Grambling is this true


JayRob said:
Those numbers were already addressed. USA Today's total revenue versus total expenses did not include subsidies such as raising student tuition. Like I said, ANY school can do that.
When calculating total revenue (not including subsidies) versus total expenses over the period of said time, su lost money and still ended up cutting athletic programs. Those programs haven't been reinstated.

When all is said and done, seems to me that Grambling folks are better stewards over their athletic funds than su folks, regardless of what Jindal is doing.
I don't recall them having to cut programs.

Keep in mind though, you guys had to give two football coaches, Pete and Stump, payouts during that time period. Perhaps that helped to put you all in the loss column.

Grambling didn't lose any money. JSU didn't lose any money and a couple of other schools didn't either.
Click to expand...

Like I said previously, I'm sure you reviewed USA Today's data set, but in case you are not capable of doing so, here Southern's student fee contribution to its Athletic Department per USA Today.

YEAR STUDENT FEES
2012 $2,422,168
2011 $2,160,915
2010 $2,158,008
2009 $2,169,203
2008 $2,312,281
2007 $2,226,181
2006 $2,239,124
2005 $2,109,474
TOTAL $17,797,354

Also, I noticed you are quite confused as usual. If you take the time and click on the drop down menus listed by each school, you'll noticed additional data that would give a complete history of each school's finances for 8 years. The one line you are reading only pertains to the current budget year that was being reported. And if for once you could disengage your brain out of reverse and start thinking forward, you'll notice in the complete data set that Southern had a net profit of $9,603,022, jsu broke even, and Grambling had net loss of $2,033,767 over the 8 year period of 2005 to 2012. The link below is a more recent database set published by USA Today, which includes the 2005 and the 2012 years. And to help you understand how to calculate net profit/loss for the 8 years, you need to take the sum total of the total revenue column minus the sum total of the total expense column. You'll notice in 2012, Southern's total revenue was way more than its total expense and like I previously said, a few more stampburgers would put a particular school in Mississippi in the net loss category and it chances of joining the Sun Belt Conference.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Now back to Grambling. Grambling should be find once the students vote on the student fee contribution.
 
Last edited:



JayRob said:
Those numbers mean a LOT....just as long as LSU is making a profit.

Without subsidies, LSU made over 18 million from 2006-11.
Click to expand...

I'm really concerned about your math skills, because according to USA Today numbers, LSU made $39,713,398 from 2006 to 2011 and $57,592,348 from 2005 to 2012. And yes they did not assess any student fees/subsidies. Well you did say over 18 million, but the actual number is way over 18 million. It's more like 2 times as much.
 
Last edited:
Blankman2k5 said:
It is interesting to me to see the HBCU with the most revenue...
Click to expand...

Right at 80% of Norfolk State's athletic department revenue over the period of 2005 to 2012 was generated from student fees/subsidies.

YEAR STUDENT FEES
2012 $10,023,282
2011 $10,027,510
2010 $9,705,909
2009 $8,345,795
2008 $7,292,413
2007 $7,133,848
2006 $5,897,446
2005 $6,302,580
TOTAL $64,728,783

YEAR TOTAL REVENUES
2012 $13,206,128
2011 $12,126,046
2010 $12,386,976
2009 $11,003,423
2008 $9,095,678
2007 $8,354,657
2006 $7,858,290
2005 $7,327,138
TOTAL $81,358,336

$64,728,783/$81,358,336 X 100% = 79.56% or approximately 80%

Seems like Norfolk State is taxing their students big time for its Athletic Department. I would love to see the student fee breakdown at Norfolk State.
 
Last edited:
JAG89 said:
Right at 80% of Norfolk State's athletic department revenue over the period of 2005 to 2012 was generated from student fees/subsidies.

YEAR STUDENT FEES
2012 $10,023,282
2011 $10,027,510
2010 $9,705,909
2009 $8,345,795
2008 $7,292,413
2007 $7,133,848
2006 $5,897,446
2005 $6,302,580
TOTAL $64,728,783

YEAR TOTAL REVENUES
2012 $13,206,128
2011 $12,126,046
2010 $12,386,976
2009 $11,003,423
2008 $9,095,678
2007 $8,354,657
2006 $7,858,290
2005 $7,327,138
TOTAL $81,358,336

$64,728,783/$81,358,336 X 100% = 79.56% or approximately 80%

Seems like Norfolk State is taxing their students big time for its Athletic Department. I would love to see the student fee breakdown at Norfolk State.
Click to expand...

If the students have no issues supporting their fellow students, I see no issue
 
JayRob said:
Those numbers were already addressed. USA Today's total revenue versus total expenses did not include subsidies such as raising student tuition. Like I said, ANY school can do that.
When calculating total revenue (not including subsidies) versus total expenses over the period of said time, su lost money and still ended up cutting athletic programs. Those programs haven't been reinstated.

When all is said and done, seems to me that Grambling folks are better stewards over their athletic funds than su folks, regardless of what Jindal is doing.
I don't recall them having to cut programs.

Keep in mind though, you guys had to give two football coaches, Pete and Stump, payouts during that time period. Perhaps that helped to put you all in the loss column.

Grambling didn't lose any money. JSU didn't lose any money and a couple of other schools didn't either.
Click to expand...

Dude. We didn't have to pay Pete for long and he agreed to reduced installments for his payout which he got done early. So all this overlap with Stump is not true. Not to mention the State of La recognized Southern last year for being a model on balancing school budgets during Jindal's cuts. The article was posted on TSPN. You just choose to always have something negative to say about SU to justify whatever is happening at other schools. We are fine. We have adjusted to Jindal better than anyone in the State according to his own people.
 
Blankman2k5 said:
If the students have no issues supporting their fellow students, I see no issue
Click to expand...

I agree, but I personally won't pay 30% to 40% in student fees to support the athletic program at a school. IMO, a more reasonable number is more like 5% to 10%.
 
JR said:
Dude. We didn't have to pay Pete for long and he agreed to reduced installments for his payout which he got done early. So all this overlap with Stump is not true. Not to mention the State of La recognized Southern last year for being a model on balancing school budgets during Jindal's cuts. The article was posted on TSPN. You just choose to always have something negative to say about SU to justify whatever is happening at other schools. We are fine. We have adjusted to Jindal better than anyone in the State according to his own people.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that bit of info JR. I was looking at the stats published by USA Today and based on those stats, it showed Grambling as being more responsible financially.
Seems to me that they were doing more with less and they didn't have to cut athletic programs in the process and broke out even. I could be wrong though.
They also didn't put more of a burden on students in balancing their athletic budget like certain schools. Some schools supported athletics primarily off the backs of the student body. Grambling didn't do that.

As far as Jindal's concerned, he has su cutting programs left and right, so it's obvious he'd agree with that, so that's nothing to write home about. Again, thanks for your input.
 
Can anyone tell me which school is this in the State of Mississippi that has put more of a burden on its student with the fees collected below?

YEAR STUDENT FEES
2012 $2,585,100
2011 $3,804,250
2010 $2,619,575
2009 $1,964,510
2008 $2,529,100
2007 $2,028,071
2006 $2,328,550
2005 $2,166,545
TOTAL $20,025,701
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top