61st nationwide. Not bad.Beats every single non-Notre Dame non-BCS
school in the ENTIRE COUNTRY.I LOVE my BCS Pac 12 membership!
Name me a single non-BCS school in the entire country other than Notre Dame that
wouldn't LOVE to be in our position.None.LOL
Of you course your gloating about being last in public schools in the Pac 10.2,
and remember its 61st out of public schools, and we all know how the public
school system is.
"Name me a single non-BCS school in the entire country other than Notre Dame
that wouldn't LOVE to be in our position."Maybe now you can
afford to update your athletic facilities so they can be up to par with that
non-BCS, non Notre-Dame school down south.
Just about a month ago I pointed out the the university of utah was operated at
a loss and that if the money they were subsidized was removed the loss would be
massive instead of just big like it currently is. As evidence I refered utah
"fans" to the state auditors report available on line that confirmed
it.Many of the more prolific utah "fans" around here took
exception to those facts and were highly critical of me for posting the truth
while they were also in denial and refused to accept the truth. It would appear
that they can no longer do that and must accept the reality that the university
of utah is an athletic department money loser despite being heavily subsidized,
in fact they are subsidized almost a full 25% of their "revenue" and
then still operate at a loss.It is time the state looks into this
and determines what possible benefit our state can possibly be getting from a
program that loses money year after year. In truth the losses total about 13-14
million yearly if the subsidies are taken into account.That is
Christopher B,Just remember that this is public universities.
You're missing a lot of big name schools that are private such as USC,
Miami, Notre Dame, Stanford, Baylor to name a few which surely generate lots of
revenue. I will say that things look up for the Utes once the Pac-12 revenues
start to fully kick in.
@Faichild,I don't deny your point.And yet, even if
that drops Utah down to 70 or 80, there still is not a SINGLE non-BCS university
in the country(private or public) other than Notre Dame that wouldn't LOVE
to be in oUr position.Go Utes!
@Duck,I don't care how much money we lose. There
is great pride in having a prestigious school in our state. There is value
added to the community and economy as a result of a our prestigious BCS
membership that is NOT taken into account in these figures.Out of
the hundreds of non-BCS universities in the country, there is exactly ONE that
doesn't pray every night a BCS conference will call.And that
lone exception: Notre Dame.The good that comes from the Pac 12
affiliation and the quality people Utah graduates become in our communities is
well worth the "loss" you mention.Go BCS!Go Pac12!Go Utes!
duck is on a desperate, pathetic witch hunt trying to get under our skins.If he truly feels that way, he should hold a town meeting and invite his
congressmen. See how far it gets. lol.Go Utes.
@Christopher B"61st nationwide. Not bad.Beats every single
non-Notre Dame non-BCS school in the ENTIRE COUNTRY."That's
false. UNLV is 47th. Memphis is 54th.Air Force is
55th.Boise State is 57th.New Mexico is 58th.We
don't even know where BYU would land.
alt,No, its not false,When I say there isn't a
single non-BCS school other than Notre Dame that wouldn't LOVE to be in our
POSITION, that word POSITION includes our membership in a prestigious BCS
conference.I am right.There is exactly one(And ONLY one)
university in the nation that wouldn't trade our POSITION(including
membership in the Pac 12) for whatever their position is.And that
ONE university is Notre Dame.Or are you suggesting that UNLV and
Boise wouldn't JUMP at the chance if the Pac 12 called?LOLThey dream about joining the Pac 12Like byu.LOL
That's a lot of scratch; now it's time to get back to winning games.
Duckhunter, where is the outrage over USU subsidizing over 50% of their athletic
budget, and all the others nearly their entire budget? I said last year that
Utah was well on its way to operating independently and with a profit. This
report, combined with the fact that equal conference revenue sharing is on the
horizon in the next few years, further validate that point, making your hissy
fit the truly "pathetic" spectacle to observe.
Did I read that list right? That Utah is not only dead last among public schools
in the Pac-12 but dead last among all the "BCS" schools? If that's
not further proof of Utah's whipping boy status in a big boy conference, I
don't know what is. I do agree with you, Chris, that most
schools not in a power conference would like to switch places with Utah, but
only for the opportunity and not for the current state that Utah finds itself
in, precariously close to obscurity and irrelevance. There's probably more
than a few schools that are jealous of their position more so because of how
much Utah has so far squandered their opportunity and how they probably feel
they could do better with that same opportunity.
@Christopher BI was responding to the assertion that being ranked 61st
beats all other non-Notre Dame non-BCS schools in revenue (the thing
they're 61st in). You know... this assertion..."61st
nationwide. Not bad.Beats every single non-Notre Dame non-BCS school in
the ENTIRE COUNTRY."
I just have to wonder what it would be like if the myopic Utah and BYU fans
could see beyond their own little worlds. Lets face it, Chrissy B and Ducky are
trying to one-up each other over a revenue and expenditure report. Wow, talk
about substance! Here is an idea however? If you are going to
one-up anyone, how about making it about winning actual games. How about
on-field results where the Utes are actually not embarrassing themselves in the
PAC? How about BYU actually beating the competitive schools on their
schedule.....rather than just the New Mexico St's of the world?Boise St is 17-0 against all Utah schools since 1997. There is your one-up.
Christopher B sure loves to pick-and-choose is wording and I quote "Beats
every single non-Notre Dame non-BCS school in the ENTIRE COUNTRY." Again, he
does not get his FACTS right and he quickly says and I quote "Name me a
single non-BCS school in the entire country other than Notre Dame that
wouldn't LOVE to be in our position."; so he uses this statement to
counter act his first one? Which is it Christopher B? Just remember the non-BCS
school down SOUTH has one National Championship compared to the bottom dweller
Pac 10.2 school up NORTH. Go GOUGS!!!!
Right Chris 61st is about where your football program can aspire to. That would
be up from the current ranking of 82nd.
Utah's Athletic Department is NOT losing money... The author is doing a
poor job of explaining the accounting.What he is calling
“subsidies” most people would call revenue… Most obviously
there is the issue of Student Fees. Those student fees are not just going to the
UofU Athletic Department w/o compensation. University of Utah students get
compensation for those fees, “free” tickets” about 7,000
football tickets if I recall correctly several thousand Men’s basketball
tickets, same for Gymnastics and all the Olympic Sports.In fact if
at UofU student attends sporting events regularly their fees equate to ticket at
well under the market price.
atl134 just owned Chris B. Again.When will our legislature wake up
and pull the plug on this mess. The taxpayers don't want our money wasted
on a team that is losing money and losing games. Losing money and
last place in their league. Yeah that is something to crow about.
I always find it humorous when Utah fans who are Mormon complain about their
tithing dollars going to fund BYU athletics even though the church has stated
many times that tithing dollars are not used for that purpose. Here we see all
of Utah's public schools taking millions in subsidies to their athletic
budgets that include state money (i.e. taxes). Where's the outrage?
