House decision and the Feds

[717s7e]

Time out! I started this thread hoping to have a discussion of what Congress can do to get the courts out of college sports. I think the House decision is a disaster for schools like our and particularly for the Olympic sports and women's sports. When I started the thread I didn't realize how far down the road Trump was in terms of trying to resolve the situation. It is unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into a discussion of DOGE when we should be thinking of how to pressure Daines/Sheehy/Zinke/Downing into finding a legislative remedy.
Perhaps a better thread would be "What does mean for UM and can we compete against the more monied members of the FCS?

 

[kemajic]

It's not clear the DOGE initiative was aimed at anything other than taking our personal and most sensitive data and handing it over to Palantir to create a system for BIG GOV'T to spy on us in a way that wasn't possible before. Trump is the Deep State he always warned us about.

TDS has to be painful.

 

[GriznMN]

TDS has to be painful.

When you got nothing, bring out the TDS card. If you only knew who I voted for in 2016 and 2020, you might think differently.

 

[SoCal Surfer]

Parts of this thread don't belong here. There are other areas of the site for political discourse. Let's keep the discussions on Griz sports.

 

[GriznMN]

Perhaps a better thread would be "What does mean for UM and can we compete against the more monied members of the FCS?

Is this the correct data? If so, I would think Montana is good shape with most of the money not coming from the government and student fees unless I'm missing something.

Here's a breakdown of the FCS football programs with the highest athletic department revenues based on the most recent data from 2022:

Top FCS Schools by Total Revenue​

These figures include all athletic department revenue, not just football, but they give a strong indication of financial strength:

Rank	School	Total Revenue	% Allocated (Gov/Fees)
1	UC Davis	$44.28 million	80.14%
2	Cal Poly	$37.13 million	73.64%
3	Stony Brook	$37.03 million	85.56%
4	Sacramento State	$35.89 million	84.24%
5	New Hampshire	$33.10 million	72.97%
6	Kennesaw State	$32.97 million	80.57%
7	Rhode Island	$31.99 million	76.87%
8	William & Mary	$30.94 million	54.75%
9	North Dakota	$30.86 million	47.89%
10	Missouri State	$29.92 million	61.31%
11	Illinois State	$29.90 million	69.83%
12	North Dakota State	$29.30 million	25.94%
13	Montana	$28.97 million	34.65%
14	Towson	$28.57 million	80.20%
15	Albany	$27.30 million	77.85%

Key Takeaways​

• UC Davis leads all FCS schools in total athletic revenue.
• Montana and North Dakota State stand out for generating a significant portion of their revenue independently (lower % allocated), suggesting stronger donor bases, ticket sales, and sponsorships.
• Schools with high % allocated rely more heavily on institutional support and student fees.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Is this the correct data? If so, I would think Montana is good shape with most of the money not coming from the government and student fees unless I'm missing something.

Here's a breakdown of the FCS football programs with the highest athletic department revenues based on the most recent data from 2022:

Top FCS Schools by Total Revenue​

These figures include all athletic department revenue, not just football, but they give a strong indication of financial strength:

Rank	School	Total Revenue	% Allocated (Gov/Fees)
1	UC Davis	$44.28 million	80.14%
2	Cal Poly	$37.13 million	73.64%
3	Stony Brook	$37.03 million	85.56%
4	Sacramento State	$35.89 million	84.24%
5	New Hampshire	$33.10 million	72.97%
6	Kennesaw State	$32.97 million	80.57%
7	Rhode Island	$31.99 million	76.87%
8	William & Mary	$30.94 million	54.75%
9	North Dakota	$30.86 million	47.89%
10	Missouri State	$29.92 million	61.31%
11	Illinois State	$29.90 million	69.83%
12	North Dakota State	$29.30 million	25.94%
13	Montana	$28.97 million	34.65%
14	Towson	$28.57 million	80.20%
15	Albany	$27.30 million	77.85%

Key Takeaways​

• UC Davis leads all FCS schools in total athletic revenue.
• Montana and North Dakota State stand out for generating a significant portion of their revenue independently (lower % allocated), suggesting stronger donor bases, ticket sales, and sponsorships.
• Schools with high % allocated rely more heavily on institutional support and student fees.

Now do one with a breakdown of each source of revenue per school.

 

[SoldierGriz]

When you got nothing, bring out the TDS card. If you only knew who I voted for in 2016 and 2020, you might think differently.

Hey fu@%tard from Minnesota where you fit right in.

Take your politics to the thread titled as such. Since you joined Egriz.com in May - you have posted more political crap than anyone. Now - go find the thread and post all the love notes you'd like to your quitter master sergeant governor.

Friggin tool bag.

 

[GriznMN]

Lol, some people's entitled children think the world revolves around them.

 

[GriznMN]

Now do one with a breakdown of each source of revenue per school.

I believe it is broken down in the % allocated column unless you are wanting it broken down into more specific buckets such as ticket sales, booster donations, sponsorships, student fees, and government handouts.