[BostonCard]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/24/co...res-folks/

Here are the projected debt service payments for FY17 (provided by the schools, with the exception of ASU):

Oregon: $19.1 million
Cal: $18.7 million
Washington: $16.2 million
Colorado: $14.8 million
Washington State: $9.2 million
Oregon State: $8.7 million
Arizona: $8 million
Utah: $4.6 million
Arizona State: $4.2 million
UCLA: $3 million

That's a lot to be spending servicing debt.  If the next TV contract is not as lucrative due to changes in the cable industry... some schools are going to be in trouble.

BC

[BostonCard]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/24/co...res-folks/

Here are the projected debt service payments for FY17 (provided by the schools, with the exception of ASU):

Oregon: $19.1 million
Cal: $18.7 million
Washington: $16.2 million
Colorado: $14.8 million
Washington State: $9.2 million
Oregon State: $8.7 million
Arizona: $8 million
Utah: $4.6 million
Arizona State: $4.2 million
UCLA: $3 million

That's a lot to be spending servicing debt.  If the next TV contract is not as lucrative due to changes in the cable industry... some schools are going to be in trouble.

BC

[Langdude]

Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

[Langdude]

Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

[82lsju]

Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

given the AD endowment is thought to be on the order of $500 million I would think our annual debt service would be small

[82lsju]

Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

given the AD endowment is thought to be on the order of $500 million I would think our annual debt service would be small

[cctop]

Kudos to UCLA for maintaining so little debt.

[cctop]

Kudos to UCLA for maintaining so little debt.

[PalmTree]

Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

See page 107 - DAPER projects a $1.8M operating deficit for the 2016/17 fiscal year, and has a cumulative operating deficit of $8.7M.  I'm not sure how much can be covered from other unrestricted reserves, or if they have any operating endowments.  It looks like they went from recording a net $3.5M surplus in 2014/15 to net deficits last year and this year (proj.) Big drivers look to be jumps in costs for scholarships (all funded from endowments), compensation and "general services/supplies".

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provos...okFY17.pdf


They are getting $13-14M/year from the university which I suspect supports staff/operations/facilities dedicated to general recreational purposes (i.e. by all faculty, staff and non-varsity students).

[PalmTree]

Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

See page 107 - DAPER projects a $1.8M operating deficit for the 2016/17 fiscal year, and has a cumulative operating deficit of $8.7M.  I'm not sure how much can be covered from other unrestricted reserves, or if they have any operating endowments.  It looks like they went from recording a net $3.5M surplus in 2014/15 to net deficits last year and this year (proj.) Big drivers look to be jumps in costs for scholarships (all funded from endowments), compensation and "general services/supplies".

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provos...okFY17.pdf


They are getting $13-14M/year from the university which I suspect supports staff/operations/facilities dedicated to general recreational purposes (i.e. by all faculty, staff and non-varsity students).

[fullmetal]

UCLA didn't build new facilities funded by the TV money, did it?  Seems like everyone else did...I can't think of anything new Stanford built recently except maybe the visitors' football locker rooms?  Was part of the new Arrillaga buildings (Roble field, student rec center near Ford Center) funded by TV money?

Are the operating deficits calculated before the endowment payments are applied?

[fullmetal]

UCLA didn't build new facilities funded by the TV money, did it?  Seems like everyone else did...I can't think of anything new Stanford built recently except maybe the visitors' football locker rooms?  Was part of the new Arrillaga buildings (Roble field, student rec center near Ford Center) funded by TV money?

Are the operating deficits calculated before the endowment payments are applied?

[82lsju]

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=16920.msg193923#msg193923 date=1495647603]
Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

See page 107 - DAPER projects a $1.8M operating deficit for the 2016/17 fiscal year, and has a cumulative operating deficit of $8.7M.  I'm not sure how much can be covered from other unrestricted reserves, or if they have any operating endowments.  It looks like they went from recording a net $3.5M surplus in 2014/15 to net deficits last year and this year (proj.) Big drivers look to be jumps in costs for scholarships (all funded from endowments), compensation and "general services/supplies".

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provos...okFY17.pdf


They are getting $13-14M/year from the university which I suspect supports staff/operations/facilities dedicated to general recreational purposes (i.e. by all faculty, staff and non-varsity students).
[/quote]

on page 107 it has a "debt service" line item that is $535,000 to $587,000 in each of the years

see the AD income here for 2014-15 which says the University funds are primarily for PE, recreation, and wellness

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

[82lsju]

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=16920.msg193923#msg193923 date=1495647603]
Any guesses on Stanford's situation? As a private university, they did not have to report numbers...

