How does it make money for CU? Isn't this just a fan convince thing? You can buy from the ticket office or stubub. I am okay with purchased seat no-shows.
"Official" is your clue. Not saying it's a big sum
How does it make money for CU? Isn't this just a fan convince thing? You can buy from the ticket office or stubub. I am okay with purchased seat no-shows.
some real interesting news in that piece Re: funding of the new facilities NOT coming from TV money.
"I believe that we should only spend what we have. At what point will we get some surplus so we can start adding more to our sports budget? It may be 2016-2017 before that happens."
One or two new sports in 2016 would be really exciting.
Why? So we could go back into the red with another non-revenue sport?One or two new sports in 2016 would be really exciting.
Why? So we could go back into the red with another non-revenue sport?
Why? So we could go back into the red with another non-revenue sport?
Let's be real, how many people are going to go watch men's tennis? Adding more sports isn't rational at this point with the changes coming to student athlete compensation, four year scholarships, and other increasing costs like coaching salaries.Because we are fans and we would get to watch more CU sports. ****ing A man, you're not CU's accountant
One or two new sports in 2016 would be really exciting.
Let's be real, how many people are going to go watch men's tennis? Adding more sports isn't rational at this point with the changes coming to student athlete compensation, four year scholarships, and other increasing costs like coaching salaries.
The hell are you talking about? Sorry I feel no need to add a sport or two to a AD that has struggled to generate enough revenue. Hey, we may or may not be profitable, but let's add a new money sucking sport! Does that seem like a good rational decision?And thanks for reinforcing the post you just replied to, never stop.
The hell are you talking about? Sorry I feel no need to add a sport or two to a AD that has struggled to generate enough revenue. Hey, we may or may not be profitable, but let's add a new money sucking sport! Does that seem like a good rational decision?
If I were RG I would be very carefull about adding any new sports.
The recent announcement that Texas is going to be adding a cash stipend to every athletic scholarship is a game changer. I would expect that the stipend will very soon be part of the cost of admission to being a major athletic program. If the $10,000 per athlete per year becomes the standard which is likely that is a huge amount of money over an entire athletic program without bringing in one cent more revenue.
If CU was able to bill these scholarships as in state, that extra $10k would almost be paid for already, no?
Probably at least a big chunk of them.
Amazing how most schools use creative accounting to make athletic budgets look good, CU does it to make athletics look bad.
How do you know CU doesn't do the same?Probably at least a big chunk of them.
Amazing how most schools use creative accounting to make athletic budgets look good, CU does it to make athletics look bad.
How do you know CU doesn't do the same?
Sure, but Mtn was saying that CU doesn't use creative accounting to make the AD look better where as other schools do it to look better. I was asking Mtn how he came to that conclusion.Losing lowers profits.
One or two new sports in 2016 would be really exciting.
Probably at least a big chunk of them.
Amazing how most schools use creative accounting to make athletic budgets look good, CU does it to make athletics look bad.
How do you know CU doesn't do the same?
So why would the school want to use creative accounting to make the sports look bad? I don't see the motivation.
They may want the AD budget to look bad. Saw this mentioned a few times during the O'Bannon trials--a lot of Universities are wary of their Athletic Departments showing big profits, especially to legislators who determine funding or that it could jeopardize their tax exempt status. So they'll use that fuzzy accounting to hide the profits instead.
So why would the school want to use creative accounting to make the sports look bad? I don't see the motivation.
Then why is Mtn claiming that other schools do it to make them look good?Your answer..
It makes sense in a lot of ways. It's a political game they have to play. Make sure you're covering your costs, but you better not be making too much of a profit. There are a lot of politicians who would use that as an excuse to cut funding even further.
So why would the school want to use creative accounting to make the sports look bad? I don't see the motivation.