Comments about ‘Utes rank 61st nationwide, 10th in Pac-12, 1st in Utah in 2012 public school athletic revenues’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 25 2013 12:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Dutchman
Murray, UT

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?

giantfan
Farmington, UT

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.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@dutchman

That 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.

Spokane Ute
Spokane, WA

@ 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!

Spokane Ute
Spokane, WA

@Swoop

One 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.

Dutchman
Murray, UT

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.

GoRed
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

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?

giantfan
Farmington, UT

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.

giantfan
Farmington, UT

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?

NightOwlAmerica
SALEM, OR

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.

GoRed
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

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?

giantfan
Farmington, UT

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?

giantfan
Farmington, UT

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.

GoRed
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

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.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

This tax payer is not concerned, here's why:

Source: Economic and Business Review

This 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 million
Jobs: 210
Gross State Product: $10.3 million
Output: $18.2 million
State Tax Revenue: $515,121

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

(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 state.

Dutchman
Murray, UT

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.

itsajelly
Walla Walla, WA

I can hear the chants from the hill. "we're 61, we're 61!" Warms my heart.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@uteology

Considering 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.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@dutchman

You 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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments