Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section)

[InnervisionsUMASS]

Quick point of reference here... tuition (just tuition, see links below) for 2022-2023 is $16,186/year for instate, $37,404/year out of state, and the "athletics fee" is built into that. I cannot for the life of me remember what the athletics fee was back when I attended, though I recall it was a separate line item on the bill and it wasn't much. I wonder what it is now, but I also suspect it's still very minimal and probably doesn't break the bank for these "struggling students."


https://www.umass.edu/bursar/tuition/un ... tion-rates
https://www.umass.edu/bursar/fee-explanation

[PreecherJenkins]

Quick point of reference here... tuition (just tuition, see links below) for 2022-2023 is $16,186/year for instate, $37,404/year out of state, and the "athletics fee" is built into that. I cannot for the life of me remember what the athletics fee was back when I attended, though I recall it was a separate line item on the bill and it wasn't much. I wonder what it is now, but I also suspect it's still very minimal and probably doesn't break the bank for these "struggling students."


https://www.umass.edu/bursar/tuition/un ... tion-rates
https://www.umass.edu/bursar/fee-explanation

Yes, us struggling students had the same activities fee in the early 2000's, which included the opportunity to use the gyms, and tickets to most if not all home athletic events.

Really do not understand this thread at all, we have one person who is the smartest guy in the room looking to stir the pot on a subject that has been litigated and relitigated on this board for 13 years. Are they moving back to 1-aa, no, do they suck, yes. Is it your money, no. If you do not want to support the team then don't.

[DeeDeeBee]

AMEN!!

[JoleonLescottsHair]

Really do not understand this thread at all, we have one person who is the smartest guy in the room looking to stir the pot on a subject that has been litigated and relitigated on this board for 13 years. Are they moving back to 1-aa, no, do they suck, yes. Is it your money, no. If you do not want to support the team then don't.

He’s not stirring the pot, he’s asking legit questions and largely getting evasive answers. For this topic, at least, he does appear to be one of the smarter persons in the room. The FBS experiment as failed miserably. Miserably. And the justifications have been a moving target with the financial imperative being one of these.

[dennisdent]

Two years ago...:

https://www.umasshoops.com/newboard/vie ... =2&t=16466

"It's like déjà vu all over again." Yogi Berra.

[econalum]

The above is a timeless and accurate prediction of what has become UMass' FBS future.

[minutefanjsf]

Really do not understand this thread at all, we have one person who is the smartest guy in the room looking to stir the pot on a subject that has been litigated and relitigated on this board for 13 years. Are they moving back to 1-aa, no, do they suck, yes. Is it your money, no. If you do not want to support the team then don't.

He’s not stirring the pot, he’s asking legit questions and largely getting evasive answers. For this topic, at least, he does appear to be one of the smarter persons in the room. The FBS experiment as failed miserably. Miserably. And the justifications have been a moving target with the financial imperative being one of these.

Look at what I posted. Even with a horrible on field product FBS football costs $2 million less than FCS in its last year. Factor in inflation when that statement was made. 10 years after the last FCS season the school spent $2 million less from student funds. The budget has increased to $9 million and is funded 50% by operations- ticket sales, donations, pay day games, etc.

[Bay Area UMie]

Bay Area you think 1-aa is a smart play? What side of this are you on?

Let''s look at why from a guaranteed game perspective:
Florida State paid 1AA Alabama State $450k in 2019 (source USA Torday)
Florida State paid UMass 1.5m in 2021. (source Mass live)

It does not cost a 1m to charter a flight from Amherst Regional Airport to Tallnasty. The worst 1a team is making a HELL of a lot more money than a 1AA team.

Sure is it cheaper if we were in the CAA in terms of travel, yes, scholarships (maybe I am not sure we have ever used a full allotment of scholarships since moving up to 1a, coaches' salaries would be slightly less, but by how much?

The preecher's biggest takeaway and I think Bamford has done a terrible job in most aspects but I'll give him credit here. He has found a way albeit through student fees and state funds to run a program that does not run at a deficit.