-m.

See page 107 - DAPER projects a $1.8M operating deficit for the 2016/17 fiscal year, and has a cumulative operating deficit of $8.7M.  I'm not sure how much can be covered from other unrestricted reserves, or if they have any operating endowments.  It looks like they went from recording a net $3.5M surplus in 2014/15 to net deficits last year and this year (proj.) Big drivers look to be jumps in costs for scholarships (all funded from endowments), compensation and "general services/supplies".

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provos...okFY17.pdf


They are getting $13-14M/year from the university which I suspect supports staff/operations/facilities dedicated to general recreational purposes (i.e. by all faculty, staff and non-varsity students).
[/quote]

on page 107 it has a "debt service" line item that is $535,000 to $587,000 in each of the years

see the AD income here for 2014-15 which says the University funds are primarily for PE, recreation, and wellness

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

[PalmTree]

[/quote]

on page 107 it has a "debt service" line item that is $535,000 to $587,000 in each of the years

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf
[/quote]

Doh....so it does!  :P

[PalmTree]

[/quote]

on page 107 it has a "debt service" line item that is $535,000 to $587,000 in each of the years

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf
[/quote]

Doh....so it does!  :P

[Farm93]

Kudos to UCLA for maintaining so little debt.

For decades now the UCLA AD has done things the UCB AD has said was impossible.

Cut programs, stay away from operating deficits, produce a winning football program despite increasing academic requirements...oh and hold football games at an off campus venue. 

FWIW - The Rose Bowl Game is historic, but the Rose Bowl itself is really a terrible venue for watching games.  Still the UCLA AD finds a way to make it happen unlike their peer UC in the Bay Area.

[Farm93]

Kudos to UCLA for maintaining so little debt.

For decades now the UCLA AD has done things the UCB AD has said was impossible.

Cut programs, stay away from operating deficits, produce a winning football program despite increasing academic requirements...oh and hold football games at an off campus venue. 

FWIW - The Rose Bowl Game is historic, but the Rose Bowl itself is really a terrible venue for watching games.  Still the UCLA AD finds a way to make it happen unlike their peer UC in the Bay Area.

[fullmetal]

That's a really good point.  What *is* Bezerkeley's excuse for underperforming compared to UCLA?  (Erm, besides an aging relic of a stadium sitting on a fault line...)

[fullmetal]

That's a really good point.  What *is* Bezerkeley's excuse for underperforming compared to UCLA?  (Erm, besides an aging relic of a stadium sitting on a fault line...)

[Embo]

That's a really good point.  What *is* Bezerkeley's excuse for underperforming compared to UCLA?  (Erm, besides an aging relic of a stadium sitting on a fault line...)

Well, to start, UCLA has 10 men's varsity sports, 13 women's varsity sports.  C.al has 13 men's, 15 women's.
C.al also had a former AD who created positions for numerous assistant directors.

[Embo]

That's a really good point.  What *is* Bezerkeley's excuse for underperforming compared to UCLA?  (Erm, besides an aging relic of a stadium sitting on a fault line...)

Well, to start, UCLA has 10 men's varsity sports, 13 women's varsity sports.  C.al has 13 men's, 15 women's.
C.al also had a former AD who created positions for numerous assistant directors.

[Embo]

I will wonder what Stanford's debt service will be, as there is a theoretical big increase in revenue starting this coming season.  I've been on the 30-35 yard line of the new stadium since its inception.  We bypassed the section on the 50 because of the mandatory yearly donation.  Well, to maintain our seats, we're now on the hook for $1,000 per seat per season, as part of the AD's new requirement for the seats between the 20 yard lines.  I thought that there might be a large abandonment from prior STH, but surprisingly, when I looked at the stadium map of available seats, the renewals have continued.  Yes, we renewed.

[Embo]

I will wonder what Stanford's debt service will be, as there is a theoretical big increase in revenue starting this coming season.  I've been on the 30-35 yard line of the new stadium since its inception.  We bypassed the section on the 50 because of the mandatory yearly donation.  Well, to maintain our seats, we're now on the hook for $1,000 per seat per season, as part of the AD's new requirement for the seats between the 20 yard lines.  I thought that there might be a large abandonment from prior STH, but surprisingly, when I looked at the stadium map of available seats, the renewals have continued.  Yes, we renewed.

