MGB: Baker explains Tribune report, vows to improve UNT's position

[Brett Vito]

MGB:

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2017/01/baker-unt-working-to-grow-revenue-tribune-report-does-not-tell-whole-story.html/

[Wag Tag]

$20m deficit? In the business world that would be revenue!  As was stated the facts are in the details! Wren took the job knowing he would be able to take UNT to new heights!

[GreenMachine]

35 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

$20m deficit? In the business world that would be revenue!  As was stated the facts are in the details! Wren took the job knowing he would be able to take UNT to new heights!

No, it would be Revenue - Expenses = Deficit(Profit)

[ntmeangreen11]

If the Hustler ever gave a damn about UNT, he would have resigned and not accepted another penny.

I can not believe we are still paying him.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by ntmeangreen11

[Wag Tag]

1 minute ago, GreenMachine said:

No, it would be Revenue - Expenses = Deficit(Profit)

Duh! As stated it is incoming to the AD department. It could show as revenue for services rendered! 

If anything this shows were the growth for revenue will come from. Winning, filling stadium, and increasing the student fees once this is done.

[Graddean]

In Arkansas, college athletics have four revenue sources: a transfer from operating funds (the max allowed is set by the state), student fees, gates, and gifts.  So what the article calls a deficit, we would see as revenue sources.

[DeepGreen]

This would be a good topic for a quarterly Mean Green Club meeting.

[All About UNT]

7 hours ago, DeepGreen said:

This would be a good topic for a quarterly Mean Green Club meeting.

which should take place......

[KingDL1]

1 hour ago, All About UNT said:

which should take place......

should have taken place 15 years ago

[Cerebus]

5 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

should have taken place 15 years ago

One did, I was there, got the booklet.  

[DeepGreen]

15 hours ago, DeepGreen said:

This would be a good topic for a quarterly Mean Green Club meeting.

Tongue and cheek guys, with a little sarcasm mixed in.

[VideoEagle]

17 hours ago, Graddean said:

In Arkansas, college athletics have four revenue sources: a transfer from operating funds (the max allowed is set by the state), student fees, gates, and gifts.  So what the article calls a deficit, we would see as revenue sources.

In accounting terms, it's both depending you who's accounts you are looking at. It was debited from the University operation funds so that's an expense for the overall University, the credited to the athletic department so it revenue for them. 

18 hours ago, GreenMachine said:

No, it would be Revenue - Expenses = Deficit(Profit)

Yes! Thank you. 

 

 

 

I'm thrilled at the Athletic Director taking time to react and explain. We don't necessarily need quarterly MG club meetings but there is a HUGE difference between quarterly and once every 15 years! 

Edited January 5, 2017 by VideoEagle

[UNT Mean Green]

20 hours ago, Brett Vito said:

MGB:

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2017/01/baker-unt-working-to-grow-revenue-tribune-report-does-not-tell-whole-story.html/

Come on Vito. The $20,000,000 is revenue from Student Fees and the University. It is not a deficit. There's 100+ other FBS universities in the country with similar models. 

If you're going to report something, make certain that you have your facts straight. 

[GrandGreen]

1 hour ago, UNT Mean Green said:

Come on Vito. The $20,000,000 is revenue from Student Fees and the University. It is not a deficit. There's 100+ other FBS universities in the country with similar models. 

If you're going to report something, make certain that you have your facts straight. 

Just because most of the FB division have deficits, doesn't mean they aren't deficits.   Non-profits such as Universities' athletic departments have to have revenues equal expenses so there cannot be a profit or loss like for profit organizations.  

By your logic all football programs are equal being that they generate no profit or loss.  That is obviously not the case.  I find the methodology of this report very valid.   UT for example generates millions of dollars that are plowed back into the athletic department and gets little or no institutional support or student fees.   Most schools like NT can't come close to covering costs with things like tickets, parking, game guarantees, advertising, conference and NCAA funds, private donations, etc.   So the difference is made up with student fees and direct transfers from the school.  

So in essence, the university transfers which primarily come from student fees and the dedicated athletic fees are comparable to the net loss of for profit businesses.   This is akin to a family owned business losing massive amounts of money every year, but staying open by withdrawing funds from other sources to stay open.   Would anyone think this is a successful business?  

[Wag Tag]

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Just because most of the FB division have deficits, doesn't mean they aren't deficits.   Non-profits such as Universities' athletic departments have to have revenues equal expenses so there cannot be a profit or loss like for profit organizations.  

By your logic all football programs are equal being that they generate no profit or loss.  That is obviously not the case.  I find the methodology of this report very valid.   UT for example generates millions of dollars that are plowed back into the athletic department and gets little or no institutional support or student fees.   Most schools like NT can't come close to covering costs with things like tickets, parking, game guarantees, advertising, conference and NCAA funds, private donations, etc.   So the difference is made up with student fees and direct transfers from the school.  

So in essence, the university transfers which primarily come from student fees and the dedicated athletic fees are comparable to the net loss of for profit businesses.   This is akin to a family owned business losing massive amounts of money every year, but staying open by withdrawing funds from other sources to stay open.   Would anyone think this is a successful business?  

How can the AD show a deficit on its financials, with funds coming into the department? No matter what the source is? You can't!

The University picks up the deficit on the subsidy. The athletic fees are not designated for the University so they would never has access to those fees for other purposes.

If they were taking the ath fee and the subsidy and that was the total deficit of the department then the AD would be at least breaking even. The subsidy from the University, I would think breaks it even!

 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Wag Tag

[GrandGreen]

52 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

How can the AD show a deficit on its financials, with funds coming into the department? No matter what the source is? You can't!

