3 ms·

They break it down at http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/ncaa/subsidy-scorecards/eastern-michigan-university http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/project

by dalke 11y ago

They break it down at http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/ncaa/subsidy-scorecards/eastern-michigan-university http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/ncaa/subsidy-sco... and link to the yearly reports, like http://chronicle.s3.amazonaws.com/DI/ncaa_subsidies/eastern-michigan-fy2014.pdf http://chronicle.s3.amazonaws.com/DI/ncaa_subsidies/eastern-... . The report shows $8 million in Athletic Student Aid, $4.3 million in 'Coaching Salaries, Benefits, and Bonuses Paid by the University and Related Entities', etc., with a 'total expenses' as $30,081,523 . That's well over your description of a $10.73M annual budget; where did you get your number? Does it include all of the details that go into support sports? As for subsidies, that same eastern-michigan-fy2014.pdf describes $17,136,12 for direct institutional support and $6,374,741 for indirect support, giving $23 million. That's for one year. The Huffington piece computes 'Total subsidy income, 2010 - 2014: $120,777,522', which is 5 years. 5 * 23 = $115 million, which is close enough that I won't dig up the numbers across all of the reports.

Quanticles 11y ago
http://www.annarbor.com/news/eastern-michigan-university-fiscal-2014-athletic-department-budget/ http://www.annarbor.com/news/eastern-michigan-university-fis... That was their athletic department's official budget for 2014. HuffPost has a table that implies an annual budget, but the numbers are actually for 5 years, and that is not clearly stated directly on the table. That fact makes all of the other numbers that they provide suspicious.
- dalke 11y ago
  Yes, and that link goes on to say "The operating budget does not include $7.1 million in scholarships for student athletes, which also are funded by the general fund." Which agrees with the numbers I quoted. > and that is not clearly stated directly on the table Is this the table which ends with "Source: 2010-2014 NCAA Financial Reports" and the link to the methodology which says "detailing athletics spending between 2010 and 2014", and where each university is hyperlinked to a scorecard (like http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/ncaa/subsidy-scorecards/eastern-michigan-university http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/ncaa/subsidy-sco... ) which says "Total subsidy income, 2010 - 2014"? And where the subsidy is given in percentages, so the time period doesn't really make much of a difference? And further linked to the primary documents for each year? And you are suspicious because .. why? What would have made you not suspicious? Because as far as I can tell, the only reason for your doubt is that you chose a methodology (look at a headline from a Google search), assumed they did the same one, and compared the two without checking to see if it was a meaningful comparison.

by dalke 11y ago

Quanticles 11y ago

http://www.annarbor.com/news/eastern-michigan-university-fiscal-2014-athletic-department-budget/ http://www.annarbor.com/news/eastern-michigan-university-fis... That was their athletic department's official budget for 2014. HuffPost has a table that implies an annual budget, but the numbers are actually for 5 years, and that is not clearly stated directly on the table. That fact makes all of the other numbers that they provide suspicious.

dalke 11y ago
Yes, and that link goes on to say "The operating budget does not include $7.1 million in scholarships for student athletes, which also are funded by the general fund." Which agrees with the numbers I quoted. > and that is not clearly stated directly on the table Is this the table which ends with "Source: 2010-2014 NCAA Financial Reports" and the link to the methodology which says "detailing athletics spending between 2010 and 2014", and where each university is hyperlinked to a scorecard (like http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/ncaa/subsidy-scorecards/eastern-michigan-university http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/ncaa/subsidy-sco... ) which says "Total subsidy income, 2010 - 2014"? And where the subsidy is given in percentages, so the time period doesn't really make much of a difference? And further linked to the primary documents for each year? And you are suspicious because .. why? What would have made you not suspicious? Because as far as I can tell, the only reason for your doubt is that you chose a methodology (look at a headline from a Google search), assumed they did the same one, and compared the two without checking to see if it was a meaningful comparison.