I'm a BYU fan, but I don't think there is anything worth throwing Utah
under the bus for here. When you take into account that they're essentially
operating with half the TV revenue they're due to receive shortly,
they're doing just fine. Add $12 million to the budget that they'll be
getting and all of a sudden that deficit of a couple million becomes a profit of
$10 million. They'll be just fine. With that said, Utah still
is the dregs of their conference. Competitively, financially, and academically,
Utah is at or near the bottom. I personally hope that changes. And in fairness,
I'm sure BYU WOULD have loved to get the PAC-10 invite. But we still play
as many marquee teams as Utah this year, have a better TV situation, and no
athletic conference is changing the fact that Utah can't touch us
academically. And while there's no sense hiding from losing 3 years
consecutively in football, we dominate them in most other sports. Hopefully we
turn around the embarrassing football trend soon. The bottom line is I think
both schools have plenty to be happy about relative to each other
giantfan: All that means is that we were only at 50% of our big-boy conference
revenues as of last year. We will be at 75% this year, and 100% next year. It
has only been news for two years. That's right, byU "fans"
aren't interested in the news, just spin."There's
probably more than a few schools that are jealous of their position" - by
your post on this UTAH story, it is obvious that your school is one of them.Love the entertainment! Too easy!!Go Utes!!
In other words, the utes lose on the field, the court and the bank. Now
that's a trifecta to be proud of.
Can't be true. We've made it perfectly clear that we have way more
@tdlawtonIf students are getting "ticket at well under the
market price" then that is simply further subsidization and all the worse.
It always amuses me how byU "fans" will flock to all stories Utah to try
to prove that Utah is now unworthy of them and is irrelevant - yet their very
existence on Utah stories only proves their case null and void.It
also amuses me how short the byU "fan's" memory is for Utah. There
rantings are based on a one-year anomaly, while they still are living in 1984
when it comes to their own program. The FACTS are that Utah and BYU have missed
bowl games during the BCS era, and both have played 11. However, Utah's
bowl games over that period VASTLY overwhelms byU's in the importance and
stature of the games, and the winning records. In addition, Utah has a VASTLY
superior basketball tradition and history, while byU's biggest
accomplishment in the NCAA tourney dates all the way back to Danny Ainge.Utah has superior football recruiting classes.Utah has more, and
superior athletes in the NBA.Utah has more, and superior athletes in the
NFL.Utah is 3-0 on the football field, where it counts.byU will play
it's FIRST big boy schedule this year.Your fall will be fun to
Duckhunter,Another financial report you should read is the 2012
Audited Financial Statements of the University of Utah. You will find as I did
and I had it confirmed by U financial officials, that the U spends $627,583,000
on all undergraduate and graduate education programs. The Utah State
Legislature appropriated $253,000,000 for those undergraduate and graduate
programs. The State appropriates nothing to athletics. "Institutional
support" comes from student fees. So, the State of Utah supports education
programs at the U at a 40% level. Thirty five years ago the State's
appropriation amounted to 75% support. That is a 35% drop in thirty five years.
Students are supporting the athletic department through their fees the taxpayers
are not. In fact, as the figures show, the State of Utah does not support the
education programs at the U enough and should do a lot more for its flag ship
So the Utes spent $43.7 million, $12.7 million more than they received in
revenue, which ranked last of the 10 public schools in the PAC 12, and still
couldn't quality for a bowl.Maybe it's time to shut down
this losing program that's costing Utah taxpapers millions to be a bottom
feeder in every single sport.
@stgNo utah is not "well on its way to operating independently
and with a profit." They are currently on a bonding and building program
that far out ranks the future "revenues" they are "guaranteeing"
the bonds against. They will be bleeding money and taking subsidies for decades,
if not forever. How pathetic of you to even try to pretend
otherwise. Very "frantic and emotional" especially considering I was
proven correct on all counts.
Not sure if you all can notice the drastically different tone in Chris B. vs.
"Christopher B."'s posts...but clearly they are not the same
person. BYU fans- don't bite on the bait...imo it's probably a BYU fan
just trying to make Utah fans look stereotypical...just a shame really.PS- VegasUte---this article does say the words "Brigham"
"Young" and "University" in immediate succession... I can think
of a few articles that were "BYU articles" (specifically the one about
BYU's November scheduling just a few days ago) that said the words
"University" "of" and "Utah" in immediate succession.
Utah fans posted on it and used that excuse, while BYU fans use the same excuse
to post on this article...Moral of the story- we're all just
the same at heart. Once you strip away the conference affiliations, W/L records,
AP Top 25 rankings, even the National Championships...we are all just avid fans
that love our schools. Try to remember that.Go Cougs!Go Utes!
(Except in September)
Utah has superior football recruiting classes - yet still isn't good enough
to play in a bowlUtah has more, and superior athletes in the NBA -
yet still hasn't won an NCAA tournament game in almost a decadeUtah has more, and superior athletes in the NFL - yet still isn't good
enough to be rankedUtah is 3-0 on the football field where it counts
- Utah is 7-11 on the football field where it really countsUtah fans
are desperately hoping that BYU proves to be just as inept against a "big
boy" schedule as the Utes have been, even though the Utes finished 5-7 with
only TWO ranked opponents, while BYU finished 8-5 with FIVE ranked opponents.It's going to be fun watching the chins on the hill dropping as BYU
succeeds where Utah has been a miserable failure.
I'd like to be hopeful about the Utes' ability to compete in the
PAC-12 but these numbers are not encouraging. Even when they have
their full revenue share Utah will not have 70% of the revenue of the big boys
in the conference. $23 million more puts them at $64 million; Oregon had $95
million this year and will surely be over $100 million by the time Utah gets to
its full share. USC and Stanford likely have higher or similar revenues to
Oregon and the Utah full share number puts them $20 million a year behind middle
of the pack schools like Washington.Plus the full share won't
insure Utah doesn't run a deficit. Full share schools ASU and WSU both had
$5 million losses.If you're not a big boy, the key to winning
is differentiation (see Boise State). I'm afraid Utah will convince itself
its PAC-12 membership makes it a big boy, spend its money on things that
don't make a difference (e.g. pay the same coaches more money) and wind up
in the same place competitively that they are from a revenue standpoint, at the
The numbers will continue to get better as the new facilities are completed and
the TV money goes up. This really seems to bother the usual trolls; no suprise
@VegasUteI agree about fans pretending that they're above their
rivals and then combing through their articles and commenting is something BYU
fans do with regularity, but so do Utah fans. That's the nature of rivalry
and it's a bit disingenuous to paint that as a BYU phenomenon. I also don't understand how you can on one hand bash BYU for living in
the past with their football tradition while the present incarnation is lacking,
and then on the other hand defend Utah basketball on the basis of their
tradition when the program is currently abysmal. Seems hypocritical to me. You
can't have it both ways. And I think it's a little out of
context to paint Utah's bowl history as markedly and consistently more
storied and significant than BYU's. Obviously BYU can't touch the
Sugar or Fiesta Bowl appearances. Then there was Meyer's first year in the
Liberty Bowl while BYU sat at home and the Sun Bowl in 11. But beyond that, BYU
has played in a higher-paying and tiered bowl than Utah in every season since
the BCS's inception, so that's at least misleading
@dutchmanSo taking student fees and using them to subsidize the in
the red athletic program is the right thing to do when you claim the state
isn't even giving its "flagship" university enough money? If the
university is not being subsidized enough by the state why are they taking
millions in student fees and using that to subsidize the failing athletic
FAX: 4 of 8 wins - Weber State, Hawaii, New Mexico, Idaho. 5 ranked opponents?