As a UGA fan and a Herschel supporter told me (please pray for Herschel winning his race), when discussing Kirby Smart's contract, he goes "Preech, its so little of our money who really cares they are winning"

Trying to gather all data to better understand the financials behind both alternatives, I am not arriving at any final conclusions based on assumptions that on the surface appear to be somewhat reasonable but might be baseless misconceptions …as Innervision suggested this topic probably will require a public records request to arrive at the truth-will get to this when I have time down the road…Candidly, I found your praise about Bamford “running a program without a deficit” to be really bizarre and extremely naive. First, Massachusetts statutory rules require The UMass system to balance its annual budget.Bamford, as AD, relies heavily on revenue /subsidies to balance the total Athletic budget including the Football budget, which by definition, shifts the financial burden in this case from UMass Athletics for failed marketplace activities ie FBS football, on to taxpayers and on to unsuspecting, debt ridden students (do most students really understand what the expense line item called “student fees” is for?)…I have a major philosophical problem with shifting funding from academic pursuits to an athletic endeavor where we are not competitive and one that has unquestionably tarnished our reputation as well as expecting struggling students to support an initiative that attendance records indicate they have minimal interest in…I am curious how your favorite Senate candidate Mr Walker, the economic conservative, would react to your overt support of taxpayer largesse and a regressive tax on poor students…Yes, I will be praying about the runoff election, praying that Walker is defeated.

For someone who states you need to gather all the data, you sure have drawn many conclusions already, especially about the cost to taxpayers and struggling students. How do you arrive at these conclusions about these costs if you do not have the data? Here is an article https://www.masslive.com/umassfootball/ ... utour.html from before Covid and when Bell was hired that includes a comparison in the money from student fees between FBS and FCS . It includes lots of things that didn’t pan out with Bell, as well.

Happy to respond to your sarcasm and feeble attempt at financial analysis. Let me try to dumb down the issues at hand so even you can understand the financials.

The open, unanswered question is how much the university and student subsidy was prior to the 2012 upgrade. Official financial statements with line item detail are publicly available from 2012-2021 ie the FBS years. The 2022 financial statement is obviously only available in budgetary form. Consequently, detailed FBS expenditures-including complete, line item subsidies- are easy to identify and quantify in the aggregate or for any of the individual years 2012-2021 for someone who has fourth grade math skills. A quick, cursory examination of the official Financials indicates the 2021 FBS TOTAL subsidy was $10.1m. Conflicting info exists online for subsidies for the FCS years 2010/2011-complicating the matter is that official detailed University released financials appear only to be available through FOIA requests. However, references are made in the aggregate (without line item detail) about subsidies within Athletic Council Reports. One Athletic Council report mentions that the 2011 subsidy in the aggregate was $3m, another report states $3.6m and Bamford claims in one of the articles you referenced that total subsidies were $4.9m. Given these wide discrepancies, the truth will be found in the soon to be received official 2011 Statement of Revenue and Expenses line item detail report from the University.

Another snide comment since you opened your commentary with nasty sarcasm, when you take simplistic approaches to researching somewhat complex questions, ie limiting your research to Google search results hoping for an article or two to pop up, you end up with simple, inadequate answers. But, perhaps this simplistic approach meets your standard for rigor.

Regarding Bamford’s comment(s)in the linked article(s) you cited to support your sarcasm, ie that annual FBS subsidies total $4.2m, yes, he is correct the subsidies that appear WITHIN HIS ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGET/COST CENTER were $4.2 for fiscal year 2019. But, Bamford forgot (perhaps conveniently) to mention in both linked articles that FBS related expense items such as marketing, facilities maintenance, consulting, Title IX scholarships and annual debt service payments among others are captured from an accounting standpoint in the total AMHERST CAMPUS ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET/COST CENTER. The FBS expense category within the central campus annual operating budget is labeled “Football Related Expenditures”- the +$5m expense category is right there in black and white for anyone who takes the time to look. In fact, Bob Hohler the Globe investigative reporter called out and pushed back on Bamford in a Globe article back in 2020 when Bamford tried to explain away the annual FBS subsidy as only the amount that appears in his Athletic Budget…
“The football budget, however, tells only part of the program’s financial burden on the school, whose total budget is $1.3 billion. also is obligated through 2045 to make annual debt payments on nearly $48 million it borrowed to upgrade the team’s football facilities. And the university has spent more than $10 million to date on additional women’s athletic scholarships to meet Title IX equity requirements after the FBS move increased the football team’s allotment of scholarships to 85 from 63.” (See Boston Globe UMass Football Article, October 6, 2020).

Piece of advice, get into the weeds, perform your due diligence and get your facts straight before you challenge someone with baseless references and misinformation. Otherwise you will get exposed and humiliated again.

[TheInsider]

Serious question.. appreciate the deep dive.. but what's your point? Why just football? Why not the whole department? Why not the ridiculous amount of employees in the system that make over 100k a year??

[minutefanjsf]

Trying to gather all data to better understand the financials behind both alternatives, I am not arriving at any final conclusions based on assumptions that on the surface appear to be somewhat reasonable but might be baseless misconceptions …as Innervision suggested this topic probably will require a public records request to arrive at the truth-will get to this when I have time down the road…Candidly, I found your praise about Bamford “running a program without a deficit” to be really bizarre and extremely naive. First, Massachusetts statutory rules require The UMass system to balance its annual budget.Bamford, as AD, relies heavily on revenue /subsidies to balance the total Athletic budget including the Football budget, which by definition, shifts the financial burden in this case from UMass Athletics for failed marketplace activities ie FBS football, on to taxpayers and on to unsuspecting, debt ridden students (do most students really understand what the expense line item called “student fees” is for?)…I have a major philosophical problem with shifting funding from academic pursuits to an athletic endeavor where we are not competitive and one that has unquestionably tarnished our reputation as well as expecting struggling students to support an initiative that attendance records indicate they have minimal interest in…I am curious how your favorite Senate candidate Mr Walker, the economic conservative, would react to your overt support of taxpayer largesse and a regressive tax on poor students…Yes, I will be praying about the runoff election, praying that Walker is defeated.

For someone who states you need to gather all the data, you sure have drawn many conclusions already, especially about the cost to taxpayers and struggling students. How do you arrive at these conclusions about these costs if you do not have the data? Here is an article https://www.masslive.com/umassfootball/ ... utour.html from before Covid and when Bell was hired that includes a comparison in the money from student fees between FBS and FCS . It includes lots of things that didn’t pan out with Bell, as well.

Happy to respond to your sarcasm and feeble attempt at financial analysis. Let me try to dumb down the issues at hand so even you can understand the financials.

The open, unanswered question is how much the university and student subsidy was prior to the 2012 upgrade. Official financial statements with line item detail are publicly available from 2012-2021 ie the FBS years. The 2022 financial statement is obviously only available in budgetary form. Consequently, detailed FBS expenditures-including complete, line item subsidies- are easy to identify and quantify in the aggregate or for any of the individual years 2012-2021 for someone who has fourth grade math skills. A quick, cursory examination of the official Financials indicates the 2021 FBS TOTAL subsidy was $10.1m. Conflicting info exists online for subsidies for the FCS years 2010/2011-complicating the matter is that official detailed University released financials appear only to be available through FOIA requests. However, references are made in the aggregate (without line item detail) about subsidies within Athletic Council Reports. One Athletic Council report mentions that the 2011 subsidy in the aggregate was $3m, another report states $3.6m and Bamford claims in one of the articles you referenced that total subsidies were $4.9m. Given these wide discrepancies, the truth will be found in the soon to be received official 2011 Statement of Revenue and Expenses line item detail report from the University.

Another snide comment since you opened your commentary with nasty sarcasm, when you take simplistic approaches to researching somewhat complex questions, ie limiting your research to Google search results hoping for an article or two to pop up, you end up with simple, inadequate answers. But, perhaps this simplistic approach meets your standard for rigor.

Regarding Bamford’s comment(s)in the linked article(s) you cited to support your sarcasm, ie that annual FBS subsidies total $4.2m, yes, he is correct the subsidies that appear WITHIN HIS ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGET/COST CENTER were $4.2 for fiscal year 2019. But, Bamford forgot (perhaps conveniently) to mention in both linked articles that FBS related expense items such as marketing, facilities maintenance, consulting, Title IX scholarships and annual debt service payments among others are captured from an accounting standpoint in the total AMHERST CAMPUS ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET/COST CENTER. The FBS expense category within the central campus annual operating budget is labeled “Football Related Expenditures”- the +$5m expense category is right there in black and white for anyone who takes the time to look. In fact, Bob Hohler the Globe investigative reporter called out and pushed back on Bamford in a Globe article back in 2020 when Bamford tried to explain away the annual FBS subsidy as only the amount that appears in his Athletic Budget…
“The football budget, however, tells only part of the program’s financial burden on the school, whose total budget is $1.3 billion. also is obligated through 2045 to make annual debt payments on nearly $48 million it borrowed to upgrade the team’s football facilities. And the university has spent more than $10 million to date on additional women’s athletic scholarships to meet Title IX equity requirements after the FBS move increased the football team’s allotment of scholarships to 85 from 63.” (See Boston Globe UMass Football Article, October 6, 2020).

