"Official" is your clue. Not saying it's a big sum
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Rick George, Good Idea. Thread.
- Thread starter Shldr2Shldr
- Start date
"Official" is your clue. Not saying it's a big sum
Didn't know where to put this... but here's a free interview with RG from buffstampede:
https://colorado.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1697608
https://colorado.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1697608
some real interesting news in that piece Re: funding of the new facilities NOT coming from TV money.
edit: to be clear, I mean the financing of the bonds.
edit: to be clear, I mean the financing of the bonds.
One or two new sports in 2016 would be really exciting.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Thank goodness for Rick George.
Don't get too excited. The way I read that is it will be 2016-2017 before we have built up a surplus in the budget to even think about adding another sport.
Why? So we could go back into the red with another non-revenue sport?
Because we are fans and we would get to watch more CU sports. ****ing A man, you're not CU's accountant
I kind of agree. I like the idea of more sports at Colorado, but I think every available penny needs to be invested into the football program until it is back as a regular in the top 25. At that point you have created a sustainable model and now the cash cow can in turn be used to expand into non-revenue sports.
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.
Yep.
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.
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.
You're ESTJ or ISTP. Not sure which, but definitely ST.
Buffskier
Club Member
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.
TDbuff
Club Member
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.
Last edited:
How do you know CU doesn't do the same?
FLounda
Think Positive and life will be Positive.
Losing lowers profits.
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.
Increasing the AD budget doesn't necessarily mean adding new sports. It means additional staff, increased recruiting budgets, principal debt payments, etc.
I don't think we're going to see any new sports for quite some time. There are too many facilities upgrades that are still required. The stadium project is really only half complete. The entire West side/Balch/Carlson needs to be totally renovated.
Once the stadium capacity is up to around 60K +/-, the CEC has been renovated, and all the track, skiing and soccer facilities have been upgraded, and there's not a ton of debt associated with those upgrades, then we can start talking about bringing on new sports.
What part of my post would indicate that CU doesn't use creative accounting?
My reference is to CU charging the athletic department the full out-of-state cost of tuition and fees for scholarship athletes including those for whom are in-state and who should be charged at an in-state rate. They do by the way recieve the state funding for these students (as limited as it is.)
I have also been told, not sure how true it is, that the university bills athetics for administrative overhead and for facility charges. Not saying that this is a wrong thing to do but I can also see where plenty of other schools would not make these same charges in order to make it look like their ADs are losing less money.
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.
Collective bargaining.
Then why is Mtn claiming that other schools do it to make them look good?
Sacky's answer is the biggest reason.
It also is a way of moving revenues from athletics into other areas without drawing attention to them. If you work the books correctly you can move tens or even hundreds of thousand of dollars into administration and other areas while still being able to tell the donors that their money is really needed to keep athletics competitive.