[Goose]

While undoubtedly true (I work in healthcare where "costs" are a joke), and certainly money is fungible, in this particular case it would be harder to engage in clever accounting to make things look worse because we are talking about marginal costs, not costs averaged over the entire budget.  Thus, you can't really shift fixed costs to count under the cut sports (or move revenue to other sports).  Thus, the AD referred to "total incremental funding" not "total cost".

Sure you can. You can do it any way you want if you don't give out the details of what the numbers mean and where they came from. You can take any fixed cost and ascribe whatever percentage you chose to each sport. Unless somebody knows that you did that, they have to assume you aren't "cheating". However, since you don't give out that kind of information, anything is possible. "Marginal Costs" are what the AD says they are. Honest? No. Easy to do? Yes, because you don't get audited.

[Goose]

While undoubtedly true (I work in healthcare where "costs" are a joke), and certainly money is fungible, in this particular case it would be harder to engage in clever accounting to make things look worse because we are talking about marginal costs, not costs averaged over the entire budget.  Thus, you can't really shift fixed costs to count under the cut sports (or move revenue to other sports).  Thus, the AD referred to "total incremental funding" not "total cost".

Sure you can. You can do it any way you want if you don't give out the details of what the numbers mean and where they came from. You can take any fixed cost and ascribe whatever percentage you chose to each sport. Unless somebody knows that you did that, they have to assume you aren't "cheating". However, since you don't give out that kind of information, anything is possible. "Marginal Costs" are what the AD says they are. Honest? No. Easy to do? Yes, because you don't get audited.