Piece of advice, get into the weeds, perform your due diligence and get your facts straight before you challenge someone with baseless references and misinformation. Otherwise you will get exposed and humiliated again.

Okay verboseman. You are the one who obviously has a come to conclusions without the data (your own words, not mine). Your conclusion is clear. But, yet you say you haven’t reached a conclusion. The two articles I posted were not meant to be all a silver bullet or anything near a complete picture. It also wasn’t an attempt at any financial analysis. They are two recent articles similar to the one you reference from the globe. Why don’t you just say the school should not spend what it spends on athletics? It is not just FBS football as you’ve pointed out. The scholarships for women’s sports should go as well. Odds are they are in non revenue sports, right? BTW my opening was not sarcasm. I was being direct and questioning your statement about not drawing conclusions without data. The tone you heard as sarcasm was in your own head.

[Bay Area UMie]

For someone who states you need to gather all the data, you sure have drawn many conclusions already, especially about the cost to taxpayers and struggling students. How do you arrive at these conclusions about these costs if you do not have the data? Here is an article https://www.masslive.com/umassfootball/ ... utour.html from before Covid and when Bell was hired that includes a comparison in the money from student fees between FBS and FCS . It includes lots of things that didn’t pan out with Bell, as well.

Happy to respond to your sarcasm and feeble attempt at financial analysis. Let me try to dumb down the issues at hand so even you can understand the financials.

The open, unanswered question is how much the university and student subsidy was prior to the 2012 upgrade. Official financial statements with line item detail are publicly available from 2012-2021 ie the FBS years. The 2022 financial statement is obviously only available in budgetary form. Consequently, detailed FBS expenditures-including complete, line item subsidies- are easy to identify and quantify in the aggregate or for any of the individual years 2012-2021 for someone who has fourth grade math skills. A quick, cursory examination of the official Financials indicates the 2021 FBS TOTAL subsidy was $10.1m. Conflicting info exists online for subsidies for the FCS years 2010/2011-complicating the matter is that official detailed University released financials appear only to be available through FOIA requests. However, references are made in the aggregate (without line item detail) about subsidies within Athletic Council Reports. One Athletic Council report mentions that the 2011 subsidy in the aggregate was $3m, another report states $3.6m and Bamford claims in one of the articles you referenced that total subsidies were $4.9m. Given these wide discrepancies, the truth will be found in the soon to be received official 2011 Statement of Revenue and Expenses line item detail report from the University.

Another snide comment since you opened your commentary with nasty sarcasm, when you take simplistic approaches to researching somewhat complex questions, ie limiting your research to Google search results hoping for an article or two to pop up, you end up with simple, inadequate answers. But, perhaps this simplistic approach meets your standard for rigor.

Regarding Bamford’s comment(s)in the linked article(s) you cited to support your sarcasm, ie that annual FBS subsidies total $4.2m, yes, he is correct the subsidies that appear WITHIN HIS ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGET/COST CENTER were $4.2 for fiscal year 2019. But, Bamford forgot (perhaps conveniently) to mention in both linked articles that FBS related expense items such as marketing, facilities maintenance, consulting, Title IX scholarships and annual debt service payments among others are captured from an accounting standpoint in the total AMHERST CAMPUS ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET/COST CENTER. The FBS expense category within the central campus annual operating budget is labeled “Football Related Expenditures”- the +$5m expense category is right there in black and white for anyone who takes the time to look. In fact, Bob Hohler the Globe investigative reporter called out and pushed back on Bamford in a Globe article back in 2020 when Bamford tried to explain away the annual FBS subsidy as only the amount that appears in his Athletic Budget…
“The football budget, however, tells only part of the program’s financial burden on the school, whose total budget is $1.3 billion. also is obligated through 2045 to make annual debt payments on nearly $48 million it borrowed to upgrade the team’s football facilities. And the university has spent more than $10 million to date on additional women’s athletic scholarships to meet Title IX equity requirements after the FBS move increased the football team’s allotment of scholarships to 85 from 63.” (See Boston Globe UMass Football Article, October 6, 2020).

Piece of advice, get into the weeds, perform your due diligence and get your facts straight before you challenge someone with baseless references and misinformation. Otherwise you will get exposed and humiliated again.

