearby. So, If I'm living near a university and I have to pay taxes to fund it, I'm a little irritated that my kids don't go there, and that other kids who aren't paying the taxes get to benefit directly from the taxes I paid.

Not the same thing to me...

[XUGRAD80]

I dont think you can compare the willingness of homeowners to pay increased taxes for a "better" school district to the idea that people should pay taxes to support a local university.

The distinction here is that the tax payers who fund a school district are also the direct recipients of the improvements because their children attend those (presumably better) schools, and their home value could appreciate due to the attractiveness of the district. To take it further, their kids MUST attend those schools (assuming public, and with FEW exceptions), and other out of district children CANNOT attend those schools. So the incremental taxes are kind of like an investment.

But colleges do not have requirements to attend one near where you live, nor do they exclude attendance from those that don't live nearby. So, If I'm living near a university and I have to pay taxes to fund it, I'm a little irritated that my kids don't go there, and that other kids who aren't paying the taxes get to benefit directly from the taxes I paid.

Not the same thing to me...

You’re correct, it’s not exactly the same. I did a poor job of explaining myself. My point there is that the vast majority of students want to attend a college not just for the academics, but also for the social activities. High level football, basketball, etc. helps that happen. Not just from the games themselves, but from the excitement that it helps to build around campus, and the pride that it helps students to develop in their school. It attracts students to the school. It attracts businesses to the areas around the schools......It also can also make a degree from that school more valuable....Would a degree from ND mean as much if they weren’t so well known? And what are they well known for? Football. I’m guessing that they have a fine business school and education department, but the vast majority of people (around the world) have no idea about anything else than that they have a great college football history.

Having a good school system where you live enhances the value of your house, so people that understand that have no problem with paying taxes for their schools. They understand just how it helps them. Even if they don’t have kids in school any longer.

Likewise, Having a well known football and/or basketball team at your college can enhance the value of your degree. Even for the students that don’t directly participate, it can enhance their college experience, indirectly improve the area that surrounds their school, lead to an improved overall college experience, and make their degree more valuable. Sometimes it’s just a simple as someone from Xavier might get an interview, while someone from Cederville College doesn’t because the HR person has heard of X and hasn’t ever heard of the other school. So every student paying a small fee to support those programs is really just an investment in the value of their degree and in the improvement of their college experience. It may not pay one back directly like property taxes can, but it can still pay one back in the short and long run.