Only by the grace of a 6-3 eke out at home were you able to go 1-4. Big woop.
AND, you couldn't get past the "pathetic" 5-7 Utes! Your ONLY big
boy schedule still includes Middle Tennessee St and Idaho State. Ya, Utah had
ONE season out of the last 12 without a bowl game. Get your licks in now, while
you still can. Seems to me that it's the byU "fan" desperately
hoping and praying that Utah will not come back from the one year anomaly,
because, then what will you have to do with your time?Beck to
Harline: It's all good - just prodding the trollers! I can't stand
Utah trollers as much as I can't stand byU trollers. But, since the
article did mention "Brigham" and "Young" and
"University" in succession - welcome to the civil dialogue corner, my
friend. While you and I are "avid fans", a lot of people on both sides
of the fence are just haters. They are the fun ones to toy with.Go
Utes! Onward and Upward!!
@Duckhunter "It is time the state looks into this and determines what
possible benefit our state can possibly be getting from a program that loses
money year after year"Maybe you should look in to why BYU
can't beat Utah in football and has never been to a bowl game of any
significance or the basketball final four. Once you have those answers, then
write a letter to your State Representative about that awful Utah athletic
program that has been to 2 BCS bowls and a final four all within the last 15
@ stonewall - no where have I ever said that it is solely a byU phenomenon.
There are Utah trollers just the same as there are byU trollers. I invite you
to go on byU stories and set them straight.I also did not defend the
current state of Utah basketball. The current state of Utah basketball is bad,
but it is getting better. byU "fans" choose to forget the period not so
long ago when they had a one win season and went years on end without a tourney
win. Utah basketball will be back to where it once was. That is a place that
byU has never been.AND, if you read my post, you will see I was ONLY
referring to the BCS era in bowl games. Utah is 10-1 during that period, byU is
6-5. There are cherry pickers everywhere. I choose to have my
entertainment by engaging the byU cherry pickers posting on Utah stories (sorry
Beck - it IS a Utah story). I encourage you to do the same with the Utah cherry
pickers who post on byU's.Go Utes!And, for Beck to
Harline only, Go Cougs
Spokane Ute"The numbers will continue to get better as the new
facilities are completed and the TV money goes up. This really seems to bother
the usual trolls; no suprise[sic] there."Don't be so sure
that Utah's new facilities will improve the product on the field/court.Consider this from an article published today:(continued)
Cal's renovated football stadium and glistening new training center opened
to rave reviews last fall, but the risky plan to pay for the facilities fared as
poorly as the team itself.The Bears hired a new coach to fix the
on-field product. More importantly, they've implemented a new strategy to
avoid fiscal calamity.If the financing plan fails, the most
expensive facility upgrades in college sports history -- the total cost is $474
million -- could cripple Cal athletics over time by draining tens of millions of
dollars away from the operating budget."If it doesn't
settle itself out in the next few months, I fear a disaster," said Stanford
economist Roger Noll, an expert in stadium financing who has consulted with
Cal's faculty budget committee on the issue."They took a
really big shot."(continued)
let's roll, Stanford's numbers may not quite be what you assume them
to be. Their home football game attendance actually averaged nearly 3,000 less
than Utah's, and men's basketball was 3,500 less than Utah's (the
two key revenue sports). I imagine they receive enough donations to make up for
deficits in direct revenue, however, so no I'm not claiming they are in bad
shape by any means, but probably not at the level of USC or Oregon.Additionally, I don't believe your fear of Utah overspending to fit in
with the rest of the conference will come to fruition with Chris Hill in charge.
An acquaintance working for UCLA's athletic department told me that at
least a quarter of their operating budget goes toward paying salaries of alums
who don't really do anything for the school, and that a few other schools
in the conference do similar things. I don't see this being an issue at
Utah. Yes, expenses will increase, but the revenue increases appear to be
The Bears planned to finance the projects through the sale of 40- and 50-year
rights to approximately 2,900 high-priced seats in the renovated stadium. But
with sales lagging -- only 64 percent of the premium seats have been sold -- the
school abandoned its June deadline to secure commitments for the long-term
equivalent of $272 million.The Bears are $120 million short of that
goal.----------------According to Spokane Ute's
theory, the more money spent on facilities the better the chance for success on
the field. Based on that theory, the $474 million California just spent on
renovating their stadium and training facilities should guarantee that the Bears
will be PAC 12 favorites for decades to come, right? The Bears just
spent so much more on facilities than the Utes could ever dream of spending,
that the Utes might was well forget about ever beating the Bears again.* crickets *
Snack PacTrolling a Utah thread trying to pick an agruement again?
Read my post, maybe slower this time. I never said that it would improve the
product on the field, now did I? The numbers are in reference to revenue.
That's what the article is refering too. Is that your whole MO? Do you ever
actaully have anything constructive to say? I've yet to see it! The usual
suspect are out in force and the drivel sure grows old and tiresome. That's
why I respond to very few BYU fans.
@ Snack Pack"Crickets"? Next thing you know you will bust
out the "LOL". I guess when you can't put together a well though
out post, you have to post someting.
@Snack PACGood info although I don't know that the new
facilities won't help utah's on field performance and recruiting, that
remains to be seen. Where spokane ute, and other utah "fans", are
currently failing is in their belief that "the numbers will go up", and
that is hardly a given. In fact as I pointed out in my last post much of
utah's current athletic department revenues are one time money being raised
for this current facility upgrade, they are not permanent every year revenues.
So the assumption that utah is going to reach 60 or 70 million per
year, every year, in revenue is an extremely dubious one. I would say they will
remain much closer to their current level than they will ever reach those
figures, at least until inflation takes them there in which case they will be in
the same place they are now in relation to everyone else.
Spokane Ute"Trolling a Utah thread trying to pick an
agruement[sic] again?This is a public forum.For someone
who whines incessantly about "trolling", you've never had any
qualms about making comparisons between BYU and Utah.What really
bother you so much; that non-crimson glasses wearing fans comment on
"Utah" articles, or that other bloggers have the audacity to question
your sacrosanct opinions?
"The main revenue streams, including television money and shared
distribution from the BCS and conference championships, will add approximately
$9.9 million in 2012-13; $14.5 million in 2013-14; and $23.3 million in 2014-15.
