Quantcast
Sports

Utes rank 61st nationwide, 10th in Pac-12, 1st in Utah in 2012 public school athletic revenues

Comments

Return To Article
  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    61st nationwide. Not bad.

    Beats every single non-Notre Dame non-BCS school in the ENTIRE COUNTRY.

    I LOVE my BCS Pac 12 membership!

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Name me a single non-BCS school in the entire country other than Notre Dame that wouldn't LOVE to be in our position.

    None.

    LOL

  • Utehaterforlife West Valley, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Of you course your gloating about being last in public schools in the Pac 10.2, and remember its 61st out of public schools, and we all know how the public school system is.

  • Oregonian Sherwood, OR
    June 25, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    "Name me a single non-BCS school in the entire country other than Notre Dame that wouldn't LOVE to be in our position."

    Maybe now you can afford to update your athletic facilities so they can be up to par with that non-BCS, non Notre-Dame school down south.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Just about a month ago I pointed out the the university of utah was operated at a loss and that if the money they were subsidized was removed the loss would be massive instead of just big like it currently is. As evidence I refered utah "fans" to the state auditors report available on line that confirmed it.

    Many of the more prolific utah "fans" around here took exception to those facts and were highly critical of me for posting the truth while they were also in denial and refused to accept the truth. It would appear that they can no longer do that and must accept the reality that the university of utah is an athletic department money loser despite being heavily subsidized, in fact they are subsidized almost a full 25% of their "revenue" and then still operate at a loss.

    It is time the state looks into this and determines what possible benefit our state can possibly be getting from a program that loses money year after year. In truth the losses total about 13-14 million yearly if the subsidies are taken into account.

    That is pathetic.

  • FairchildIV Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Christopher B,

    Just remember that this is public universities. You're missing a lot of big name schools that are private such as USC, Miami, Notre Dame, Stanford, Baylor to name a few which surely generate lots of revenue. I will say that things look up for the Utes once the Pac-12 revenues start to fully kick in.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    @Faichild,

    I don't deny your point.

    And yet, even if that drops Utah down to 70 or 80, there still is not a SINGLE non-BCS university in the country(private or public) other than Notre Dame that wouldn't LOVE to be in oUr position.

    Go Utes!

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    @Duck,

    I don't care how much money we lose.

    There is great pride in having a prestigious school in our state. There is value added to the community and economy as a result of a our prestigious BCS membership that is NOT taken into account in these figures.

    Out of the hundreds of non-BCS universities in the country, there is exactly ONE that doesn't pray every night a BCS conference will call.

    And that lone exception: Notre Dame.

    The good that comes from the Pac 12 affiliation and the quality people Utah graduates become in our communities is well worth the "loss" you mention.

    Go BCS!
    Go Pac12!
    Go Utes!

  • ekute Layton, UT
    June 25, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    duck is on a desperate, pathetic witch hunt trying to get under our skins.

    If he truly feels that way, he should hold a town meeting and invite his congressmen. See how far it gets. lol.

    Go Utes.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @Christopher B
    "61st nationwide. Not bad.

    Beats every single non-Notre Dame non-BCS school in the ENTIRE COUNTRY."

    That's false.

    UNLV is 47th.
    Memphis is 54th.
    Air Force is 55th.
    Boise State is 57th.
    New Mexico is 58th.

    We don't even know where BYU would land.

  • XelaDave Salem, UT
    June 25, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    Go ESPN

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    alt,

    No, its not false,

    When I say there isn't a single non-BCS school other than Notre Dame that wouldn't LOVE to be in our POSITION, that word POSITION includes our membership in a prestigious BCS conference.

    I am right.

    There is exactly one(And ONLY one) university in the nation that wouldn't trade our POSITION(including membership in the Pac 12) for whatever their position is.

    And that ONE university is Notre Dame.

    Or are you suggesting that UNLV and Boise wouldn't JUMP at the chance if the Pac 12 called?

    LOL

    They dream about joining the Pac 12

    Like byu.

    LOL

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    June 25, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    That's a lot of scratch; now it's time to get back to winning games.

    GO UTES!

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 25, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    Duckhunter, where is the outrage over USU subsidizing over 50% of their athletic budget, and all the others nearly their entire budget? I said last year that Utah was well on its way to operating independently and with a profit. This report, combined with the fact that equal conference revenue sharing is on the horizon in the next few years, further validate that point, making your hissy fit the truly "pathetic" spectacle to observe.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 25, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    Did I read that list right? That Utah is not only dead last among public schools in the Pac-12 but dead last among all the "BCS" schools? If that's not further proof of Utah's whipping boy status in a big boy conference, I don't know what is.

    I do agree with you, Chris, that most schools not in a power conference would like to switch places with Utah, but only for the opportunity and not for the current state that Utah finds itself in, precariously close to obscurity and irrelevance. There's probably more than a few schools that are jealous of their position more so because of how much Utah has so far squandered their opportunity and how they probably feel they could do better with that same opportunity.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    @Christopher B
    I was responding to the assertion that being ranked 61st beats all other non-Notre Dame non-BCS schools in revenue (the thing they're 61st in). You know... this assertion...

    "61st nationwide. Not bad.
    Beats every single non-Notre Dame non-BCS school in the ENTIRE COUNTRY."

  • FatMan86 West Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    I just have to wonder what it would be like if the myopic Utah and BYU fans could see beyond their own little worlds. Lets face it, Chrissy B and Ducky are trying to one-up each other over a revenue and expenditure report. Wow, talk about substance!

    Here is an idea however? If you are going to one-up anyone, how about making it about winning actual games. How about on-field results where the Utes are actually not embarrassing themselves in the PAC? How about BYU actually beating the competitive schools on their schedule.....rather than just the New Mexico St's of the world?

    Boise St is 17-0 against all Utah schools since 1997. There is your one-up. Perspective folks!

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    June 25, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    Christopher B sure loves to pick-and-choose is wording and I quote "Beats every single non-Notre Dame non-BCS school in the ENTIRE COUNTRY." Again, he does not get his FACTS right and he quickly says and I quote "Name me a single non-BCS school in the entire country other than Notre Dame that wouldn't LOVE to be in our position."; so he uses this statement to counter act his first one? Which is it Christopher B? Just remember the non-BCS school down SOUTH has one National Championship compared to the bottom dweller Pac 10.2 school up NORTH.

    Go GOUGS!!!!

  • Chris B's momma Idaho Falls, ID
    June 25, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    Right Chris 61st is about where your football program can aspire to. That would be up from the current ranking of 82nd.

  • tdlawton Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 25, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    Utah's Athletic Department is NOT losing money... The author is doing a poor job of explaining the accounting.

    What he is calling “subsidies” most people would call revenue… Most obviously there is the issue of Student Fees. Those student fees are not just going to the UofU Athletic Department w/o compensation. University of Utah students get compensation for those fees, “free” tickets” about 7,000 football tickets if I recall correctly several thousand Men’s basketball tickets, same for Gymnastics and all the Olympic Sports.

    In fact if at UofU student attends sporting events regularly their fees equate to ticket at well under the market price.

  • Lifelong Republican Orem, UT
    June 25, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    atl134 just owned Chris B. Again.

    When will our legislature wake up and pull the plug on this mess. The taxpayers don't want our money wasted on a team that is losing money and losing games.

