UTEP athletics $18 million loss only part of story, officials say

[Harry]

The $18 million lost in 2015-16 by the University of Texas at El Paso's Athletic Department doesn't tell the complete story, Athletic director Bob Stull said.

The UTEP Athletic Department spent more than twice as much that season ($32.5 million) than it made ($14.5 million), according data analyzed by the Texas Tribune.

But Stull, not surprisingly, has a different take.

"If we were losing $18 million we wouldn't be in business," he said. "That's not the way an athletic department works."

What the report — which looks at all eight public schools in Texas that play in the Football Bowl Subdivision — accurately reflects is that what UTEP

UTEP spends $1.6 million less than North Texas ($34.1 million spent) on athletics and $6 million more than UTSA ($26.4 million), while making $1.5 million more than North Texas ($13 million made) and $2.3 million more than UTSA ($12.2 million).

read more: 

http://www.elpasotimes.com/story/sports/college/utep/2017/08/02/utep-athletics-18-million-dollar-loss-only-part-story/455716001/

 

 

[golfingomez]

how the hell do we spend 34.1 million? what is included in that?

[Cerebus]

1 hour ago, golfingomez said:

how the hell do we spend 34.1 million? what is included in that?

Apogee construction bond payments are on that.  

 

ETA: Whoever designed that data table so that schools change color from table to table should be dragged into the street and shot.  

[untcampbell]

There is a cost that is reflected in these numbers every single time the athletic department does something for free for its fans. Its titled investment in the business world. The current regime is investing quite a bit in us. It is also beefing up staffing, and that is reflected here. There is an inherent value in the perception of the program that is not yet reflected in increased investors. I am confident wins by the department's teams will continue to improve from here. But, as an example, the Mean Green Mania event cost a lot in free food, more professional swag, a ticket packet that hit it out of the park. This outsider was impressed, and as my discretionary income changes more to the positive (two kids in college this year), I will be tempted to put a bit more in the pot.

 

GMG

 

[GrandGreen]

Actually, there is progress in having NT used as an example of suspect spending, never would have happened in the not too distance past.   All G5's lose tons of money and are heavily subsidized, no news there for UTEP or NT.    A high budget is used as a positive when touting the program, and a negative in the many stories like this.   

The point is that NT is artificially high because it contains a much larger debt service element than any other CUSA team.  One of many problems with NCAA budget reporting.  Another universal flaw is how tuition and fees are handled.  For example, SMU has a much higher expense for this budget line and probably only nominal actual higher costs.   Thus private schools can demonstrate a much higher budget than state schools.  Add to that all kinds of allocations that can be manipulated.  For example, how much costs is allocated to athletics for use of the Super Pit.

 Even line items are impossible to really evaluate.   Examples: coaches salaries which you would think would be straightforward.  Is McCarney salary for example still in that number?  Recruiting costs, a much discussed expense, what goes into that expense?   My guess it is different at about every school and way under reported at most.  Coaches for example, recruiting is the number one activity other than actual coaching and probably takes more time.   Yet, judging by the numbers the coaches salaries are not generally charged to recruiting. 

It puts schools such as NT in kind of a box.   They want to show a big commitment to sports for fans and possible conference suitors, but at the same time don't want to broadcast how much actual money is being spend on athletics to the many who think college athletics is an unnecessary drain on finances.