[Farm93]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16920.msg193948#msg193948 date=1495658355]
That's a really good point.  What *is* Bezerkeley's excuse for underperforming compared to UCLA?  (Erm, besides an aging relic of a stadium sitting on a fault line...)

Well, to start, UCLA has 10 men's varsity sports, 13 women's varsity sports.  C.al has 13 men's, 15 women's.
C.al also had a former AD who created positions for numerous assistant directors.
[/quote]
UCLA had more sports.  They cut them years ago and noted the budget realities.  Simply, the UCLA AD was/is a better run organization. 

[Farm93]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16920.msg193948#msg193948 date=1495658355]
That's a really good point.  What *is* Bezerkeley's excuse for underperforming compared to UCLA?  (Erm, besides an aging relic of a stadium sitting on a fault line...)

Well, to start, UCLA has 10 men's varsity sports, 13 women's varsity sports.  C.al has 13 men's, 15 women's.
C.al also had a former AD who created positions for numerous assistant directors.
[/quote]
UCLA had more sports.  They cut them years ago and noted the budget realities.  Simply, the UCLA AD was/is a better run organization. 

[Farm93]

I will wonder what Stanford's debt service will be, as there is a theoretical big increase in revenue starting this coming season.  I've been on the 30-35 yard line of the new stadium since its inception.  We bypassed the section on the 50 because of the mandatory yearly donation.  Well, to maintain our seats, we're now on the hook for $1,000 per seat per season, as part of the AD's new requirement for the seats between the 20 yard lines.  I thought that there might be a large abandonment from prior STH, but surprisingly, when I looked at the stadium map of available seats, the renewals have continued.  Yes, we renewed.

The Stanford AD is allocating $500K to servicing debt.  Some debt may be beneficial for any number of reasons, so I would not expect the new ticket revenue will be used to drive down the underlying debt line.  Remember that 500K is in an annual budget of $100 million, that's not a lot. 

BTW - why surprisingly on renewals?  Some on this board stated all along that the renewal rates would be OK.  For those required donation doubters out there I believe the real renewal test will come after a bad season.  And that's the trick.  Make sure the donations become routine and habitual before any downturn in on field results.

As I noted before timing was the Maples mistake.  The AD waited too long before introducing the required donation route.  Introducing the donations during a downturn made it easier for people to walk away.  And many did.

CMac's return with the defending Rose Bowl Champs would have made the 2016 season better, but the even year schedule has been awful.  So 2017, given the odd year schedule quality, was a good time.

[Farm93]

I will wonder what Stanford's debt service will be, as there is a theoretical big increase in revenue starting this coming season.  I've been on the 30-35 yard line of the new stadium since its inception.  We bypassed the section on the 50 because of the mandatory yearly donation.  Well, to maintain our seats, we're now on the hook for $1,000 per seat per season, as part of the AD's new requirement for the seats between the 20 yard lines.  I thought that there might be a large abandonment from prior STH, but surprisingly, when I looked at the stadium map of available seats, the renewals have continued.  Yes, we renewed.

The Stanford AD is allocating $500K to servicing debt.  Some debt may be beneficial for any number of reasons, so I would not expect the new ticket revenue will be used to drive down the underlying debt line.  Remember that 500K is in an annual budget of $100 million, that's not a lot. 

BTW - why surprisingly on renewals?  Some on this board stated all along that the renewal rates would be OK.  For those required donation doubters out there I believe the real renewal test will come after a bad season.  And that's the trick.  Make sure the donations become routine and habitual before any downturn in on field results.

As I noted before timing was the Maples mistake.  The AD waited too long before introducing the required donation route.  Introducing the donations during a downturn made it easier for people to walk away.  And many did.

CMac's return with the defending Rose Bowl Champs would have made the 2016 season better, but the even year schedule has been awful.  So 2017, given the odd year schedule quality, was a good time.

[CTcard]

That's a lot to be spending servicing debt.  If the next TV contract is not as lucrative due to changes in the cable industry... some schools are going to be in trouble.

Whether that is a lot to be spending on servicing debt depends upon a host of details.
What fraction of revenue is this? [Two years ago (fiscal year 2015) those schools reported AD revenues from between $105 million to $54 million. Presumably those were all bigger in fiscal year 2017.]
What's the term on the debt?
What do those payments cover?