    Losing money and last place in their league. Yeah that is something to crow about.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 25, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    I always find it humorous when Utah fans who are Mormon complain about their tithing dollars going to fund BYU athletics even though the church has stated many times that tithing dollars are not used for that purpose. Here we see all of Utah's public schools taking millions in subsidies to their athletic budgets that include state money (i.e. taxes). Where's the outrage?

  • stonewall Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 25, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    I'm a BYU fan, but I don't think there is anything worth throwing Utah under the bus for here. When you take into account that they're essentially operating with half the TV revenue they're due to receive shortly, they're doing just fine. Add $12 million to the budget that they'll be getting and all of a sudden that deficit of a couple million becomes a profit of $10 million. They'll be just fine.

    With that said, Utah still is the dregs of their conference. Competitively, financially, and academically, Utah is at or near the bottom. I personally hope that changes. And in fairness, I'm sure BYU WOULD have loved to get the PAC-10 invite. But we still play as many marquee teams as Utah this year, have a better TV situation, and no athletic conference is changing the fact that Utah can't touch us academically. And while there's no sense hiding from losing 3 years consecutively in football, we dominate them in most other sports. Hopefully we turn around the embarrassing football trend soon. The bottom line is I think both schools have plenty to be happy about relative to each other

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    June 25, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    giantfan: All that means is that we were only at 50% of our big-boy conference revenues as of last year. We will be at 75% this year, and 100% next year. It has only been news for two years. That's right, byU "fans" aren't interested in the news, just spin.

    "There's probably more than a few schools that are jealous of their position" - by your post on this UTAH story, it is obvious that your school is one of them.

    Love the entertainment! Too easy!!

    Go Utes!!

  • EdGrady Idaho Falls, ID
    June 25, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    In other words, the utes lose on the field, the court and the bank. Now that's a trifecta to be proud of.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 25, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    Can't be true. We've made it perfectly clear that we have way more fans.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 25, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    @tdlawton

    If students are getting "ticket at well under the market price" then that is simply further subsidization and all the worse.

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    June 25, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    It always amuses me how byU "fans" will flock to all stories Utah to try to prove that Utah is now unworthy of them and is irrelevant - yet their very existence on Utah stories only proves their case null and void.

    It also amuses me how short the byU "fan's" memory is for Utah. There rantings are based on a one-year anomaly, while they still are living in 1984 when it comes to their own program. The FACTS are that Utah and BYU have missed bowl games during the BCS era, and both have played 11. However, Utah's bowl games over that period VASTLY overwhelms byU's in the importance and stature of the games, and the winning records. In addition, Utah has a VASTLY superior basketball tradition and history, while byU's biggest accomplishment in the NCAA tourney dates all the way back to Danny Ainge.

    Utah has superior football recruiting classes.
    Utah has more, and superior athletes in the NBA.
    Utah has more, and superior athletes in the NFL.
    Utah is 3-0 on the football field, where it counts.
    byU will play it's FIRST big boy schedule this year.

    Your fall will be fun to watch!!

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    June 25, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    Duckhunter,

    Another financial report you should read is the 2012 Audited Financial Statements of the University of Utah. You will find as I did and I had it confirmed by U financial officials, that the U spends $627,583,000 on all undergraduate and graduate education programs. The Utah State Legislature appropriated $253,000,000 for those undergraduate and graduate programs. The State appropriates nothing to athletics. "Institutional support" comes from student fees. So, the State of Utah supports education programs at the U at a 40% level. Thirty five years ago the State's appropriation amounted to 75% support. That is a 35% drop in thirty five years. Students are supporting the athletic department through their fees the taxpayers are not. In fact, as the figures show, the State of Utah does not support the education programs at the U enough and should do a lot more for its flag ship university.

  • Just the FAX Olympus Cove, Utah
    June 25, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    So the Utes spent $43.7 million, $12.7 million more than they received in revenue, which ranked last of the 10 public schools in the PAC 12, and still couldn't quality for a bowl.

    Maybe it's time to shut down this losing program that's costing Utah taxpapers millions to be a bottom feeder in every single sport.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 25, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    @stg

    No utah is not "well on its way to operating independently and with a profit." They are currently on a bonding and building program that far out ranks the future "revenues" they are "guaranteeing" the bonds against. They will be bleeding money and taking subsidies for decades, if not forever.

    How pathetic of you to even try to pretend otherwise. Very "frantic and emotional" especially considering I was proven correct on all counts.

  • Beck to Harline Provo, UT
    June 25, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    Not sure if you all can notice the drastically different tone in Chris B. vs. "Christopher B."'s posts...but clearly they are not the same person. BYU fans- don't bite on the bait...imo it's probably a BYU fan just trying to make Utah fans look stereotypical...just a shame really.

    PS- VegasUte---this article does say the words "Brigham" "Young" and "University" in immediate succession... I can think of a few articles that were "BYU articles" (specifically the one about BYU's November scheduling just a few days ago) that said the words "University" "of" and "Utah" in immediate succession. Utah fans posted on it and used that excuse, while BYU fans use the same excuse to post on this article...

    Moral of the story- we're all just the same at heart. Once you strip away the conference affiliations, W/L records, AP Top 25 rankings, even the National Championships...we are all just avid fans that love our schools. Try to remember that.

    Go Cougs!
    Go Utes! (Except in September)

  • Just the FAX Olympus Cove, Utah
    June 25, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    Utah has superior football recruiting classes - yet still isn't good enough to play in a bowl

    Utah has more, and superior athletes in the NBA - yet still hasn't won an NCAA tournament game in almost a decade

    Utah has more, and superior athletes in the NFL - yet still isn't good enough to be ranked

    Utah is 3-0 on the football field where it counts - Utah is 7-11 on the football field where it really counts

    Utah fans are desperately hoping that BYU proves to be just as inept against a "big boy" schedule as the Utes have been, even though the Utes finished 5-7 with only TWO ranked opponents, while BYU finished 8-5 with FIVE ranked opponents.

    It's going to be fun watching the chins on the hill dropping as BYU succeeds where Utah has been a miserable failure.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    June 25, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    I'd like to be hopeful about the Utes' ability to compete in the PAC-12 but these numbers are not encouraging.

    Even when they have their full revenue share Utah will not have 70% of the revenue of the big boys in the conference. $23 million more puts them at $64 million; Oregon had $95 million this year and will surely be over $100 million by the time Utah gets to its full share. USC and Stanford likely have higher or similar revenues to Oregon and the Utah full share number puts them $20 million a year behind middle of the pack schools like Washington.

    Plus the full share won't insure Utah doesn't run a deficit. Full share schools ASU and WSU both had $5 million losses.

    If you're not a big boy, the key to winning is differentiation (see Boise State). I'm afraid Utah will convince itself its PAC-12 membership makes it a big boy, spend its money on things that don't make a difference (e.g. pay the same coaches more money) and wind up in the same place competitively that they are from a revenue standpoint, at the bottom.

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    June 25, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    The numbers will continue to get better as the new facilities are completed and the TV money goes up. This really seems to bother the usual trolls; no suprise there.

  • stonewall Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 25, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    @VegasUte

    I agree about fans pretending that they're above their rivals and then combing through their articles and commenting is something BYU fans do with regularity, but so do Utah fans. That's the nature of rivalry and it's a bit disingenuous to paint that as a BYU phenomenon.

