Quantcast

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

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 not.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@Ducky

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.

------------

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 Football
Michael T. Hogue, Research Analyst

If 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.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

---------------

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 LOL.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@uteology

I 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".

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@uteology

Even 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.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@dutchman

Well 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 state.

Good grief.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@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 Research

BTW I cited my source, where’s your source that the Utah Athletic department gets $14 million is subsidies?

gdog3finally
West Jordan, Utah

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.

BigCougFan
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Since when is being 61st in any list something to crow about? It doesn't take much to inflate the ego of Ute fans.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@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 treasury
B) Expenses go mostly to Utah employees (salary) and businesses (rent, utilities)
C) Net Income (profits) go the Utah business owners

Thus 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 source?

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@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.

sportyguy
sandy, UT

@Duckhunter

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

Student 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.

dansimp
Layton, UT

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.

Last Stand
Farmington, UT

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 things.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@Duck

I 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.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@uteology

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.

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".

Juice19
South Jordan, UT

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.

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@sportyguy

I 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?

VegasUte
Las Vegas, NV

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 Utes!!

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@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.

to comment

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