From 2016 on, annual increases of approximately 4 percent are expected"An obvious trend in the revenue stream. Pretty simple concept when you
think about, but difficult for several to grasp!
10th in Public Schools in the Pac.Add in Stanford and USC and Utah is
"Dead Last" in revenues.Even behind, Washington
State...Hilarious!And subsidized by the taxpayers of Utah to boot,
otherwise, they're losing money.BYU pays it's own way,
operates at a profit and never bonds for facilities.We love Independence
and our exposure on our own Network that's on basic tier and in 70 million
homes, along with our good buddies at the worldwide leader in sports....ESPN.BYU rides it's own pony, already bought and paid for, (with
maintenance endowments in place), unlike our coat-tailing, bottom-feeder
neighbors Up-North.Man is Utah's vain attempt to keep up with
real football schools a losing effort.
"An obvious trend in the revenue stream. Pretty simple concept when you
think about, but difficult for several to grasp!Pretty simple concept when you
think about, but difficult for several to grasp!"The gigantic
hole in the revenue stream argument that is difficult for some to grasp is that
there isn't ANY incremental advantage for Utah.The Utes began
their PAC 12 era significantly behind the other conference programs in
facilities and those programs are spending as much or more on improvements as
the Utes are spending.So where is Utah's incremental advantage?
How will Utah's new facilities improve Utah's bottom dwelling status
in the conference?Regardless of Utah's shiny new facilities,
they'll never be able to out recruit USC, UCLA, Stanford, California,
Washington, Oregon, ASU and Arizona on a regular basis, so the die is already
cast; the Utes are destined to remain a 9th through 12th place team in the
conference, with a losing conference record most years, and only slim hopes of
playing in an occassional bowl game.
StGtoSLCThanks for the insights. Most of the revenue
differentiation isn't in gate receipts (see Oregon) but in booster
contributions, where the Oregon (Phil Knight), Stanford and USC have a big
advantage.I do think Dr. Hill will do a good job managing expenses.
What I'm most worried about is the mentality that increased revenue alone
will lead to better teams on the field. Everyone involved,
Administration, the Athletic Department, Coaches and the athletes all need to
innovate and differentiate the program, to attract the best athletes possible
and allow them to perform in a innovative environment.
@SwoopRegardless of exposure BYU, will never be able to out recruit
Utah on a regular basis, so the die is already cast; the Cougars are destined to
getting OWNED by Utah.As far as our new conference, we won't
ever out recruit USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington. In just 3 years our class
rankings were #7 in the PAC-12 while Washington was #4, top 3rd. Yet the field
Washington 14-12 and Utah 13-12.Utah needs to continue to build
depth and with better coaching we should be able to compete with the upper half
of the conference in a few years. About the same time as we become a full
Out of the 222 public schools listed ONLY 7 received no subsidy. Utah was #181
receiving 24.4% subsidy (about $9.9 million).According to USA Today
from 2006-2011 (in MWC) Utah averaged:Revenues: $38.1 millionExpenses: $36.8 millionSubsidy: 24.6% (about $9.3 million)So
BYU fans are outraged by a $600K increase in subsidies?
let's roll, I agree with those points. Refreshing to have an intelligent
conversation based on more than emotional ties.
It doesn't matter the rankings show: pouring tens of $millions into sports
is money wasted and academic responsibilities neglected.No matter
what any college or university says about their revenues, etc., they just simply
collect more money for jocks while the cost of tuition continues to
skyrocket,and they operate at a loss, with few exceptions.
About the photo that accompanied this article:It shows 4 Utes trying
to return the ball while surrounded by 1 single Utah State player.And the Aggie still made the tackle.Poor Utes....they can't
tackle (George, OT, baby!) and they can't stop from being tackled.Typical...Go Cougars!(now where's Chris B. when
you need him to respond?.....)
Duckhunter et al,The fact is, as I have pointed out, even though you
and others continue to assert wrongly, the U athletic department receives no
taxpayer money or subsidy from the State of Utah. Student fees are collected
for a variety of purposes and some of those fees are paid to the athletic
department. Students receive free admission to athletic events for the fees
that they pay. The important thing is all student fees are adopted and approved
by the Student Body Senate which encompasses the elected representatives of the
entire student body from every academic discipline on campus. If the student
body through their representatives want to pay fees and hand over some of it to
the athletic department that is their democratic perogative.
Dutchman,The article stated "Utah received $9.9 million in
subsidies, which includes students fees, direct and indirect institutional
support, STATE MONEY...".So maybe you should take up your beef
with Mr. Carreon who wrote the article.
Texas Longhorns, 163.2 million in revenue, 25 million dollar profit! Now call me
crazy, but I think that's the envy of every BCS or non BCS program in the
country. I mean thats nearly TWICE as much as the highest revenue earners in the
PAC12. Still think the PAC held the leverage in negotiations with Texas, ute
fans? I think not. Utah should write a check every year to Texas thanking them
for their PAC12 membership. Lol
giantfan,Again, the U receives a $253 million appropriation from the
State Legislature to pay 40% of the cost to educate graduate and undergraduate
students. Period. None of that appropriation goes to the athletic department.
So, the article is wrong or the interpretation of it is wrong. My source is the
2012 Audited Financial Statements of the U, not some news media article. Even
though BYU is a private institution and is not required to reveal financial
information that does not mean that they can't. We know from the U's
financial statements that the State of Utah by legislative appropriation pays
for 40% of the graduate and undergraduate education programs at the U. That is
a drop of 35% support over the past 30 years. What percent does the LDS Church
pay for educating students at BYU? Why are you not focused on that issue rather
than always hammering on the U?
Dutchman,I'm just pointing out the inconsistency between your
statement of "fact" versus the article. Call me crazy but I think the
majority of people reading this article and the comments are prone to believe
the article over some anonymous message board poster. Call Mr. Carreon to task
and maybe you could get a retraction out of him. You seem pretty passionate
about the subject. Maybe you're right, and maybe if I cared that much I
would research your claims and come to my own conclusion. Again, if I cared. It
is entertaining however to watch your feathers get a little ruffled.
@dutchmanThat is not what the article said, student fees are only a
part of the subsidy, tax dollars are another part. You have always been
extremely "frantic and emotional" about this issue and you have always
been wrong about it, this is just more proof of that. I know it is hard to have
your deeply held beliefs proven to be wrong but it simply is reality and it
would serve you well to accept the truth of things.
@ Swoop,Did I ever say this isn't a public forum? Assuming and
putting words in my mouth yet again.Don't recall "whining
incessently" either. Again, assuming and exagerating.Actually,
what really bothers me is when someone puts words in others mouth, takes posts
of of context, then finishes their post with and absurd statement like
"crickets". As if they have posted something so profound that there
can't be a rebuttal. I will simply ignore your posts in the
future. No need to discuss any further. Swoop down on someone else Guy!