From what I have heard and what is in that article, it appears that cal is in the worst trouble. Their debt payments are scheduled to go on for a long time and currently they are primarily paying interest only as I understand it. 

Nevertheless, if the next TV contract is less lucrative than the current one then every school will be in some trouble. Rarely does anybody plan/budget for this kind of revenue drop. 

UCLA had more sports.  They cut them years ago and noted the budget realities.  Simply, the UCLA AD was/is a better run organization.

While I don't doubt that UCLA has a better run AD, I do not see that cutting sports is an indication of that ... rather the opposite.


-----------
I thought the previous blog on over/unders for 2017 was more interesting. Maybe I'll start a new thread on that.

[CTcard]

That's a lot to be spending servicing debt.  If the next TV contract is not as lucrative due to changes in the cable industry... some schools are going to be in trouble.

Whether that is a lot to be spending on servicing debt depends upon a host of details.
What fraction of revenue is this? [Two years ago (fiscal year 2015) those schools reported AD revenues from between $105 million to $54 million. Presumably those were all bigger in fiscal year 2017.]
What's the term on the debt?
What do those payments cover?

From what I have heard and what is in that article, it appears that cal is in the worst trouble. Their debt payments are scheduled to go on for a long time and currently they are primarily paying interest only as I understand it. 

Nevertheless, if the next TV contract is less lucrative than the current one then every school will be in some trouble. Rarely does anybody plan/budget for this kind of revenue drop. 

UCLA had more sports.  They cut them years ago and noted the budget realities.  Simply, the UCLA AD was/is a better run organization.

While I don't doubt that UCLA has a better run AD, I do not see that cutting sports is an indication of that ... rather the opposite.


-----------
I thought the previous blog on over/unders for 2017 was more interesting. Maybe I'll start a new thread on that.

[Farm93]

The UCLA cuts were 20+ years ago now.  Back in the day, the UCs were told to get their financial act together or else!

UCLA actually went through the pain of cutting very successful programs that were expensive to run and has maintained a reasonably solid financial organization over the last 30 years.  Oh, and FWIW - they have been winning NCAA team titles, playing in the Rose Bowl game from time to time, etc.

UCB cried a complained.  Annually they rely upon discretionary funding from various UC Regents' sources.  One could argue that getting money from the Regents' slush funds each year means they are clever as they get to spend more and field more teams than their UCB community actually wants to support financially.  However, as a taxpayer with HS age kids I sure would like those Regents' discretionary funds to go to things other than UCB AD annual bailouts.  And FWIW - the UCB AD has 0 Rose Bowl game appearances over the last 30 years.

Budget discipline and better results on the field?  That's enough for me to conclude UCLA's AD is a better run organization.

[Farm93]

The UCLA cuts were 20+ years ago now.  Back in the day, the UCs were told to get their financial act together or else!

UCLA actually went through the pain of cutting very successful programs that were expensive to run and has maintained a reasonably solid financial organization over the last 30 years.  Oh, and FWIW - they have been winning NCAA team titles, playing in the Rose Bowl game from time to time, etc.

UCB cried a complained.  Annually they rely upon discretionary funding from various UC Regents' sources.  One could argue that getting money from the Regents' slush funds each year means they are clever as they get to spend more and field more teams than their UCB community actually wants to support financially.  However, as a taxpayer with HS age kids I sure would like those Regents' discretionary funds to go to things other than UCB AD annual bailouts.  And FWIW - the UCB AD has 0 Rose Bowl game appearances over the last 30 years.

Budget discipline and better results on the field?  That's enough for me to conclude UCLA's AD is a better run organization.

[2006alum]

Part of it is also just school culture. Athletics is not nearly as important to the undergraduate student body at Cal as it is at UCLA, with the possible exception of football (and that's pretty iffy these days given how bad they've been for the past decade). UCLA student body is much more akin to Stanford in terms of interest in going to games, passion for sports, etc., and I think the translates to results too. What I've never understood is why Cal continues to try to save insolvent sports given the absence of widespread interest and the brobdingnagian revenue deficits the campus faces across almost every facet. Even swimming, which has been such a powerhouse in recent years and had Missy Franklin, doesn't really penetrate campus-wide.