    I also don't understand how you can on one hand bash BYU for living in the past with their football tradition while the present incarnation is lacking, and then on the other hand defend Utah basketball on the basis of their tradition when the program is currently abysmal. Seems hypocritical to me. You can't have it both ways.

    And I think it's a little out of context to paint Utah's bowl history as markedly and consistently more storied and significant than BYU's. Obviously BYU can't touch the Sugar or Fiesta Bowl appearances. Then there was Meyer's first year in the Liberty Bowl while BYU sat at home and the Sun Bowl in 11. But beyond that, BYU has played in a higher-paying and tiered bowl than Utah in every season since the BCS's inception, so that's at least misleading

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 25, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    @dutchman

    So taking student fees and using them to subsidize the in the red athletic program is the right thing to do when you claim the state isn't even giving its "flagship" university enough money? If the university is not being subsidized enough by the state why are they taking millions in student fees and using that to subsidize the failing athletic department?

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    June 25, 2013 6:36 p.m.

    FAX: 4 of 8 wins - Weber State, Hawaii, New Mexico, Idaho. 5 ranked opponents? Only by the grace of a 6-3 eke out at home were you able to go 1-4. Big woop. AND, you couldn't get past the "pathetic" 5-7 Utes! Your ONLY big boy schedule still includes Middle Tennessee St and Idaho State. Ya, Utah had ONE season out of the last 12 without a bowl game. Get your licks in now, while you still can. Seems to me that it's the byU "fan" desperately hoping and praying that Utah will not come back from the one year anomaly, because, then what will you have to do with your time?

    Beck to Harline: It's all good - just prodding the trollers! I can't stand Utah trollers as much as I can't stand byU trollers. But, since the article did mention "Brigham" and "Young" and "University" in succession - welcome to the civil dialogue corner, my friend. While you and I are "avid fans", a lot of people on both sides of the fence are just haters. They are the fun ones to toy with.

    Go Utes! Onward and Upward!!

  • U 90 Corona, CA
    June 25, 2013 6:48 p.m.

    @Duckhunter "It is time the state looks into this and determines what possible benefit our state can possibly be getting from a program that loses money year after year"

    Maybe you should look in to why BYU can't beat Utah in football and has never been to a bowl game of any significance or the basketball final four. Once you have those answers, then write a letter to your State Representative about that awful Utah athletic program that has been to 2 BCS bowls and a final four all within the last 15 years.

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    June 25, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    @ stonewall - no where have I ever said that it is solely a byU phenomenon. There are Utah trollers just the same as there are byU trollers. I invite you to go on byU stories and set them straight.

    I also did not defend the current state of Utah basketball. The current state of Utah basketball is bad, but it is getting better. byU "fans" choose to forget the period not so long ago when they had a one win season and went years on end without a tourney win. Utah basketball will be back to where it once was. That is a place that byU has never been.

    AND, if you read my post, you will see I was ONLY referring to the BCS era in bowl games. Utah is 10-1 during that period, byU is 6-5.

    There are cherry pickers everywhere. I choose to have my entertainment by engaging the byU cherry pickers posting on Utah stories (sorry Beck - it IS a Utah story). I encourage you to do the same with the Utah cherry pickers who post on byU's.

    Go Utes!
    And, for Beck to Harline only, Go Cougs

  • Snack PAC Olympus Cove, Utah
    June 25, 2013 7:07 p.m.

    Spokane Ute

    "The numbers will continue to get better as the new facilities are completed and the TV money goes up. This really seems to bother the usual trolls; no suprise[sic] there."

    Don't be so sure that Utah's new facilities will improve the product on the field/court.

    Consider this from an article published today:

    (continued)

  • Snack PAC Olympus Cove, Utah
    June 25, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    Cal's renovated football stadium and glistening new training center opened to rave reviews last fall, but the risky plan to pay for the facilities fared as poorly as the team itself.

    The Bears hired a new coach to fix the on-field product. More importantly, they've implemented a new strategy to avoid fiscal calamity.

    If the financing plan fails, the most expensive facility upgrades in college sports history -- the total cost is $474 million -- could cripple Cal athletics over time by draining tens of millions of dollars away from the operating budget.

    "If it doesn't settle itself out in the next few months, I fear a disaster," said Stanford economist Roger Noll, an expert in stadium financing who has consulted with Cal's faculty budget committee on the issue.

    "They took a really big shot."

    (continued)

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 25, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    let's roll, Stanford's numbers may not quite be what you assume them to be. Their home football game attendance actually averaged nearly 3,000 less than Utah's, and men's basketball was 3,500 less than Utah's (the two key revenue sports). I imagine they receive enough donations to make up for deficits in direct revenue, however, so no I'm not claiming they are in bad shape by any means, but probably not at the level of USC or Oregon.

    Additionally, I don't believe your fear of Utah overspending to fit in with the rest of the conference will come to fruition with Chris Hill in charge. An acquaintance working for UCLA's athletic department told me that at least a quarter of their operating budget goes toward paying salaries of alums who don't really do anything for the school, and that a few other schools in the conference do similar things. I don't see this being an issue at Utah. Yes, expenses will increase, but the revenue increases appear to be greater.

  • Snack PAC Olympus Cove, Utah
    June 25, 2013 7:17 p.m.

    The Bears planned to finance the projects through the sale of 40- and 50-year rights to approximately 2,900 high-priced seats in the renovated stadium. But with sales lagging -- only 64 percent of the premium seats have been sold -- the school abandoned its June deadline to secure commitments for the long-term equivalent of $272 million.

    The Bears are $120 million short of that goal.

    ----------------

    According to Spokane Ute's theory, the more money spent on facilities the better the chance for success on the field. Based on that theory, the $474 million California just spent on renovating their stadium and training facilities should guarantee that the Bears will be PAC 12 favorites for decades to come, right?

    The Bears just spent so much more on facilities than the Utes could ever dream of spending, that the Utes might was well forget about ever beating the Bears again.

    * crickets *

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    June 25, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    Snack Pac

    Trolling a Utah thread trying to pick an agruement again? Read my post, maybe slower this time. I never said that it would improve the product on the field, now did I? The numbers are in reference to revenue. That's what the article is refering too. Is that your whole MO? Do you ever actaully have anything constructive to say? I've yet to see it! The usual suspect are out in force and the drivel sure grows old and tiresome. That's why I respond to very few BYU fans.

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    June 25, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    @ Snack Pack

    "Crickets"? Next thing you know you will bust out the "LOL". I guess when you can't put together a well though out post, you have to post someting.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 25, 2013 7:52 p.m.

    @Snack PAC

    Good info although I don't know that the new facilities won't help utah's on field performance and recruiting, that remains to be seen. Where spokane ute, and other utah "fans", are currently failing is in their belief that "the numbers will go up", and that is hardly a given. In fact as I pointed out in my last post much of utah's current athletic department revenues are one time money being raised for this current facility upgrade, they are not permanent every year revenues.

    So the assumption that utah is going to reach 60 or 70 million per year, every year, in revenue is an extremely dubious one. I would say they will remain much closer to their current level than they will ever reach those figures, at least until inflation takes them there in which case they will be in the same place they are now in relation to everyone else.