@SwoopOne season does not define a programs past, present and
future. Revenue helps build new facilities, which helps recruiting, which draw
better athletes. Considering Utah is new to the PAC 12 and in the building
stage; it's going to take a few years to see the effect. To say they will
always be last in the PAC 12 is quite a stretch. Arizona and ASU had some
growing pains when they joined the conference. Let's revisit the subject in
4-5 years. My previous comment was intended for Snack Pac. Time will tell,
waaaay too early to pigeon hole Utah as the perenial last place team. It's
going to take a 3-4 years to transition from the MWC the the PAC 12. Hopefully
this season brings improvement.
Duckhunter,Again, what percent does the LDS Church pay for educating
students at BYU? Why are you not focused on that issue rather than always
hammering on the U? Do some research and give me an answer. BTW, I
have done my research on the U's financial statements and I have had it
reviewed by those in the know. It is correct.
I have a valid question for the byu "fans" (as duckhunter would put it):
Why is Utah's financial revenues of any concern to you?
Dutchman,Deflect much? What does that have to do with Utah receiving
subsidies to it's athletic budget that include State money? No one denies
that the LDS Church pays to educate students at BYU, just like the State of Utah
pays to educate students at Utah, USU, Weber, UVU, SUU, etc. That's not the
point. We're talking about State money subsidizing Utah ATHLETICS, as
confirmed by this article.
GoRed,I am a tax payer in the state of Utah and this article states
that the University of Utah Athletics Department is receiving state money to
subsidize their athletic programs, which they in turn are reporting as revenue.
So, that makes it a concern to me, as it should to any tax payer in the state.
In other words, I'm concerned that Utah is spending millions of dollars on
new facilities yet can't stay afloat with out public funds to which I
contribute. That goes for any state run school receiving tax money to subsidize
athletics, including USU, UVU, Weber, SUU, etc.Good enough for ya?
Sigh.Right Bluto. BYU is on TV in 70 million homes or whatever. 70
million are not tuning in. Just like the Cartoon Network is on in millions of
homes, but not everyone watches it.In the event you have not
noticed. BYU is riding the coat tails of college football. It will take whatever
is given to them.Joining the PAC has not stopped AZ & ASU from
winning national titles in various sports. Utah has every opportunity to win
there as well. Sorry bitter BYU fans. Go find a conference to take you and get
your own revenue stream from them.
giantfan,I, too, am a tax payer in the state of Utah. You are
concerned that the U is spending millions on new facilities, yet, according to
you, "can't stay afloat without public funds." As you are
hopefully aware, Utah's entrance into the PAC 12 has seen an increase in
millions of dollars in revenues. But they are now in an extremely competitive
conference where their existing facilities lag far behind the other eleven
schools in the conference. There is a viable need to upgrade their facilities
in order to someday level the playing field. I'm not sure what the issue
is there. Having visited facilities in Washington, UCLA, Stanford, and Oregon,
I can tell you that we have a long way to go, but it's a step in the right
direction. And what's wrong with improving our facilities with the money
generated from admittance to Utah's new, prestigious conference?Is that a good enough response for ya?
NightOwl,Bluto's point is it's available to 70 million
homes on basic tier. No one's arguing that 70 million are watching.
It's what BYU calls exposure. Pretty powerful to go into a recruit's
home and tout 70 million home exposure so friends and family can watch them play
regularly. How many have access to the Pac-12 Network on basic tier?
GoRed,That all sounds great and hopefully not just wishful thinking.
But as it stands right now, Utah athletics is experiencing a revenue shortfall
in that they're running a deficit after expenses, even with subsidies that
include state money. Now maybe the U can get into the black with all that
promised Pac-12 money but there's no guarantee. And all we have to go on is
the current state of Utah Athletics. If Utah continues going 5-7 and no bowl
each year then there should be some real worries about meeting expenses in the
future, as they're sure to go up with new facilities to maintain. As a tax
payer I'm concerned any time state money is used where it might be going to
waste. Like I said, I hold the same concern for USU, Weber, UVU and SUU.
giantfan,Your last comments were fair. But I don't think
anyone truthfully knows at this point what the far-reaching implications are for
Utah joining the PAC 12 and their subsequent need to significantly upgrade their
facilities. Whether you are a supporter of the University of Utah or not, this
institution bears the name of the state. And when the highest profile sports
teams of the school do exceptionally well, such as the 2008 Sugar Bowl-winning
team did, the state as a whole benefits. You can call it free, positive
advertising. There is no way to measure this economically, any more than when
the state of Utah buys advertising space in other states' TV broadcasts and
newspapers. But it improves how our state is perceived by residents of other
states, which can indirectly affect out-of-state students who desire to come
here, tourism, etc.As far as Utah's 5-7 record, no one said the
period of transition into the PAC 12 would be easy. But, in order to compete,
the U needs to have good, solid facilities to go along with their improved
recruiting. In all fairness, give the university a few years to prove itself.
This tax payer is not concerned, here's why:Source: Economic
and Business ReviewThis report presents a summary of preliminary
estimates of the economic impacts attributable to the University’s
football program...Combining the survey findings with estimates of
the number of out-of-state attendees, we estimate that visitors to University of
Utah football games spent $5.5 million on in-state goods and services. This $5.5 million injected into the Utah economy from the citizens of
other states gives rise to additional economic impacts through indirect effects
arising out of the flow of these funds through the Utah economy.The
estimated total economic impacts to the state, both direct and indirect, are
given in Table 1....Earnings: $5.1 millionJobs: 210Gross
State Product: $10.3 millionOutput: $18.2 millionState Tax Revenue:
(continued)This study presents some of the quantifiable economic
benefits to the University of Utah and the State of Utah from the
University’s football program during its inaugural season as a member of
the Pac-12. We found that the transition from the MWC to the Pac-12 increased
the economic impact of the 2011–2012 football season by approximately 60
percent. The vast majority of out-of-state visitors at the
2011–2012 Pac-12 home games reported that their experience while in Utah
had left them with a more favorable impression of the University and Salt Lake
City and that their experience increased the chance of future visits to the
giantfan,You seem to be a sincere seeker of information so I will
try to answer your question. The U has an annual $3.2 (2013) billion operating
budget. That budget has numerous sources of revenues. The State Legislature
appropriates $253 (2012) million taxpayer funds to that budget. All of this
appropriation goes toward what is called the education mission of the U. None
of it is approprated to athletics. Now assuming, and there are arguments on
both sides of this issue, that because the U is owned by the State, therefore,
all of the $3.2 billion in budget belongs to the State of Utah and its taxpayers
even though the State itself appropriates $253 million of that budget. Then it
is reasonable to assume that some of the "institutional support" money
including student fees (which are approved by the elected student body senate)
comes from that $3.2 billion budget but is again outside the State's $253
million appropriation. That is how it is possible to have "institutional
support" money flowing to the athletic department but not have it coming
directly from the State's taxpayers.
I can hear the chants from the hill. "we're 61, we're 61!"
Warms my heart.
@uteologyConsidering that the university of utah is running a multi
million dollar yearly deficit I find it hard to believe that the $515000 dollars
the state takes in as tax revenue is really worth it. If you want to
claim abstract benefits, like gored did, I can see how that might be the case,
but the direct "benefit" is a negative based on your numbers.
@dutchmanYou have been absolutely desperate to try to prive that the
university of utah is some sort of "private" entity, let me fill you in
on something, IT IS NOT private. It is completely and entirely owned by the
state. Now the fact that it can operate with with much of its revenue coming
from sources other than direct legislative approriation does not change that
fact, IT IS NOT PRIVATE. Any and all money that go into it are state
owned funds, there are no seperate funds. Just because you want to claim funding
for this came from here and funding for that came from there is of no
consequence, if the university is subsidizing the athletic program, and they are
to the tune of about 12-13 million per year, then that is money that could have
gone to some other university function, preferably actual education, but it
doesn't because the athletic department CANNOT pay its own way. That is simple fact, there is no argument to the contrary, there is no
splitting hairs over where this dollar or that dollar came from, it is what it
is, subsidized millions yearly. That is the fact.
Duckhunter,Now who is being "frantic and emotional"? For
every person who believes as you that the entire $3.2 billion budget at the U
belongs to the State of Utah and thus the taxpayers I can find another expert
who believes otherwise. I stated in my post that we would assume that the $3.2
billion belongs to the State but the fact remains that you and others have
claimed that the athletic department benefits directly from State appropriations
thus money coming out of the $253 million State appropriation. Again, it does
@DuckyIf you want to claim abstract benefits, like gored did, I can
see how that might be the case, but the direct "benefit" is a negative
based on your numbers.------------My numbers? Those
numbers are from the Utah Economic and Business Review. They actually conducted
a scientific, research study:The Move to Pac-12: Economic Impact and
Visitor Experience of University of Utah FootballMichael T. Hogue,
Research AnalystIf you disagree with the author on the impact of
PAC-12 on Utah's economy then please feel free to submit your own study and
see if it gets published or they if just LOL.My bet is you'll
be so embarrassed that you'll have to spend a week in Tulsa.
DuckhunterHighland, UT@uteologyConsidering that
the university of utah is running a multi million dollar yearly deficit I find
it hard to believe that the $515000 dollars the state takes in as tax revenue is
really worth it. ---------------The State took in $5.5
million in economic gains and the State Treasury gained $515,000 in new taxes.
So that's over $6 million.Go ask the various business owners in
Salt Lake City if $5.5 million increase in revenue is "really worth it".
Let us know what they say. I'm assuming they'll point to
the PAC-12 street banners, put up by the City with tax payer money, and just
@uteologyI didn't disagree with the authors numbers, I simply
pointed out your "analysis" of those numbers is complete delusion. The state LOST money on the deal. It gained $515,000 in sales tax yet it
subsidizes the athletic department by several million per year. That is a loss
anyway you look at it.Also as a businessman I can appreciate revenue
increases, but those numbers are not profit, they are total revenue, profit is
just a fraction of that amount. So if the state is subsidizing the utah athletic
department several million per year, and then it gains only about 500g in tax
revenue, and the local business's only gain a fraction of the 5 mil in
actual profit, then the entire thing is still a net loss. At best it might be an
overall break even, that is at best, and it is doubtful it is even that. The
state is spending more money than the total return, that is a net loss and that
is not worth it IMO. Now I can understand you think it is worth it, but you
aren't thinking rationally, you are thinking as a "fan".
@uteologyEven if that entire 6mil is a profit to business owners and
the state it is still not even half of the amount utah is subsidized and in
deficit which combined equal around 13-14 million dollars. So in essence the
taxpayers/students are paying 14 million dollars so that the slc business owners
can bring in 5.5 mil in revenue, not profit, and the state can bring in 500g. I
don't know what kind of math they are teaching up on the hill but any way
you look at it that is a loss, a very large loss.
@dutchmanWell please point us to a credible source that claims the
university of utah, its infrastructure, its property, its business's, its
patents, and everything about it are private and not wholly owned by the state.
What a ludicrous thing to assert on your part. Just because the university
generates some revenue doesn't make it in any way private. You are just
floundering badly but if you have these credible sources as you claim please
point us to them because that would make the university of utah the only state
owned university in the entire country that isn't actually owned by the
@Duckhuner"I didn't disagree with the authors numbers, I simply
pointed out your "analysis" of those numbers is complete
delusion."--------------It wasn’t my analysis. I
printed the exact article word per word. You're just looking
at one measurement, state tax revenue, and getting outraged. They
disagree with you and instead they analyzed the PAC-12 impact on the entire Utah
economy. Note they say “total” economic impact on the state:"The estimated total economic impacts to the state, both direct and
indirect…. The impacts are measured by the number of supported jobs (Jobs)
and associated earnings (Earnings), gross state product (GSP), state economic
output (Output), and state tax revenue (State Tax Revenue)." -- Source:
Bureau of Economic and Business ResearchBTW I cited my source,
where’s your source that the Utah Athletic department gets $14 million is
It's understandable. Utah has not had big boy funds before. The have more
now but are playing catch up with other PAC schools. I have faith in my Utes.
BYU has a strong fan base and funds. It is what it is there. I will still pick
the Utes on the gridiron. I hope basketball improves and gets back to the
winning ways that now seem so distant in the past. As for other sports, Utah has
it's strong suits, but overall is relatively weak.
Since when is being 61st in any list something to crow about? It doesn't
take much to inflate the ego of Ute fans.
@Duck: “I didn't disagree with the authors numbers, I simply pointed
out your "analysis" of those numbers is complete delusion." It wasn’t my analysis. I posted the exact article word per word.
Please don’t take my word for it, go read it. @Duck:
“Also as a businessman I can appreciate revenue increases, but those
numbers are not profit… [Utah] gains only about 500g in tax revenue and
the local business's only gain a fraction of the 5 mil in actual
profit.” What? Net Income = Revenues –
Expenses – Taxes.A) Taxes go to the Utah treasuryB)
Expenses go mostly to Utah employees (salary) and businesses (rent,
utilities)C) Net Income (profits) go the Utah business ownersThus everything mostly stays in Utah.@Duck: "So in essence the
taxpayers/students are paying 14 million dollars"According to
USA Today since 2006 the subsidy is 24% of revenue, which is around $9 million.
There's no exact amounts listed for taxes and student fees. Whose your
@uteology"Whose your source?"Uh....the article
itself. Here's the quote."According to the report, Utah
received $9.9 million in subsidies, which includes students fees, direct and
indirect institutional support, state money and all other money received that
was not generated by the department's athletic functions. Subsidies are
included in the total revenue figure."Then of course there is
the 2.9 mil the athletic department was in deficit above and beyond the
subsidies. Once again the quote."The University of Utah ranks
61st in athletic department revenue among public schools nationwide and 10th
among public schools in the Pac-12, pulling in $40.8 million in revenue while
having $43.7 million in expenses" 43.7 minus 40.8 is a loss of
2.9 million. Add that to the 9.9 million in subsidies at that puts the overall
shortfall at 12.7 million. Not quite the 13-14 mil I posted but close enough.
