Weird.

This Myers fellow is clearly trying to explain to the reporter how UT uses a departmentalized accounting system to charge to the university's various departments--including the Athletic Department--each department's prorata share of certain fixed overhead associated with operating the university as a whole.

However, the reporter seems to be characterizing these "expenses" charged to the Athletic Department as "income" they (the Athletic Department) are receiving.

At least I guess he is. How else can he add them all up and arrive at a total "subsidy?!"

Here's what I found to be a bit oblivious on Myers' part:

Myers said there is no category on the report to note how much the athletic department gives back to its university because "it's geared to show how athletics is taking away from campus."

"Very few of us do that," Myers said. "So why build a system to report it when most people don't do it?"

Um, Myers? You "build" such a "system" because you can't verify whether your department is "taking away" or "giving back" UNTIL you "build" it.

What's clear is that Myers doesn't care to trifle with those incidental expenses associated with the Athletic Department--like its prorata share of costs for utilities, campus security, depreciation, and overhead for chancellor's and president's offices--because the Athletic Department hasn't to date been asked to actually cut any check to pay for them!

Perhaps the university should move from an accrual to a cash basis and begin asking that of the Athletic Department.

And does the Athletic Department "cut its own checks" for the costs of financing their buildings, stadiums, parking lots, multi-millions in personnel costs, and multi-millions in athlete scholarships? Maybe they do, but if they don't what's clear is that Myers is unwilling to recognize those expenditures as costs of operating the Athletic Department.

And what's the guy saying about how the university has only recently adopted this departmental accounting system that prorates all these costs to departments? If that's the case, it sure lends credence to the Faculty Senate's longstanding assertion that the Athletic Department does not "give back" at all.

Meanwhile, we will continue to depend on dumb jock reporters to relate to us the intricacies of the Athletic Department's financial operations. Thanks for that.

I'm still trying to figure out how depreciation is "allotted money" that can be "put away" for "future building and equipment purchases."

I always thought it was gradual, scheduled expensing of an asset purchase. At least that's how it works on my books. Maybe I should fire our accountant.

I suspect UTAD counts all of the scholarships paid to out of state students as part of that "contribution" to the academic side. I'd love to see a real independent audit of the entire cash flows to end this myth that UTAD isn't subsidized.

And the use of the UT name for licensing shouldn't be sole income for UTAD. The name and the brand belong to the University as a whole, not the sole property of UTAD. They don't think that sometimes a mother might buy her son a UT polo shirt because he actually attends classes there? Oh no, it has to be in support of the football team.

I found the NCAA financial statements online:
(link...)

Rough summary:
Income:
Ticket sales = $26M
Contributions=$14.8M. I assume most of these are the required donations to hold your season tickets?
"Direct Institutional Support" = $2.4M ($1M from student fees... the rest is ???)
"Indirect Institutional Support" = $5M (?)
Media rights, concessions, parking (who paid for those garages and lots??) = $13M
Advertising / sponsorships (use of UT's good name) = $4.5M, I call HALF of this a subsidy from UT

Expenses:
Student Aid = $6.2M (scholarships?)
Salaries + Support Staff = $24M
Severance = $1.6M
Recruiting = $1.5M
Team Travel, Game Expenses = $5.5M
Promotion = $1.5M
Facilities/Maintenance = $12.4M
"Indirect Institutional Support" = $5M (???)
"Other Operating" = $6.4M (????)

Took out sports camps, it's a nearly even income/expense item.

The two 'indirect institutional support' income/expense items seem to even out, so other than paying some scholarships, where's the 'contribution'? Who paid for the garages, parking lots, and Arena? What the heck is 'other operating' expenses to add up to over $6M?

Again, UTAD is allowed to exist purely because of the UT brand. It's like a pro sports franchise- there are a limited number of them, so there's a value attributable to the name itself, and UT is leasing it for effectively nothing. I think allowing the University general fund rights to 30% of all advertising, media, and licensing revenue would be a good start towards balancing the system and forcing UTAD to cut the fat. That $4M wouldn't erase a 12% increase in tuition, but it might ease the pain a little.