  • Snack PAC Olympus Cove, Utah
    June 25, 2013 8:09 p.m.

    Spokane Ute

    "Trolling a Utah thread trying to pick an agruement[sic] again?

    This is a public forum.

    For someone who whines incessantly about "trolling", you've never had any qualms about making comparisons between BYU and Utah.

    What really bother you so much; that non-crimson glasses wearing fans comment on "Utah" articles, or that other bloggers have the audacity to question your sacrosanct opinions?

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    June 25, 2013 8:13 p.m.

    "The main revenue streams, including television money and shared distribution from the BCS and conference championships, will add approximately $9.9 million in 2012-13; $14.5 million in 2013-14; and $23.3 million in 2014-15. From 2016 on, annual increases of approximately 4 percent are expected"

    An obvious trend in the revenue stream. Pretty simple concept when you think about, but difficult for several to grasp!

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2013 8:16 p.m.

    10th in Public Schools in the Pac.
    Add in Stanford and USC and Utah is "Dead Last" in revenues.
    Even behind, Washington State...Hilarious!
    And subsidized by the taxpayers of Utah to boot, otherwise, they're losing money.

    BYU pays it's own way, operates at a profit and never bonds for facilities.
    We love Independence and our exposure on our own Network that's on basic tier and in 70 million homes, along with our good buddies at the worldwide leader in sports....ESPN.

    BYU rides it's own pony, already bought and paid for, (with maintenance endowments in place), unlike our coat-tailing, bottom-feeder neighbors Up-North.

    Man is Utah's vain attempt to keep up with real football schools a losing effort.

  • Swoop Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    "An obvious trend in the revenue stream. Pretty simple concept when you think about, but difficult for several to grasp!Pretty simple concept when you think about, but difficult for several to grasp!"

    The gigantic hole in the revenue stream argument that is difficult for some to grasp is that there isn't ANY incremental advantage for Utah.

    The Utes began their PAC 12 era significantly behind the other conference programs in facilities and those programs are spending as much or more on improvements as the Utes are spending.

    So where is Utah's incremental advantage? How will Utah's new facilities improve Utah's bottom dwelling status in the conference?

    Regardless of Utah's shiny new facilities, they'll never be able to out recruit USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, Washington, Oregon, ASU and Arizona on a regular basis, so the die is already cast; the Utes are destined to remain a 9th through 12th place team in the conference, with a losing conference record most years, and only slim hopes of playing in an occassional bowl game.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    June 25, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    StGtoSLC

    Thanks for the insights. Most of the revenue differentiation isn't in gate receipts (see Oregon) but in booster contributions, where the Oregon (Phil Knight), Stanford and USC have a big advantage.

    I do think Dr. Hill will do a good job managing expenses. What I'm most worried about is the mentality that increased revenue alone will lead to better teams on the field.

    Everyone involved, Administration, the Athletic Department, Coaches and the athletes all need to innovate and differentiate the program, to attract the best athletes possible and allow them to perform in a innovative environment.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 25, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    @Swoop

    Regardless of exposure BYU, will never be able to out recruit Utah on a regular basis, so the die is already cast; the Cougars are destined to getting OWNED by Utah.

    As far as our new conference, we won't ever out recruit USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington. In just 3 years our class rankings were #7 in the PAC-12 while Washington was #4, top 3rd. Yet the field Washington 14-12 and Utah 13-12.

    Utah needs to continue to build depth and with better coaching we should be able to compete with the upper half of the conference in a few years. About the same time as we become a full member.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 25, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    Out of the 222 public schools listed ONLY 7 received no subsidy. Utah was #181 receiving 24.4% subsidy (about $9.9 million).

    According to USA Today from 2006-2011 (in MWC) Utah averaged:

    Revenues: $38.1 million
    Expenses: $36.8 million
    Subsidy: 24.6% (about $9.3 million)

    So BYU fans are outraged by a $600K increase in subsidies?

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 25, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    let's roll, I agree with those points. Refreshing to have an intelligent conversation based on more than emotional ties.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:50 a.m.

    It doesn't matter the rankings show: pouring tens of $millions into sports is money wasted and academic responsibilities neglected.

    No matter what any college or university says about their revenues, etc., they just simply collect more money for jocks while the cost of tuition continues to skyrocket,and they operate at a loss, with few exceptions.

  • BleedCougarBlue Enid, OK
    June 26, 2013 1:07 a.m.

    About the photo that accompanied this article:

    It shows 4 Utes trying to return the ball while surrounded by 1 single Utah State player.

    And the Aggie still made the tackle.

    Poor Utes....they can't tackle (George, OT, baby!) and they can't stop from being tackled.

    Typical...

    Go Cougars!

    (now where's Chris B. when you need him to respond?.....)

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    Duckhunter et al,

    The fact is, as I have pointed out, even though you and others continue to assert wrongly, the U athletic department receives no taxpayer money or subsidy from the State of Utah. Student fees are collected for a variety of purposes and some of those fees are paid to the athletic department. Students receive free admission to athletic events for the fees that they pay. The important thing is all student fees are adopted and approved by the Student Body Senate which encompasses the elected representatives of the entire student body from every academic discipline on campus. If the student body through their representatives want to pay fees and hand over some of it to the athletic department that is their democratic perogative.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Dutchman,

    The article stated "Utah received $9.9 million in subsidies, which includes students fees, direct and indirect institutional support, STATE MONEY...".

    So maybe you should take up your beef with Mr. Carreon who wrote the article.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 26, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Texas Longhorns, 163.2 million in revenue, 25 million dollar profit! Now call me crazy, but I think that's the envy of every BCS or non BCS program in the country. I mean thats nearly TWICE as much as the highest revenue earners in the PAC12. Still think the PAC held the leverage in negotiations with Texas, ute fans? I think not. Utah should write a check every year to Texas thanking them for their PAC12 membership. Lol

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    giantfan,

    Again, the U receives a $253 million appropriation from the State Legislature to pay 40% of the cost to educate graduate and undergraduate students. Period. None of that appropriation goes to the athletic department. So, the article is wrong or the interpretation of it is wrong. My source is the 2012 Audited Financial Statements of the U, not some news media article. Even though BYU is a private institution and is not required to reveal financial information that does not mean that they can't. We know from the U's financial statements that the State of Utah by legislative appropriation pays for 40% of the graduate and undergraduate education programs at the U. That is a drop of 35% support over the past 30 years. What percent does the LDS Church pay for educating students at BYU? Why are you not focused on that issue rather than always hammering on the U?

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Dutchman,

    I'm just pointing out the inconsistency between your statement of "fact" versus the article. Call me crazy but I think the majority of people reading this article and the comments are prone to believe the article over some anonymous message board poster. Call Mr. Carreon to task and maybe you could get a retraction out of him. You seem pretty passionate about the subject. Maybe you're right, and maybe if I cared that much I would research your claims and come to my own conclusion. Again, if I cared. It is entertaining however to watch your feathers get a little ruffled.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    @dutchman

    That is not what the article said, student fees are only a part of the subsidy, tax dollars are another part. You have always been extremely "frantic and emotional" about this issue and you have always been wrong about it, this is just more proof of that. I know it is hard to have your deeply held beliefs proven to be wrong but it simply is reality and it would serve you well to accept the truth of things.