The article doesn't give a breakdown of the subsidies, it just
gives the total of the subsidies, but that is of no consequence for our
discussion here, the fact is utah's athletic department is a 12.7 mil loser
on its own.
@DuckhunterAccording to the report, Utah received $9.9 million in
subsidies, which includes students fees, direct and indirect institutional
support, state money and all other money received that was not generated by the
department's athletic functions. Subsidies are included in the total
revenue figureStudent Fees - Also known as Student Athletic Fee
meaning what every student pays so they get admission to every single University
Sporting event. Sorry that isn't coming out of your tax payer pocket.
This comes to about $3 million of your subsidies. You also keep
throwing around the 13 million dollar number as the amount of money they are
costing the tax payers. Also untrue. 13 million is the amount the sports
department needs to make up. The amount that taxpayers and "others" make
up is around 7 million. Finally, everyone knew Utah was going to be
in the hole this year due to the amount of improvements they had made across
their sports facilities. Very few universities just have that cash in the bank
to spend $40 million in improvements.
What would be really nice to see, is as the U's share of Pac12 revenue goes
up, they cut the student fees they use. The 9+million in fees that the athletic
dept. uses comes from those least able to actually afford it. Get some Crimson
Club money, use Pac12 revenue. I'm all for the athletic dept. spending
millions, as they bring in millions, but there is really no excuse as student
fees continue to go up, to charge them for things that should be paid for out of
athletic revenues, or big money donors.
sportguy,"Finally, everyone knew Utah was going to be in the
hole this year due to the amount of improvements they had made across their
sports facilities. Very few universities just have that cash in the bank to
spend $40 million in improvements."Except those improvements
were bonded, weren't they? And therefore don't factor into the
expenses listed in the article. In fact, as those improvement to facilities come
on-line, expenses in the future will increase beyond the 42+ million listed in
the article. I know the university is counting on increases in future Pac-12
money but one thing is for sure: Expenses will increase as well during future
years. Because of that, revenues with regards to things like tickets sales
better not lag. Which means the football program can't endure more 5-7 no
bowl seasons and the basketball program better continue improving, among other
@DuckI thought you were outraged because tax money is being used to
support Utah athletics? And overjoyed that Utah Athletics is in the red? If so, then $12.7 (or $13 or $14 million) does not come from tax payers
or student fees. Total subsidy is $9.9 million. You have not provided a single
ounce of proof that gives the total amount invested by Utah tax payers or
student fees.If the amount is around is $5-$6 million then I have
provided a legit source that shows direct impact is around that amount and
indirect impact on the Utah economy is much, much more.
@uteologyTrying to split hairs in that manner is really only getting
you farther into a hole.The subsidy is 9.9 million, that is fact,
the deficit is 2.9 million, that is fact, together they equal 12.7 million, that
is fact. That means the atheltic department runs a 12.7 million dollar deficit
over what they generate, that is a fact. What the breakdown of the subsidy is
matters not one bit, the fact is there is a 9.9 million dollar subsidy. The economic impact you keep touting is a negative, not a plus, the
total amount doesn't even equal the subsidy, let alone the deficit on top
of it. The quotes you supplied on that economic impact only state dollars
brought in, they fail to tell us the amount spent to bring them in and there in
lies the problem. I'm sure most people understand that spending
$10 to generate $6 is a net loss but for some reason you just don't seem to
get it, probably because you don't want to get it,you are in favor of net
losses from now until the end of time because you are a utah "fan".
I love that all of the cougar fans are on here bashing with one of their own..
Christopher B is a cougar fan trying to impersonate Chris B, a diehard Ute fan.
How hard is that to see? Keep to the topic and leave your silly Christopher B
out of this. And of course the Utes are going to rank last in the PAC-12.
Everyone knew going in that it would be even until after 4 years. Why are you
all on here stating the obvious? Utah, along with TCU, was one of the first
non-BCS schools to join a BCS conference. Did you think they'd be any
higher after 2 years? Keep drinking the blue Kool-Aid and thinking that is a
whipping boy. And if they are a whipping boy, what does that make BYU? The cougs
have lost 8 out of the last 11 and soon to be 4 in a row. Cougar fans are
getting desperate and flat out hilarious.
@sportyguyI said tax payers and students are paying the subsidy,
regardless it is a large number however you break it down. The fact is utah
ahtletics are a fiscal loser, period, it cannot even be credibly argued to the
contrary.Also as Last Stand already stated the facility improvements
are supposedly bonded, they do not have anything to do with this. If you were to
take future payments on those bonds into account the deficits will grow even
larger even with future increases in revenue. There are only 6
schools in the entire country that actually make money on their athletic
programs, BYU being one of those 6, that means utah is not unique as a money
loser, they are actually one of the vast majority, but a $ loser they are, it is
undeniable, as is the fact they are heavily subsidized or they would be an even
bigger loser.Now I understand why utah "fans" are willing to
accept that. As whittingham likes to say "it is what it is" and it
isn't going to change. It will probably grow worse. I'd
really like to know where they got the 2.9 to make up the deficit?
byU "fans" should be more concerned about the state of their 2014
recruiting class, which is very indicative of state of their program, than they
are with Utah related stories: Nacua, the top ranked 2014 byU commit by all 4
reporting services, reportedly decommitted yesterday according to his own tweet;
four of the remaining eight recruits listed as "soft verbal"; Fred
Warner openly announcing he is keeping ALL his options open, and will make the
decision that is best for him, which hardly sounds like the "solid"
verbal he is listed at.Just more info for fodder!Go
@Duckhunter Trying to split hairs in that manner is really only
getting you farther into a hole.The subsidy is 9.9 million, that is
fact, the deficit is 2.9 million, that is fact, together they equal 12.7
million, that is fact. That means the atheltic department runs a 12.7 million
dollar deficit over what they generate, that is a fact. What the breakdown of
the subsidy is matters not one bit, the fact is there is a 9.9 million dollar
subsidy. ---------You're not a Utah student, that
is a fact.You're not a Utah booster, that is a fact.You're
a Utah tax payer, that's an assumption.Yet you're outraged
because someone else's money, boosters, students, etc., was given to Utah
Athletics only for Utah to be in the red?That makes as much since
me, a non-Mormon, going onto BYU articles crying about Tithing.