The University picks up the deficit on the subsidy. The athletic fees are not designated for the University so they would never has access to those fees for other purposes.

If they were taking the ath fee and the subsidy and that was the total deficit of the department then the AD would be at least breaking even. The subsidy from the University, I would think breaks it even!

The subsidy is probably

 

Not sure what you are stating, I attempted to explain that non-profits are always break even unless they are terminated.   Their success is not based on profit or loss but rather if they generate a surplus or deficit.   A surplus is re-invested in the entity or used for the benefit of the designated beneficiary.    A deficit must be made up by more investment in the entity to cover costs.  

Your argument I guess is that student fees are somehow earned by the athletic department, therefore equivalent to private donations, game revenue, etc.    Rather it is earned or not still does not alter the fact that as a measurement of the performance of an athletic department, it definitely should not be included.   

Again, are you arguing that all athletic departments' performance is the same because at the end they must balance revenue and costs?  No matter how much drain they are on the Universities resources to do so.  

[Wag Tag]

44 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Not sure what you are stating, I attempted to explain that non-profits are always break even unless they are terminated.   Their success is not based on profit or loss but rather if they generate a surplus or deficit.   A surplus is re-invested in the entity or used for the benefit of the designated beneficiary.    A deficit must be made up by more investment in the entity to cover costs.  

Your argument I guess is that student fees are somehow earned by the athletic department, therefore equivalent to private donations, game revenue, etc.    Rather it is earned or not still does not alter the fact that as a measurement of the performance of an athletic department, it definitely should not be included.   

Again, are you arguing that all athletic departments' performance is the same because at the end they must balance revenue and costs?  No matter how much drain they are on the Universities resources to do so.  

Ath fees would not exist without the programs of athletics. True revenue would be donations, AD rev whether tkt sales, merchandise and others and then the student fee! If the AD was a totally separate entity the real deficit would be the $9m subsidy. GMG 

[GrandGreen]

16 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Ath fees would not exist without the programs of athletics. True revenue would be donations, AD rev whether tkt sales, merchandise and others and then the student fee! If the AD was a totally separate entity the real deficit would be the $9m subsidy. GMG 

Actually., it would all be revenue including institutional contributions under your reasoning because it effectively all comes from students and funds the athletic department.   Therefore, all athletic departments perform the same because all are non-profits and must balance revenue and expenses.   Therefore, teams like ULM and Texas State are just as successful as UT and Ohio State.    Not the real world or the way non-profits financial reports are viewed, but I bet there are a lot of AD's that like your thinking.    

 

[Wag Tag]

3 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Actually., it would all be revenue including institutional contributions under your reasoning because it effectively all comes from students and funds the athletic department.   Therefore, all athletic departments perform the same because all are non-profits and must balance revenue and expenses.   Therefore, teams like ULM and Texas State are just as successful as UT and Ohio State.    Not the real world or the way non-profits financial reports are viewed, but I bet there are a lot of AD's that like your thinking.    

 

Nope, I am sure there is pressure on AD to reduce or eliminate the subsidy!  Or maybe the University has budgeted X amount to always go to Athletics!

[Graddean]

It is nice to know how much of the resources are spent on athletics, but if you call this a deficit, the same term could be applied to many operations of the university.  Revenue generated is largely from tuition and fees, grants, gifts, and the state (in the case of public institutions).  Many areas do not generate revenue.  Do we consider them to be deficits?  For example, administrative offices do not generat revenue.  Even in academics, some departments will not generate enough in tuition and fees to cover their budget.  We don't consider them operating a Deficit. Foreign language, English, and philosophy are some typical examples.  Many sciences require grant money to go with tuition and fees to cover the budget.  All of these are necessary to be a true university.  This question is how much of our resources should be devoted to athletics.  The answer will be different for every school.

[PlummMeanGreen]

45 minutes ago, Graddean said:

It is nice to know how much of the resources are spent on athletics, but if you call this a deficit, the same term could be applied to many operations of the university.  Revenue generated is largely from tuition and fees, grants, gifts, and the state (in the case of public institutions).  Many areas do not generate revenue.  Do we consider them to be deficits?  For example, administrative offices do not generat revenue.  Even in academics, some departments will not generate enough in tuition and fees to cover their budget.  We don't consider them operating a Deficit. Foreign language, English, and philosophy are some typical examples.  Many sciences require grant money to go with tuition and fees to cover the budget.  All of these are necessary to be a true university.  This question is how much of our resources should be devoted to athletics.  The answer will be different for every school.

The late UNT Chancellor Alfred F. Hurley called athletics "the picture window of our university."   Might that picture window seen by hundreds of thousands who drive thru our campus in west Denton require more student service fees as "UNT shadow university" TSU-San Marcos gets from theirs?  

Shadowing UNT?   First of all, they think they one-upped us by getting the name Texas State U which Fry suggested to Jitter Nolen and our BOR's back in the 70's.  (UT & TAMU cut that idea off at the pass during that era).   Our powers that be eventually chose UNT in the mid-80's with Governor Bill Clements signing the bill to create our new name in 1988.

TSU-SM has been shadowing all we've been doing for decades even being proactive in creating a music museum that UNT with its music past and with its famed College of Music should have taken the lead to have secure for our campus. 

http://www.txstate.edu/ctmh/

Whats next for TSU-SM?   A Texas jazz music addition to their main museum?  

No blame game here like in daily national politics, but North Texas professors sometimes spend way too much time working on their tenureships for life long jobs in Denton rather than leading the way in doing something special for our school, our students and our alums & then we have the audacity to ask them to support their employer's athletic program?   

GMG!

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by PlummMeanGreen