Just to be clear, I completely agree with what Mike and Robert are noting.  My criticism this entire time has been of the MAC generally, not Ohio University in particular.  I have never meant to suggest that Ohio is prioritizing football at the expense of basketball.  My gripe is with the conference as a whole, where the DoE numbers show that MAC football spending has on average increased by over $1 million (or 22%) since 2006, while MAC basketball spending has only increased by $175K (or 13%) over the same time period.

If as posted earlier Geno has a buyout clause I would think Bradley is paying it otherwise Geno made a major error. If I was Kent I would hold firm on that buyout clause. It would certainly pay for many salaries on the new staff.









GO BOBCATS

I never said the DoE numbers were the gospel, just that they are the best available source of info for all D-I programs.  I'm not sure why Ohio's internal numbers differ, but it also isn't clear to me that those figures are necessarily more reliable than the numbers we are required to report to the federal government.  I'm almost positive that the DoE is not allocating other expenditures to the various sports in the manner you suggest, as universities are required to report data sport by sport, including separate line-items for intramurals, etc.

In any event, the underlying point remains.  The MAC is incapable of competing with all but the lowest levels of FBS football on a financial basis.  Any additional money we throw at football is just a drop in the bucket compared to what the real programs spend.  Meanwhile, the MAC could set itself apart from the pack in mid-major hoops by simply diverting a fraction of the cost of football to the hoops programs.  Therefore, I maintain that any dollar spent on football over the minimum necessary to maintain our current FBS standing and ESPN contract is wasted, and would be much more prudently spent on the basketball side of things, where the MAC is financially much closer to competing at a national level.  I still haven't heard a single persuasive argument to the contrary on that point.

If I add Campus Recreation to the Athletics spend, I get very close to their number. The numbers I gave are what goes into the university's budget. How would you not find them more reliabe than the DOE?

Just do some high-level math. Football direct spend is $2.381M. Adding 85 scholarships X $25K is another $2.125M for a grand total of $4.506M. How do you bridge the gap to the $7.7M they say Ohio is spending in football?

You can go about it another way. Look at the spending you listed:

2005 - Football ($4,265,821), Men's Basketball ($1,156,611), Total ($16,704,043)
2006 - Football ($4,445,964), Men's Basketball ($1,252,041), Total ($18,671,109)
2007 - Football ($4,986,723), Men's Basketball ($1,432,379), Total ($20,448,176)
2008 - Football ($5,869,228), Men's Basketball ($1,787,577), Total ($21,893,603)
2009 - Football ($7,385,482), Men's Basketball ($2,327,125), Total ($22,575,238)

If you were to believe this, spending in basketball doubled over that 5-year period. Do you really believe that's true?

So you still believe the $22.575M is more accurate than the $18.7M number?

Even the faculty senate agrees upon those numbers: http://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/upload/ICA_sustainability_Resolution_final-2.doc

I wouldn't call it a discrepancy. I would call it a reduction in spend. A couple of guesses of the top of my head. According to this article (http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-31772-ous-varsity-athletics-department-recognized-for-budget-efficiencies.html), Ohio cut spending by $1.25M. Perhaps some of that came from football. Also, Ohio had 7 regular season road games in 2008 as compared to 6 in 2009. Maybe they had to pay less of a guarantee to Cal Poly than they did to VMI? Equipment expenditures?

But I'm more comfortable explaining an $80K reduction in football spend than the $4M gap in what the DOE says Ohio spends on Athletics than what the university does.

Ted,

Maybe you linked to the wrong report, but the first line of the one that you provided above(http://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/upload/ICA_sustainability_Resolution_final-2.doc) discusses the institutional subsidy for athletics provided by the University.  Specifically, it states "Whereas, Ohio University's institutional subsidy of Intercollegiate Athletics was in excess of $14.5 Million in 2008 and $15 million in 2009," with a footnote citing to the USA Today database containing the numbers we reported to the NCAA.  That database reveals that we reported $22.875 million in athletics expenses for 2009-10.

So again, we have reported over $22 million in athletics expenses to both the Department of Education and the NCAA for 2009-10.  But yet I'm the one "not interested in having a real discussion" because I question the validity of internal budget numbers that you yourself have admitted are historically understated and unreliable.  Seriously?  You haven't provided a single compelling reason why the figures reported to the DoE and NCAA are less reliable than the numbers you want to blindly accept as being true, other than that they don't match up to the University data you typically rely on.  If anything, that calls the data you are relying on into question, not the other way around.

In any event, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the price of tea in China, given that my main point (that basketball provides a much more financially realistic avenue to national athletic prominence) has yet to even be contested.

OK, tell me how much we have to spend, where the money comes from and what we get for the investment?

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am honestly trying to get to the bottom of the numbers. The DOE numbers don't make sense intuitively or as compared to the budget Ohio uses to run the university. I will continue to investigate the DOE numbers to see if they are appropriate to use and will share my findings back.

That's fair, and I apology if my last response was unduly snide.  At this point I really don't have anything left to contribute.  I'm not sure why the discrepancy exists between the University's budget and the two (nearly identical at least with respect to total expenses) reports we provided to the Department of Education and NCAA. 

That could be true. But there's no guarantee that additional dollars gets us anything more then we get now. Which included NCAA bids in 2005 and 2010, two other postseason appearances and an NCAA win.

Ted, if "there's no guarantee that additional dollars gets us anything more than we get now"  why invest any additional money in any sport?