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    June 26, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @ Swoop,

    Did I ever say this isn't a public forum? Assuming and putting words in my mouth yet again.

    Don't recall "whining incessently" either. Again, assuming and exagerating.

    Actually, what really bothers me is when someone puts words in others mouth, takes posts of of context, then finishes their post with and absurd statement like "crickets". As if they have posted something so profound that there can't be a rebuttal.

    I will simply ignore your posts in the future. No need to discuss any further. Swoop down on someone else Guy!

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    June 26, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    @Swoop

    One season does not define a programs past, present and future. Revenue helps build new facilities, which helps recruiting, which draw better athletes. Considering Utah is new to the PAC 12 and in the building stage; it's going to take a few years to see the effect. To say they will always be last in the PAC 12 is quite a stretch. Arizona and ASU had some growing pains when they joined the conference. Let's revisit the subject in 4-5 years. My previous comment was intended for Snack Pac. Time will tell, waaaay too early to pigeon hole Utah as the perenial last place team. It's going to take a 3-4 years to transition from the MWC the the PAC 12. Hopefully this season brings improvement.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    Duckhunter,

    Again, what percent does the LDS Church pay for educating students at BYU? Why are you not focused on that issue rather than always hammering on the U? Do some research and give me an answer.

    BTW, I have done my research on the U's financial statements and I have had it reviewed by those in the know. It is correct.

  • GoRed WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    I have a valid question for the byu "fans" (as duckhunter would put it): Why is Utah's financial revenues of any concern to you?

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Dutchman,

    Deflect much? What does that have to do with Utah receiving subsidies to it's athletic budget that include State money? No one denies that the LDS Church pays to educate students at BYU, just like the State of Utah pays to educate students at Utah, USU, Weber, UVU, SUU, etc. That's not the point. We're talking about State money subsidizing Utah ATHLETICS, as confirmed by this article.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    GoRed,

    I am a tax payer in the state of Utah and this article states that the University of Utah Athletics Department is receiving state money to subsidize their athletic programs, which they in turn are reporting as revenue. So, that makes it a concern to me, as it should to any tax payer in the state. In other words, I'm concerned that Utah is spending millions of dollars on new facilities yet can't stay afloat with out public funds to which I contribute. That goes for any state run school receiving tax money to subsidize athletics, including USU, UVU, Weber, SUU, etc.

    Good enough for ya?

  • NightOwlAmerica SALEM, OR
    June 26, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Sigh.

    Right Bluto. BYU is on TV in 70 million homes or whatever. 70 million are not tuning in. Just like the Cartoon Network is on in millions of homes, but not everyone watches it.

    In the event you have not noticed. BYU is riding the coat tails of college football. It will take whatever is given to them.

    Joining the PAC has not stopped AZ & ASU from winning national titles in various sports. Utah has every opportunity to win there as well. Sorry bitter BYU fans. Go find a conference to take you and get your own revenue stream from them.

  • GoRed WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    giantfan,

    I, too, am a tax payer in the state of Utah. You are concerned that the U is spending millions on new facilities, yet, according to you, "can't stay afloat without public funds." As you are hopefully aware, Utah's entrance into the PAC 12 has seen an increase in millions of dollars in revenues. But they are now in an extremely competitive conference where their existing facilities lag far behind the other eleven schools in the conference. There is a viable need to upgrade their facilities in order to someday level the playing field. I'm not sure what the issue is there. Having visited facilities in Washington, UCLA, Stanford, and Oregon, I can tell you that we have a long way to go, but it's a step in the right direction. And what's wrong with improving our facilities with the money generated from admittance to Utah's new, prestigious conference?

    Is that a good enough response for ya?

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    NightOwl,

    Bluto's point is it's available to 70 million homes on basic tier. No one's arguing that 70 million are watching. It's what BYU calls exposure. Pretty powerful to go into a recruit's home and tout 70 million home exposure so friends and family can watch them play regularly. How many have access to the Pac-12 Network on basic tier?

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    GoRed,

    That all sounds great and hopefully not just wishful thinking. But as it stands right now, Utah athletics is experiencing a revenue shortfall in that they're running a deficit after expenses, even with subsidies that include state money. Now maybe the U can get into the black with all that promised Pac-12 money but there's no guarantee. And all we have to go on is the current state of Utah Athletics. If Utah continues going 5-7 and no bowl each year then there should be some real worries about meeting expenses in the future, as they're sure to go up with new facilities to maintain. As a tax payer I'm concerned any time state money is used where it might be going to waste. Like I said, I hold the same concern for USU, Weber, UVU and SUU.

  • GoRed WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    giantfan,

    Your last comments were fair. But I don't think anyone truthfully knows at this point what the far-reaching implications are for Utah joining the PAC 12 and their subsequent need to significantly upgrade their facilities. Whether you are a supporter of the University of Utah or not, this institution bears the name of the state. And when the highest profile sports teams of the school do exceptionally well, such as the 2008 Sugar Bowl-winning team did, the state as a whole benefits. You can call it free, positive advertising. There is no way to measure this economically, any more than when the state of Utah buys advertising space in other states' TV broadcasts and newspapers. But it improves how our state is perceived by residents of other states, which can indirectly affect out-of-state students who desire to come here, tourism, etc.

    As far as Utah's 5-7 record, no one said the period of transition into the PAC 12 would be easy. But, in order to compete, the U needs to have good, solid facilities to go along with their improved recruiting. In all fairness, give the university a few years to prove itself.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    This tax payer is not concerned, here's why:

    Source: Economic and Business Review

    This report presents a summary of preliminary estimates of the economic impacts attributable to the University’s football program...

    Combining the survey findings with estimates of the number of out-of-state attendees, we estimate that visitors to University of Utah football games spent $5.5 million on in-state goods and services.

    This $5.5 million injected into the Utah economy from the citizens of other states gives rise to additional economic impacts through indirect effects arising out of the flow of these funds through the Utah economy.

    The estimated total economic impacts to the state, both direct and indirect, are given in Table 1....

    Earnings: $5.1 million
    Jobs: 210
    Gross State Product: $10.3 million
    Output: $18.2 million
    State Tax Revenue: $515,121

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    (continued)

    This study presents some of the quantifiable economic benefits to the University of Utah and the State of Utah from the University’s football program during its inaugural season as a member of the Pac-12. We found that the transition from the MWC to the Pac-12 increased the economic impact of the 2011–2012 football season by approximately 60 percent.

    The vast majority of out-of-state visitors at the 2011–2012 Pac-12 home games reported that their experience while in Utah had left them with a more favorable impression of the University and Salt Lake City and that their experience increased the chance of future visits to the state.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    giantfan,

    You seem to be a sincere seeker of information so I will try to answer your question. The U has an annual $3.2 (2013) billion operating budget. That budget has numerous sources of revenues. The State Legislature appropriates $253 (2012) million taxpayer funds to that budget. All of this appropriation goes toward what is called the education mission of the U. None of it is approprated to athletics. Now assuming, and there are arguments on both sides of this issue, that because the U is owned by the State, therefore, all of the $3.2 billion in budget belongs to the State of Utah and its taxpayers even though the State itself appropriates $253 million of that budget. Then it is reasonable to assume that some of the "institutional support" money including student fees (which are approved by the elected student body senate) comes from that $3.2 billion budget but is again outside the State's $253 million appropriation. That is how it is possible to have "institutional support" money flowing to the athletic department but not have it coming directly from the State's taxpayers.