[2006alum]

Part of it is also just school culture. Athletics is not nearly as important to the undergraduate student body at Cal as it is at UCLA, with the possible exception of football (and that's pretty iffy these days given how bad they've been for the past decade). UCLA student body is much more akin to Stanford in terms of interest in going to games, passion for sports, etc., and I think the translates to results too. What I've never understood is why Cal continues to try to save insolvent sports given the absence of widespread interest and the brobdingnagian revenue deficits the campus faces across almost every facet. Even swimming, which has been such a powerhouse in recent years and had Missy Franklin, doesn't really penetrate campus-wide.

[dabigv13]

Two things, one, responding to Farm 93's earlier post, I disagree that the Rose Bowl is not a good place to watch a game- you are sitting farther away, but for experience and location, the RB is fantastic and there are few places I'd rather watch a game. I don't mind that I'm a bit farther one bit. Not to mention the fantastic tailgating! I would chain myself to those gates if they tried to StanfordStadium-ize it (well for maybe a night).

Also to 2006alum's point, I disagree that UCB students are less passionate than UCLA fans. Not so in my anecdotal experience. I have friends from UCLA that hardly went to football games because of the annoyance of it not being on campus. Those people may not have gone to games at UCB either, but of the ~20 alums I know from each school, it's pretty similar in terms of sports fandom.

[dabigv13]

Two things, one, responding to Farm 93's earlier post, I disagree that the Rose Bowl is not a good place to watch a game- you are sitting farther away, but for experience and location, the RB is fantastic and there are few places I'd rather watch a game. I don't mind that I'm a bit farther one bit. Not to mention the fantastic tailgating! I would chain myself to those gates if they tried to StanfordStadium-ize it (well for maybe a night).

Also to 2006alum's point, I disagree that UCB students are less passionate than UCLA fans. Not so in my anecdotal experience. I have friends from UCLA that hardly went to football games because of the annoyance of it not being on campus. Those people may not have gone to games at UCB either, but of the ~20 alums I know from each school, it's pretty similar in terms of sports fandom.

[2006alum]

Two things, one, responding to Farm 93's earlier post, I disagree that the Rose Bowl is not a good place to watch a game- you are sitting farther away, but for experience and location, the RB is fantastic and there are few places I'd rather watch a game. I don't mind that I'm a bit farther one bit. Not to mention the fantastic tailgating! I would chain myself to those gates if they tried to StanfordStadium-ize it (well for maybe a night).

Also to 2006alum's point, I disagree that UCB students are less passionate than UCLA fans. Not so in my anecdotal experience. I have friends from UCLA that hardly went to football games because of the annoyance of it not being on campus. Those people may not have gone to games at UCB either, but of the ~20 alums I know from each school, it's pretty similar in terms of sports fandom.

It's probably all anecdotal and we could find data points to support either position, but when I was a graduate student at Berkeley and taught a couple hundred undergrads over the course of my time, I was really surprised by how little they cared about sports - most didn't even seem aware of big football and basketball games, let alone plan to attend them. I possibly had a different (self-selected) group of friends in undergrad, but even in the years that we were awful at football, everyone knew when the games were, whether or not they went.

[2006alum]

Two things, one, responding to Farm 93's earlier post, I disagree that the Rose Bowl is not a good place to watch a game- you are sitting farther away, but for experience and location, the RB is fantastic and there are few places I'd rather watch a game. I don't mind that I'm a bit farther one bit. Not to mention the fantastic tailgating! I would chain myself to those gates if they tried to StanfordStadium-ize it (well for maybe a night).

Also to 2006alum's point, I disagree that UCB students are less passionate than UCLA fans. Not so in my anecdotal experience. I have friends from UCLA that hardly went to football games because of the annoyance of it not being on campus. Those people may not have gone to games at UCB either, but of the ~20 alums I know from each school, it's pretty similar in terms of sports fandom.

It's probably all anecdotal and we could find data points to support either position, but when I was a graduate student at Berkeley and taught a couple hundred undergrads over the course of my time, I was really surprised by how little they cared about sports - most didn't even seem aware of big football and basketball games, let alone plan to attend them. I possibly had a different (self-selected) group of friends in undergrad, but even in the years that we were awful at football, everyone knew when the games were, whether or not they went.

[82lsju]

And FWIW - the UCB AD has 0 Rose Bowl game appearances over the last 30 years.

Last Cal RB appearance was 1959

Last Cal RB win was 1938

[82lsju]

And FWIW - the UCB AD has 0 Rose Bowl game appearances over the last 30 years.

Last Cal RB appearance was 1959

Last Cal RB win was 1938