Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Lots of great information in this article if you care to digest it. Looks to me like our "great" fundraiser isn't doing such a great job brining in revenue to the department, but decide for yourself. Then again, it looks like the university could do a little more also, in comparison to other similar schools!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/c ... 54955804/1

factman wrote: Looks to me like our "great" fundraiser isn't doing such a great job brining in revenue to the department, but decide for yourself.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/c ... 54955804/1

I beg to differ with your assessment. Look at all the facts there. Revenue includes the Subsidy. (Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money. The NCAA and others consider such funds "allocated" or everything not generated by the department's athletics functions.) BG has the second lowest subsidy of all the MAC schools (Toledo is lower). Looking at Total Revenue less the Total Subsidy gives a better representation of what the Athletic Department is generating (Ticket Sales, Licensing, Contributions, Other). Total Rev less the Total Sub for BG is $7.3 mil. Toledo leads in this at $9.3 mil, Miami is second at $8.5 mil, NIU third and $7.4 at then BG is fourth.

Or how about looking at Net Profit (Rev-Exp)? Leader is OU at $2.6 mil, BG is second at $2.1mil. Toledo and Miami lost money. That doesn't seem too bad to me.

I believe I mentioned that the "university" could do a little more too!
I don't consider it profit, when we are not funding sports to the level that other schools in our conference are funding them.

Of course you don't.

It's the Journey... wrote:Of course you don't.