  • itsajelly Walla Walla, WA
    June 26, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    I can hear the chants from the hill. "we're 61, we're 61!" Warms my heart.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    @uteology

    Considering that the university of utah is running a multi million dollar yearly deficit I find it hard to believe that the $515000 dollars the state takes in as tax revenue is really worth it.

    If you want to claim abstract benefits, like gored did, I can see how that might be the case, but the direct "benefit" is a negative based on your numbers.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    @dutchman

    You have been absolutely desperate to try to prive that the university of utah is some sort of "private" entity, let me fill you in on something, IT IS NOT private. It is completely and entirely owned by the state. Now the fact that it can operate with with much of its revenue coming from sources other than direct legislative approriation does not change that fact, IT IS NOT PRIVATE.

    Any and all money that go into it are state owned funds, there are no seperate funds. Just because you want to claim funding for this came from here and funding for that came from there is of no consequence, if the university is subsidizing the athletic program, and they are to the tune of about 12-13 million per year, then that is money that could have gone to some other university function, preferably actual education, but it doesn't because the athletic department CANNOT pay its own way.

    That is simple fact, there is no argument to the contrary, there is no splitting hairs over where this dollar or that dollar came from, it is what it is, subsidized millions yearly. That is the fact.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    Duckhunter,

    Now who is being "frantic and emotional"? For every person who believes as you that the entire $3.2 billion budget at the U belongs to the State of Utah and thus the taxpayers I can find another expert who believes otherwise. I stated in my post that we would assume that the $3.2 billion belongs to the State but the fact remains that you and others have claimed that the athletic department benefits directly from State appropriations thus money coming out of the $253 million State appropriation. Again, it does not.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    @Ducky

    If you want to claim abstract benefits, like gored did, I can see how that might be the case, but the direct "benefit" is a negative based on your numbers.

    ------------

    My numbers? Those numbers are from the Utah Economic and Business Review. They actually conducted a scientific, research study:

    The Move to Pac-12: Economic Impact and Visitor Experience of University of Utah Football
    Michael T. Hogue, Research Analyst

    If you disagree with the author on the impact of PAC-12 on Utah's economy then please feel free to submit your own study and see if it gets published or they if just LOL.

    My bet is you'll be so embarrassed that you'll have to spend a week in Tulsa.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    Duckhunter
    Highland, UT

    @uteology

    Considering that the university of utah is running a multi million dollar yearly deficit I find it hard to believe that the $515000 dollars the state takes in as tax revenue is really worth it.

    ---------------

    The State took in $5.5 million in economic gains and the State Treasury gained $515,000 in new taxes. So that's over $6 million.

    Go ask the various business owners in Salt Lake City if $5.5 million increase in revenue is "really worth it".

    Let us know what they say. I'm assuming they'll point to the PAC-12 street banners, put up by the City with tax payer money, and just LOL.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:55 p.m.

    @uteology

    I didn't disagree with the authors numbers, I simply pointed out your "analysis" of those numbers is complete delusion.

    The state LOST money on the deal. It gained $515,000 in sales tax yet it subsidizes the athletic department by several million per year. That is a loss anyway you look at it.

    Also as a businessman I can appreciate revenue increases, but those numbers are not profit, they are total revenue, profit is just a fraction of that amount. So if the state is subsidizing the utah athletic department several million per year, and then it gains only about 500g in tax revenue, and the local business's only gain a fraction of the 5 mil in actual profit, then the entire thing is still a net loss. At best it might be an overall break even, that is at best, and it is doubtful it is even that. The state is spending more money than the total return, that is a net loss and that is not worth it IMO. Now I can understand you think it is worth it, but you aren't thinking rationally, you are thinking as a "fan".

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:59 p.m.

    @uteology

    Even if that entire 6mil is a profit to business owners and the state it is still not even half of the amount utah is subsidized and in deficit which combined equal around 13-14 million dollars. So in essence the taxpayers/students are paying 14 million dollars so that the slc business owners can bring in 5.5 mil in revenue, not profit, and the state can bring in 500g. I don't know what kind of math they are teaching up on the hill but any way you look at it that is a loss, a very large loss.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    @dutchman

    Well please point us to a credible source that claims the university of utah, its infrastructure, its property, its business's, its patents, and everything about it are private and not wholly owned by the state. What a ludicrous thing to assert on your part. Just because the university generates some revenue doesn't make it in any way private. You are just floundering badly but if you have these credible sources as you claim please point us to them because that would make the university of utah the only state owned university in the entire country that isn't actually owned by the state.

    Good grief.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 12:04 a.m.

    @Duckhuner
    "I didn't disagree with the authors numbers, I simply pointed out your "analysis" of those numbers is complete delusion."
    --------------

    It wasn’t my analysis. I printed the exact article word per word.

    You're just looking at one measurement, state tax revenue, and getting outraged.

    They disagree with you and instead they analyzed the PAC-12 impact on the entire Utah economy. Note they say “total” economic impact on the state:

    "The estimated total economic impacts to the state, both direct and indirect…. The impacts are measured by the number of supported jobs (Jobs) and associated earnings (Earnings), gross state product (GSP), state economic output (Output), and state tax revenue (State Tax Revenue)." -- Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research

    BTW I cited my source, where’s your source that the Utah Athletic department gets $14 million is subsidies?

  • gdog3finally West Jordan, Utah
    June 27, 2013 5:02 a.m.

    It's understandable. Utah has not had big boy funds before. The have more now but are playing catch up with other PAC schools. I have faith in my Utes. BYU has a strong fan base and funds. It is what it is there. I will still pick the Utes on the gridiron. I hope basketball improves and gets back to the winning ways that now seem so distant in the past. As for other sports, Utah has it's strong suits, but overall is relatively weak.

  • BigCougFan Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Since when is being 61st in any list something to crow about? It doesn't take much to inflate the ego of Ute fans.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    @Duck: “I didn't disagree with the authors numbers, I simply pointed out your "analysis" of those numbers is complete delusion."

    It wasn’t my analysis. I posted the exact article word per word. Please don’t take my word for it, go read it.

    @Duck: “Also as a businessman I can appreciate revenue increases, but those numbers are not profit… [Utah] gains only about 500g in tax revenue and the local business's only gain a fraction of the 5 mil in actual profit.”

    What?

    Net Income = Revenues – Expenses – Taxes.

    A) Taxes go to the Utah treasury
    B) Expenses go mostly to Utah employees (salary) and businesses (rent, utilities)
    C) Net Income (profits) go the Utah business owners

    Thus everything mostly stays in Utah.

    @Duck: "So in essence the taxpayers/students are paying 14 million dollars"

    According to USA Today since 2006 the subsidy is 24% of revenue, which is around $9 million. There's no exact amounts listed for taxes and student fees. Whose your source?

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    @uteology

    "Whose your source?"

    Uh....the article itself. Here's the quote.

    "According to the report, Utah received $9.9 million in subsidies, which includes students fees, direct and indirect institutional support, state money and all other money received that was not generated by the department's athletic functions. Subsidies are included in the total revenue figure."

