The real relationship between UT’s academic and at

[SportsICT]

Interesting article. Anyone know the level of truth?

Link

In reply to:

---

---

 

[wherzwaldo]

I know nothing about the level of truth, but on the surface it seems biased. He cites numbers and the athletic department's debt, and that the university has to transfer money to the athletics budget. How much money? That amount is conveniently left out - it's just a "large" amount. Is a large amount $1 million or $100 million? That omission prevents him from making a strong case, IMO.

 

[CanaTigers]

Athletics overall is a money pit. Football is a cash cow. These articles and professors always mention the benefits afforded the football coaches and players but talk about the cost of the athletic program not football. If they want to make a good argument it should be that UT should dump all other sports and concentrate on football.

 

[Lancehorn]

We all have choices to make with what we want to do with our lives. If the professors wanted to make more money, perhaps they should have been football coaches.

I understand that the primary function of a University is to teach young minds first. Research is secondary. Athletics and the like are tertiary at best or perhaps even window dressing...

BUT!

In todays society where 90% of our citizens spend hours per day watching TV, and athletics has become the main window in which a University gets this national attention on TV. I'd argue, and probably win, that having top performing athletics teams serves a much greater service to accomplishing university goals than just the positive or negative cash flow of the Athletic Dept.

The professors that don't get this need to either stfu or go to another school as far as I'm concerned.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Let us know when 100,000 fans will buy tickets to watch a physics lecture...

HHD

 

[Friday]

Does the author think "Trademark Income" would be as high without superior athletics? If a portion of "Trademark Income" is used then so be it. We don't bring in all that money without some badass longhorns taking the field.

 

[SportsICT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Endust]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[l00p]

I saw a few Longhorn shirts and hats in Hong Kong last April. This does not include the people i was linked with there. I have seen it in other places as well. They are because of the high profile of the football team, more than likely.

Are people buying academic clothing in droves at the Co-Op online store? Or are they buying sports merchandise or because of athletics?

 

[Endust]

100p,

what is the major source of revenue for The University?

trademark income? or tuition and fees?

 

[l00p]

Fair point. But I bet that the Athletics bring in more as a whole including the indirect ways. I bet that some donors to Academics give as a result of the Athletics. There is no way to prove this assertion but it is a hunch.

I am sure there are companies who give a lot more now with our successes on the gridiron than before. I bet more alumni are as well. For the wrong reasons they may feel more proud or attached to the school. Again, no way to prove this hunch but maybe it is true.

The AD pays the scholly of the players, right? I ask because I don't know.

 

[wherzwaldo]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[RayDog]

I knew he didn't know anything about athletic department revenue when he wrote about making the BCS bowl being relevant. If anything we lose the most revenue when we go to a BCS bowl because the travel expenses are higher. He also failed to acknowledge that the budget in the past few years has included payments to the university in the millions of dollars.

As for the construction debt and payments the university should pitch in some given the amount of classrooms and student facilities added.

 

[Texas Jack]

Mr Hillis has incorrect figures. His UT budget numbers are off by about 25 million dollars.

On 8-29-09 the Texan quoted William Powers as saying “When we say we don’t subsidize them(athletics), we mean they cover all of their own expenses" and Deloss Dodds as saying “We’re totally self-funded”.
The Link

Here is a link form the Austin Business Journal claiming that the 2007 budget was far in excess of the $107 he claims, which is in reality near $130 million.

 

[Texas Taps]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[yelladawgdem]

The program is swimming in a sea of cash with the best facilities around. Something is being done right. And aren't some people still interested in the $16,000,000.00 "loan" that now Sec. of Defense Robert Gates approved from the general fund to the athletic department over at Hooterville?

16 mill? ****, thats just walkin around money.

 

[Bill in Sinton]

I noticed our local Dollar General store had reduced to half price at $6 each for Texas Tech and Texas A&M shirts. But they didn't have any UT shirts in the basket.

 

[drborange]

Endust, it is always ok for people to ask questions, but the
$1300. per semester hour is if you only take one hour.

If you take 12 or more it is about $475. per hour. It varies from school to school. Business is highest and Liberal Arts is the cheapest.
The Link

I graduated in 1970 and if IRC, it was less than $20 per hour!

My degree is worth even more than I thought!

 

[Horn87]

was $4 per hour when I was in school, then tripled to $12 my senior year and people were outraged

 

[TheGallopinGoose]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[houstonearlers]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BigWill]

I've yet to see a kid at the mall sporting Cal Tech or MIT gear.