Dear Governors,
Who’s guarding the hen house?
Ad
Do you wonder how much money it takes to keep the CSU Athletics Department above sea level? There appears to be two possible answers, as outlined below:
A. The CSU Athletics Department needs a modest subsidy and that the loss is made up by the national exposure the athletics teams receive.
B. The CSU Athletics Department is a chronic and habitual loser of tens of millions of dollars per year.
I would refer you to the Fort Collins newspaper (Coloradoan) for Sunday the 16th. Steve Shulman (CSU economics deptartment) published a “viewpoint.” The article states, “According to the NCAA, CSU subsidized its athletics program an astonishing $20 million in 2014.”
Let’s examine what CSU President Tony Frank has said in the past: “The argument that we spend too much on athletics falls flat with me when our $9.4 million university subsidy includes a repayment of $7.4 million back to us in the form of tuition from scholarships. A net of $2.5 million for the visibility and campus life of our athletics programs does not, to me, approach the line of excess.”
What are the facts that Dr. Frank is using in the above quote?
There are several factors that Dr. Frank has misconstrued:
- The statement is pure and unadulterated self-serving POPPYCOCK!
- Somehow, maybe through “creative accounting,” Dr. Frank is turning a $7.4 million expense into a $7.4 million revenue. Quite an accomplishment.
- Going from an expense (minus) to a revenue (plus) is an almost $15 million swing in the budget. That is a total athletics loss of over $17.5 million.
In order to check my reasoning, I contacted Richard Vedder, distinguished professor of economics at Ohio University. In his email back to me stated the following: “How can you count an outlay of funds as REVENUE? No one does that I know. … It appears to me particularly egregious faulty accounting.”
I appears to me, and should to you, that the obvious answer to the question is unequivocally “B.” The CSU athletics is hemorrhaging large amounts of cash every year.
Ad
The new football stadium will only add more loses to this situation.
I do believe that the governors are being BAMBOOZLED by the CSU administration.
I would, once again, suggest you consult with a trusted sports economist before it is too late.
I would be pleased to present my data to all or any of the governors.
Sincerely,
Bob Vangermeersch
Brad • Aug 19, 2015 at 4:12 pm
You need a new hobby, Bob, and some new catchphrases.
If you really were so concerned over the athletic department running in the red I’m shocked you don’t advocate for getting rid of Title IX and scaling back to simply football and basketball since they are the only two revenue producing sports. But I do forget that this isn’t some altruistic crusade for you as much as it’s your distaste for football. Why else would you write this op-ed and blindly throw the stadium in at the end of it all like it was your grand finale?
We are talking about the same stadium that is structured to pay for itself right, Bob? We are talking about the same stadium that is allowing the university to not impact the general fund for Hughes right, Bob? I wonder what you would have done if we had kept Hughes and the budget had really gone into the red. I can only imagine you would have been just as fevernt writing op-eds about all the POPPYCOCK reasoning and BAMBOOZLED administration right, Bob?
The water has receded and your bias is showing, time to find another “crusade”.
Please • Aug 19, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Please just stop.