    Then of course there is the 2.9 mil the athletic department was in deficit above and beyond the subsidies. Once again the quote.

    "The University of Utah ranks 61st in athletic department revenue among public schools nationwide and 10th among public schools in the Pac-12, pulling in $40.8 million in revenue while having $43.7 million in expenses"

    43.7 minus 40.8 is a loss of 2.9 million. Add that to the 9.9 million in subsidies at that puts the overall shortfall at 12.7 million. Not quite the 13-14 mil I posted but close enough.

    The article doesn't give a breakdown of the subsidies, it just gives the total of the subsidies, but that is of no consequence for our discussion here, the fact is utah's athletic department is a 12.7 mil loser on its own.

  • sportyguy sandy, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    @Duckhunter

    According to the report, Utah received $9.9 million in subsidies, which includes students fees, direct and indirect institutional support, state money and all other money received that was not generated by the department's athletic functions. Subsidies are included in the total revenue figure

    Student Fees - Also known as Student Athletic Fee meaning what every student pays so they get admission to every single University Sporting event. Sorry that isn't coming out of your tax payer pocket.

    This comes to about $3 million of your subsidies. You also keep throwing around the 13 million dollar number as the amount of money they are costing the tax payers. Also untrue. 13 million is the amount the sports department needs to make up. The amount that taxpayers and "others" make up is around 7 million.

    Finally, everyone knew Utah was going to be in the hole this year due to the amount of improvements they had made across their sports facilities. Very few universities just have that cash in the bank to spend $40 million in improvements.

  • dansimp Layton, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    What would be really nice to see, is as the U's share of Pac12 revenue goes up, they cut the student fees they use. The 9+million in fees that the athletic dept. uses comes from those least able to actually afford it. Get some Crimson Club money, use Pac12 revenue. I'm all for the athletic dept. spending millions, as they bring in millions, but there is really no excuse as student fees continue to go up, to charge them for things that should be paid for out of athletic revenues, or big money donors.

  • Last Stand Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    sportguy,

    "Finally, everyone knew Utah was going to be in the hole this year due to the amount of improvements they had made across their sports facilities. Very few universities just have that cash in the bank to spend $40 million in improvements."

    Except those improvements were bonded, weren't they? And therefore don't factor into the expenses listed in the article. In fact, as those improvement to facilities come on-line, expenses in the future will increase beyond the 42+ million listed in the article. I know the university is counting on increases in future Pac-12 money but one thing is for sure: Expenses will increase as well during future years. Because of that, revenues with regards to things like tickets sales better not lag. Which means the football program can't endure more 5-7 no bowl seasons and the basketball program better continue improving, among other things.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    @Duck

    I thought you were outraged because tax money is being used to support Utah athletics? And overjoyed that Utah Athletics is in the red?

    If so, then $12.7 (or $13 or $14 million) does not come from tax payers or student fees. Total subsidy is $9.9 million. You have not provided a single ounce of proof that gives the total amount invested by Utah tax payers or student fees.

    If the amount is around is $5-$6 million then I have provided a legit source that shows direct impact is around that amount and indirect impact on the Utah economy is much, much more.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    @uteology

    Trying to split hairs in that manner is really only getting you farther into a hole.

    The subsidy is 9.9 million, that is fact, the deficit is 2.9 million, that is fact, together they equal 12.7 million, that is fact. That means the atheltic department runs a 12.7 million dollar deficit over what they generate, that is a fact. What the breakdown of the subsidy is matters not one bit, the fact is there is a 9.9 million dollar subsidy.

    The economic impact you keep touting is a negative, not a plus, the total amount doesn't even equal the subsidy, let alone the deficit on top of it. The quotes you supplied on that economic impact only state dollars brought in, they fail to tell us the amount spent to bring them in and there in lies the problem.

    I'm sure most people understand that spending $10 to generate $6 is a net loss but for some reason you just don't seem to get it, probably because you don't want to get it,you are in favor of net losses from now until the end of time because you are a utah "fan".

  • Juice19 South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    I love that all of the cougar fans are on here bashing with one of their own.. Christopher B is a cougar fan trying to impersonate Chris B, a diehard Ute fan. How hard is that to see? Keep to the topic and leave your silly Christopher B out of this. And of course the Utes are going to rank last in the PAC-12. Everyone knew going in that it would be even until after 4 years. Why are you all on here stating the obvious? Utah, along with TCU, was one of the first non-BCS schools to join a BCS conference. Did you think they'd be any higher after 2 years? Keep drinking the blue Kool-Aid and thinking that is a whipping boy. And if they are a whipping boy, what does that make BYU? The cougs have lost 8 out of the last 11 and soon to be 4 in a row. Cougar fans are getting desperate and flat out hilarious.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @sportyguy

    I said tax payers and students are paying the subsidy, regardless it is a large number however you break it down. The fact is utah ahtletics are a fiscal loser, period, it cannot even be credibly argued to the contrary.

    Also as Last Stand already stated the facility improvements are supposedly bonded, they do not have anything to do with this. If you were to take future payments on those bonds into account the deficits will grow even larger even with future increases in revenue.

    There are only 6 schools in the entire country that actually make money on their athletic programs, BYU being one of those 6, that means utah is not unique as a money loser, they are actually one of the vast majority, but a $ loser they are, it is undeniable, as is the fact they are heavily subsidized or they would be an even bigger loser.

    Now I understand why utah "fans" are willing to accept that. As whittingham likes to say "it is what it is" and it isn't going to change. It will probably grow worse.

    I'd really like to know where they got the 2.9 to make up the deficit?

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    June 27, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    byU "fans" should be more concerned about the state of their 2014 recruiting class, which is very indicative of state of their program, than they are with Utah related stories: Nacua, the top ranked 2014 byU commit by all 4 reporting services, reportedly decommitted yesterday according to his own tweet; four of the remaining eight recruits listed as "soft verbal"; Fred Warner openly announcing he is keeping ALL his options open, and will make the decision that is best for him, which hardly sounds like the "solid" verbal he is listed at.

    Just more info for fodder!

    Go Utes!!

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    @Duckhunter

    Trying to split hairs in that manner is really only getting you farther into a hole.

    The subsidy is 9.9 million, that is fact, the deficit is 2.9 million, that is fact, together they equal 12.7 million, that is fact. That means the atheltic department runs a 12.7 million dollar deficit over what they generate, that is a fact. What the breakdown of the subsidy is matters not one bit, the fact is there is a 9.9 million dollar subsidy.

    ---------

    You're not a Utah student, that is a fact.
    You're not a Utah booster, that is a fact.
    You're a Utah tax payer, that's an assumption.

    Yet you're outraged because someone else's money, boosters, students, etc., was given to Utah Athletics only for Utah to be in the red?

    That makes as much since me, a non-Mormon, going onto BYU articles crying about Tithing.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    @Duckhunter

    Just yesterday according to you it wasn't $6 million, the economic impact to Utah was "just a fraction" because as a "businessman" you only looked at "profits". Before that you looked at tax revenue, so it was only $500K.

    Now go read the article again and figure out how $10 million from subsidies helped Utah football produce over $10.3 in GSP and $18.2 million in Output, the same two "indirect" economic measurements you ignored originally.