Okay verboseman. You are the one who obviously has a come to conclusions without the data (your own words, not mine). Your conclusion is clear. But, yet you say you haven’t reached a conclusion. The two articles I posted were not meant to be all a silver bullet or anything near a complete picture. It also wasn’t an attempt at any financial analysis. They are two recent articles similar to the one you reference from the globe. Why don’t you just say the school should not spend what it spends on athletics? It is not just FBS football as you’ve pointed out. The scholarships for women’s sports should go as well. Odds are they are in non revenue sports, right? BTW my opening was not sarcasm. I was being direct and questioning your statement about not drawing conclusions without data. The tone you heard as sarcasm was in your own head.

You are obviously in way over your head…we are in the realm of the analytic, financial and strategic and you can’t even comprehend the simple fact why the 2011 subsidy is still an open question…thanks for the good laugh-“has a come to a conclusions”, yup ok whatever you say…another piece of advice, some one just started a new topic on what temperatures the hot dogs should be served at The Mullins Center I think that subject matter is right in your intellectual wheelhouse! I look forward to your insight.

[Bay Area UMie]

Really do not understand this thread at all, we have one person who is the smartest guy in the room looking to stir the pot on a subject that has been litigated and relitigated on this board for 13 years. Are they moving back to 1-aa, no, do they suck, yes. Is it your money, no. If you do not want to support the team then don't.

He’s not stirring the pot, he’s asking legit questions and largely getting evasive answers. For this topic, at least, he does appear to be one of the smarter persons in the room. The FBS experiment as failed miserably. Miserably. And the justifications have been a moving target with the financial imperative being one of these.

Look at what I posted. Even with a horrible on field product FBS football costs $2 million less than FCS in its last year. Factor in inflation when that statement was made. 10 years after the last FCS season the school spent $2 million less from student funds. The budget has increased to $9 million and is funded 50% by operations- ticket sales, donations, pay day games, etc.

After reading this analysis, I am convinced your a top-notch numbers guy. My guess, your probably a Wharton MBA or maybe even an HBS guy. Please help a simple minded dummy like myself understand your contention-are you saying the total budget for FBS football during 2021 was $9m and the subsidy after revenues earned was $4.5m? Thank you in advance for the clarification.

[Used to be VOR]

Threads like this are why I went into almost full "lurk" mode. A very thoughtful analysis was posted with numbers to back it up. Yet most still resist the conclusions those numbers draw. The simple fact is our only sustainable financial course with our football program is to be a pay-for-play punching bag. If people feel that fact justifies an investment of any size, then the amount of loss is meaningless. Take away the money we get to be a cupcake, and this whole thing is just a disaster. And saying that does not mean anyone hates football, it just means they hate our university being a punchline.

[eldonabe]

Threads like this are why I went into almost full "lurk" mode. A very thoughtful analysis was posted with numbers to back it up. Yet most still resist the conclusions those numbers draw. The simple fact is our only sustainable financial course with our football program is to be a pay-for-play punching bag. If people feel that fact justifies an investment of any size, then the amount of loss is meaningless. Take away the money we get to be a cupcake, and this whole thing is just a disaster. And saying that does not mean anyone hates football, it just means they hate our university being a punchline.

There is a lot of ego - the lure of "big boy" football and being a big boy school means more to many people than the fact that the program is losing money pursuing that dream.

There is nothing wrong with it, but it is rarely acknowledged. When you look at the people who defend football, most (not all) compare the flagship schools in other states having football and therefore so should Umass... It is simple - Just admit that this costs the school and state a ton of money, you are not getting the return, but you don't care because you think they should have football. You kind of cut bsumie off at the knees once you admit that. I happen to be in this camp even though it does not appear that way. I believe that this team will never achieve the wins needed to be bowl eligible, but I still think they should keep the program. Somehow this team has still not met my very low expectations, but I hope they will improve in the next 2 years to a point of at least not being a laughing stock.


Detractors are looking at the money and the dumpster fire on the field and asking (legitimately) Why are we wasting all this money on this product when the money could be spent better elsewhere. Hard to argue when you look at the results of the spend. When you look at the larger FBS landscape, the obstacles Umass needs to navigate just to get out of the bottom 25 may not be attainable. It seems futile.

[InnervisionsUMASS]

The question "why are we spending money on this?" when the team has been so bad on the field is certainly legitimate, but it has been answered over and over again here and elsewhere.


And anyone with an actual understanding of how this Commonwealth functions knows that if the money towards football (and Title IX requirements) is no longer used towards football (and Title IX requirements), it will also no longer be put towards the University in general... the "hope" that this money can be better spent towards other athletics or, better yet, academics at the University is quite foolish.