@DuckhunterJust yesterday according to you it wasn't $6
million, the economic impact to Utah was "just a fraction" because as a
"businessman" you only looked at "profits". Before that you
looked at tax revenue, so it was only $500K.Now go read the article
again and figure out how $10 million from subsidies helped Utah football produce
over $10.3 in GSP and $18.2 million in Output, the same two "indirect"
economic measurements you ignored originally."Output is the
value of all goods and services produced in the economy, including the value of
goods and services used as intermediate inputs in the production of final goods
and services. The value of final goods and services thus embodies the value of
their intermediate inputs. Subtracting the value of intermediate inputs from the
value of final goods and services gives the value added through production. This
value added approximates the gross state product,which is what it is
called in the table. Gross state product is the state-level analog of the widely
reported gross domestic product at the national level."
@DuckyThe article doesn't give a breakdown of the subsidies, it just
gives the total of the subsidies, but that is of no consequence for our
discussion here, the fact is utah's athletic department is a 12.7 mil loser
on its own.----------------It is a of consequence if you
cry about it and not even have a dog in the fight. Again, you pay
taxes so you have the right to be outraged if you so choose. But
you don't pay student fees or donate to the program, so why are you so
outraged on how other's choose to spend their money?We get it,
Utah is in the red and you're happier than the Pillsbury dough boy on his
way to a baking convention. But stop the fake concern for Utah students.
Does Ducky's argument remind anyone else of Monty Python's Black
Knight? Might be time to let it go for the sake of rational and currently sane
Utah and BYU fans everywhere.
@uteologyWho said I was "outraged"? I certainly didn't
say that. I am opposed to it though. I think utah should be forced to operate on
revenues and never be allowed to operate at a deficit. If those revenues include
subsidies then so be it I guess, I don't have any say in that, although I
will use it to show utah "fans" like yourself again and again that what
utah truly is. It is just ironic with all of the bragging about pac12 riches,
and yes I know utah is not yet getting all they eventually will, that they still
lose money. utah "fans" like yourself, naval, christina, howie, etc.
have spent a lot of time on here telling us about how much more money utah is
already making over what it made just 2 years ago but regardless of that
bragging they are still running deficits and taking huse subsidies just to make
the deficits less than they would be otherwise.Even you should be
able to see the irony in that although I'm sure you can't appreciate
it the way that I do.
@fenderSo you are admitting defeat. Good choice as there is nothing
whatsoever for you to stand on here.
fender: Right then - we'll call it a draw!
@ fender - only in ducky's world would that be called admitting defeat!!
"LOL"Go Utes!!Onward and Upward!! And way under
DuckhunterDespite the clueless chest-pounding on the hill, it's
obvious that our friends on the hill have decided to emulate the reckless
deficit spending of their PAC mates.
@midpacmajorI understand the bonding to build better facilities, I
understand taking the subsidies, I even understand the deficit although I think
that needs to be addressed legislatively. To me this is more about taking the
utah "fans" down about 20 notches from their puffed up, and false,
fiscal arrogance. Their program is a fiscal loser, plain and simple, and it
isn't going to change any time soon. On the otherhand the
program at BYU actually makes money, several million dollars per year as a
matter of fact, and that is with vastly superior facilities already in place as
well as a vastly more successful overall athletic program. As naval vet would so
"frantically and emtionally" proclaim, edge BYU, huge edge actually.LOL!
@duckHave you ever taken the time to stop and think how much tithing
money the church uses to pay for its no profit operations and educational
institutions? I know that the BYU athletic department prides it self by claiming
to be self sufficient via corporate sponsorships (yet they refuse to ever
publish the data), even if that is true, what about the University as a whole?
Money from poor brothers and sisters in the Philippines and Chile is being used
to pay for the University. They don't release the data so you don't
have to face it, but look in your heart and ask yourself if you think that is
romeisn'tburning,You can't be serious. Tithing paid by
brothers and sisters in the Philippines and Chile are being funneled to BYU? You
probably don't realize that 100% of tithing dollars coming from third world
countries stays in those countries to pay for local houses of worship, including
chapels and temples. And 100% is usually not enough to sustain their local
infrastructure so money from outside those countries is often used to make up
the difference. Therefore you're going to have to try harder to think of a
way to disparage BYU on the topic of tithing.P.S. Foreign member
students are eligible to attend BYU and take advantage of the discounted tuition
and many do considering the diverse student body that attends.P.P.S.
If any members of the LDS church really have such a problem with maybe a
microscopic fraction of their tithing dollars going to BYU, then just stop
paying it. No one's forcing you. If you're worried about how any of
that money is spent then you really don't get it and would just be better
off giving yourself a 10% raise.
@romeisn'tburningAside from the fact you obviously don't
know what you are talking about, as giantfan so aptly pointed out, there is also
the small fact that no one is forced to pay tithing. It is a choice and those
that pay it, like myself, do so willingly and do not question how it is used as
we all know it is being used properly and wisely. None of it is used for BYU
athletics by the way, BYU turns a multi million dollar profit on athletics, one
of only 6 schools to do so.That said I don't have any problem
with the money the state spends on its higher education system either, that
includes the university of utah, I just have a problem with a program that takes
massive subsidies and still runs a deficit. Fiscal brains are obviously lacking
in the utah athletic department.Next time actually try to make an
argument with some credibility behind it.
The truth is that neither of you where any of that money is going. No financial
records are released, ever. So you can make all these claims about 100% stays
here or there, and profitability but until the books become public knowledge
these statements have no credibility.
romeisn'tburning,Then what in the world is your point? You
don't know where it's going either. To claim that money from a poor
Philipino family is going to fund BYU is just irresponsible and inflammatory
since neither of us knows, right? Tithing is an exercise in faith.
We don't have any say in what happens to it and we are to trust that church
leaders endowed by god will be responsible stewards of it. If you're a
little weak-kneed when paying your tithing then you really have two options:
Find the faith to pay it or don't pay it at all. Pretty simple, right? And
if you don't pay tithing already then why do you care where it goes?
When Utah's full share comes they will be making some good money.
Just glad I don't have to spend much money in Utah. I always gas up in
Evanston. Just think how much money could go to public education instead of
supporting the lower end of the pac 10.2.
As a taxpayer, I despise paying taxes to subsidize the athletic programs of
universities who can't operate in the black. Somehow I
don't think my business would pay the leader $2 - $6 million per year if
they can't be profitable. Let's get back to paying college coaches
$200k - $300k per year which is comparable with their responsibilities in the
private sector.$2 - $6 million per year is comparable to a CEO who
runs a very profitable company with tens of thousands of employees.
Go SUU.... Working in the Black!
Football is subsidizing most of Utah sports and it still looses. Basketball has
got to start pulling it's own weight.
I hate to dampen the cheering but Yeets, you're still small potatoes "the Texas Longhorns ranked first in total athletic revenue, raking
in $163.2 million for a $25 million profit."Y'all come down here
and give us a battle, hear.
"Boise St is 17-0 against all Utah schools since 1997. There is your one-up.
Perspective folks!"Ummm, you might want to rethink that comment
Fatman86... BYU took Boise St. to the woodshed earlier this year to the tune of