    "Output is the value of all goods and services produced in the economy, including the value of goods and services used as intermediate inputs in the production of final goods and services. The value of final goods and services thus embodies the value of their intermediate inputs. Subtracting the value of intermediate inputs from the value of final goods and services gives the value added through production. This value added approximates the gross state product,
    which is what it is called in the table. Gross state product is the state-level analog of the widely reported gross domestic product at the national level."

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    @Ducky
    The article doesn't give a breakdown of the subsidies, it just gives the total of the subsidies, but that is of no consequence for our discussion here, the fact is utah's athletic department is a 12.7 mil loser on its own.

    ----------------

    It is a of consequence if you cry about it and not even have a dog in the fight.

    Again, you pay taxes so you have the right to be outraged if you so choose.

    But you don't pay student fees or donate to the program, so why are you so outraged on how other's choose to spend their money?

    We get it, Utah is in the red and you're happier than the Pillsbury dough boy on his way to a baking convention. But stop the fake concern for Utah students.

  • fender Washington, UT
    June 27, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    Does Ducky's argument remind anyone else of Monty Python's Black Knight? Might be time to let it go for the sake of rational and currently sane Utah and BYU fans everywhere.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    @uteology

    Who said I was "outraged"? I certainly didn't say that. I am opposed to it though. I think utah should be forced to operate on revenues and never be allowed to operate at a deficit. If those revenues include subsidies then so be it I guess, I don't have any say in that, although I will use it to show utah "fans" like yourself again and again that what utah truly is. It is just ironic with all of the bragging about pac12 riches, and yes I know utah is not yet getting all they eventually will, that they still lose money. utah "fans" like yourself, naval, christina, howie, etc. have spent a lot of time on here telling us about how much more money utah is already making over what it made just 2 years ago but regardless of that bragging they are still running deficits and taking huse subsidies just to make the deficits less than they would be otherwise.

    Even you should be able to see the irony in that although I'm sure you can't appreciate it the way that I do.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    @fender

    So you are admitting defeat. Good choice as there is nothing whatsoever for you to stand on here.

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    June 27, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    fender: Right then - we'll call it a draw!

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    June 27, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    @ fender - only in ducky's world would that be called admitting defeat!! "LOL"

    Go Utes!!

    Onward and Upward!! And way under ducky's skin!!

  • midpacmajor Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    Duckhunter

    Despite the clueless chest-pounding on the hill, it's obvious that our friends on the hill have decided to emulate the reckless deficit spending of their PAC mates.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    @midpacmajor

    I understand the bonding to build better facilities, I understand taking the subsidies, I even understand the deficit although I think that needs to be addressed legislatively. To me this is more about taking the utah "fans" down about 20 notches from their puffed up, and false, fiscal arrogance. Their program is a fiscal loser, plain and simple, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

    On the otherhand the program at BYU actually makes money, several million dollars per year as a matter of fact, and that is with vastly superior facilities already in place as well as a vastly more successful overall athletic program. As naval vet would so "frantically and emtionally" proclaim, edge BYU, huge edge actually.

    LOL!

  • romeisn'tburning layton, ut
    June 28, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    @duck

    Have you ever taken the time to stop and think how much tithing money the church uses to pay for its no profit operations and educational institutions? I know that the BYU athletic department prides it self by claiming to be self sufficient via corporate sponsorships (yet they refuse to ever publish the data), even if that is true, what about the University as a whole? Money from poor brothers and sisters in the Philippines and Chile is being used to pay for the University. They don't release the data so you don't have to face it, but look in your heart and ask yourself if you think that is right.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    romeisn'tburning,

    You can't be serious. Tithing paid by brothers and sisters in the Philippines and Chile are being funneled to BYU? You probably don't realize that 100% of tithing dollars coming from third world countries stays in those countries to pay for local houses of worship, including chapels and temples. And 100% is usually not enough to sustain their local infrastructure so money from outside those countries is often used to make up the difference. Therefore you're going to have to try harder to think of a way to disparage BYU on the topic of tithing.

    P.S. Foreign member students are eligible to attend BYU and take advantage of the discounted tuition and many do considering the diverse student body that attends.

    P.P.S. If any members of the LDS church really have such a problem with maybe a microscopic fraction of their tithing dollars going to BYU, then just stop paying it. No one's forcing you. If you're worried about how any of that money is spent then you really don't get it and would just be better off giving yourself a 10% raise.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    @romeisn'tburning

    Aside from the fact you obviously don't know what you are talking about, as giantfan so aptly pointed out, there is also the small fact that no one is forced to pay tithing. It is a choice and those that pay it, like myself, do so willingly and do not question how it is used as we all know it is being used properly and wisely. None of it is used for BYU athletics by the way, BYU turns a multi million dollar profit on athletics, one of only 6 schools to do so.

    That said I don't have any problem with the money the state spends on its higher education system either, that includes the university of utah, I just have a problem with a program that takes massive subsidies and still runs a deficit. Fiscal brains are obviously lacking in the utah athletic department.

    Next time actually try to make an argument with some credibility behind it.

  • romeisn'tburning layton, ut
    June 28, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    The truth is that neither of you where any of that money is going. No financial records are released, ever. So you can make all these claims about 100% stays here or there, and profitability but until the books become public knowledge these statements have no credibility.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    romeisn'tburning,

    Then what in the world is your point? You don't know where it's going either. To claim that money from a poor Philipino family is going to fund BYU is just irresponsible and inflammatory since neither of us knows, right?

    Tithing is an exercise in faith. We don't have any say in what happens to it and we are to trust that church leaders endowed by god will be responsible stewards of it. If you're a little weak-kneed when paying your tithing then you really have two options: Find the faith to pay it or don't pay it at all. Pretty simple, right? And if you don't pay tithing already then why do you care where it goes?

  • bpack88 LOGAN, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    When Utah's full share comes they will be making some good money.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    June 29, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Just glad I don't have to spend much money in Utah. I always gas up in Evanston. Just think how much money could go to public education instead of supporting the lower end of the pac 10.2.

  • CougFaninTX Frisco, TX
    June 30, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    As a taxpayer, I despise paying taxes to subsidize the athletic programs of universities who can't operate in the black.

    Somehow I don't think my business would pay the leader $2 - $6 million per year if they can't be profitable. Let's get back to paying college coaches $200k - $300k per year which is comparable with their responsibilities in the private sector.

    $2 - $6 million per year is comparable to a CEO who runs a very profitable company with tens of thousands of employees.

  • bradleyc Layton, UT
    July 3, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    Go SUU.... Working in the Black!

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 8, 2013 11:11 p.m.

    Football is subsidizing most of Utah sports and it still looses. Basketball has got to start pulling it's own weight.

  • Lightening Lad Austin , TX
    Aug. 1, 2013 3:40 a.m.

    I hate to dampen the cheering but Yeets, you're still small potatoes

    "the Texas Longhorns ranked first in total athletic revenue, raking in $163.2 million for a $25 million profit."
    Y'all come down here and give us a battle, hear.

  • hatchna Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 13, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    "Boise St is 17-0 against all Utah schools since 1997. There is your one-up. Perspective folks!"

    Ummm, you might want to rethink that comment Fatman86... BYU took Boise St. to the woodshed earlier this year to the tune of 37-20.