• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

How much money does Athletics at UM/MSU get in student fee's?

B

Brother Bear

Well-known member
After watching some other FCS programs do some athletic department study's, I was wondering how UM/MSU operate in terms of funded dollars from student fee's and or how much money each athletics program overall gets in budget dollars to operate annually.

Interesting info released in the Indiana State University study... Eastern Washington obviously taking a hard look at how athletics works there. Just wondering how the Montana schools stack up as far as institutional support.

https://www.tribstar.com/sports/local_college_sports/isu_sports/study-lays-out-isu-athletic-budget-realities/article_04e88be2-65e6-5db3-892d-4d76927e9f24.html
 
Don't know how many $$ they get, but I seem to remember back when I rode dinosaurs to class, you had to opt in to be charged athletic fees when you registered for classes. Don't know how it's handled these days.
 
My last semester in spring 2020 UM was at 73 dollars a semester. I’m currently working on a Masters in Science Education from MSU and the athletic fee for them is 81.75 a semester. The student fees for UM is applied at full time credits and I think graduate students can opt out of athletic fees. I imagine MSU is about the same. I won’t ever be full credit, but with it mostly being an online degree, I can’t imagine they would charge that athletic fee to a graduate student.
 
In terms of subsidization from the state overall for the athletic department, Montana and Montana State are BY FAR the least subsidized athletic departments in the Big Sky Conference and the FCS. For example, James Madison earns more than $50 million in student athletic fees alone, which is more than double either UM or MSU's total athletic budget.

Here are the top 10 FCS athletic department budgets:

FCS
1. James Madison — $52.7 million
2. Delaware — $47.9 million
3. UC Davis — $41 million
4. Stony Brook — $35.6 million
5. Cal Poly — $34.5 million
6. Towson — $33.3 million
7. New Hampshire — $32.1 million
8. Sacramento State — $31 million
9. North Dakota — $30.5 million
10. William & Mary — $29.5 million

You ask "why do UC Davis, Cal Poly and Sac State generate so much revenue?" Student athletic fees plus huge student enrollments. That's it.

All but 23 schools in all of Division I athletics take state subsidies. But you'd be surprised that only about 50 schools in all D-I take LESS state money than Montana and Montana State. UM and MSU are the only two Division I schools that play FCS football that get less than 50 percent of their of their athletic department budgets from the State. I believe Montana gets 38 or 39 percent subsidized while MSU is around 45 percent. So roughly, about $8.5-10 million comes from the state, the other $10-15 million must be produced by the department.
 
Colter_Nuanez56 said:
In terms of subsidization from the state overall for the athletic department, Montana and Montana State are BY FAR the least subsidized athletic departments in the Big Sky Conference and the FCS. For example, James Madison earns more than $50 million in student athletic fees alone, which is more than double either UM or MSU's total athletic budget.

Here are the top 10 FCS athletic department budgets:

FCS
1. James Madison — $52.7 million
2. Delaware — $47.9 million
3. UC Davis — $41 million
4. Stony Brook — $35.6 million
5. Cal Poly — $34.5 million
6. Towson — $33.3 million
7. New Hampshire — $32.1 million
8. Sacramento State — $31 million
9. North Dakota — $30.5 million
10. William & Mary — $29.5 million

You ask "why do UC Davis, Cal Poly and Sac State generate so much revenue?" Student athletic fees plus huge student enrollments. That's it.

All but 23 schools in all of Division I athletics take state subsidies. But you'd be surprised that only about 50 schools in all D-I take LESS state money than Montana and Montana State. UM and MSU are the only two Division I schools that play FCS football that get less than 50 percent of their of their athletic department budgets from the State. I believe Montana gets 38 or 39 percent subsidized while MSU is around 45 percent. So roughly, about $8.5-10 million comes from the state, the other $10-15 million must be produced by the department.
Click to expand...
And a good portion of that is in the form of scholarships booked at full cost, when they are, in fact, incremental.
 
Colter_Nuanez56 said:
Montana gets 38 or 39 percent subsidized while MSU is around 45 percent.
Click to expand...
Hold up. For years, I’ve heard Bubs argue that UM is taking more money and holding them back, when in fact it’s the opposite?
Looks like MSC doesn’t even pull its own weight and is a huge drain on the general fund. I’ll be god damned if they ever get a red cent of my hard-earned cash. I’m writing a letter.
 
garizzalies said:
Colter_Nuanez56 said:
Montana gets 38 or 39 percent subsidized while MSU is around 45 percent.
Click to expand...
Hold up. For years, I’ve heard Bubs argue that UM is taking more money and holding them back, when in fact it’s the opposite?
Looks like MSC doesn’t even pull its own weight and is a huge drain on the general fund. I’ll be god damned if they ever get a red cent of my hard-earned cash. I’m writing a letter.
Click to expand...
UM gets less because its revenue is greater.
 
kemajic said:
garizzalies said:
Hold up. For years, I’ve heard Bubs argue that UM is taking more money and holding them back, when in fact it’s the opposite?
Looks like MSC doesn’t even pull its own weight and is a huge drain on the general fund. I’ll be god damned if they ever get a red cent of my hard-earned cash. I’m writing a letter.
Click to expand...
UM gets less because its revenue is greater.
Click to expand...

Penalized for success!
 
Has been that way since the first years of Dennison. He saw what the athletic department could raise, and continually steered more and more money to other areas of the campus. When football was really rolling, the disparity was huge.
 
garizzalies said:
Colter_Nuanez56 said:
Montana gets 38 or 39 percent subsidized while MSU is around 45 percent.
Click to expand...
Hold up. For years, I’ve heard Bubs argue that UM is taking more money and holding them back, when in fact it’s the opposite?
Looks like MSC doesn’t even pull its own weight and is a huge drain on the general fund. I’ll be god damned if they ever get a red cent of my hard-earned cash. I’m writing a letter.
Click to expand...

Colter would know for before me, but I feel like I remember MSU athletics being about 60-70% subsidized not long ago. It was bordering on a full-fledged charity, and then they sent some glossy brochures to unwitting HS students to get enrollment up. I'm actually happy to see State College footing the majority of it's own bill for athletics for once.
 
According to 2019 data reported to the NCAA, UM had total athletic revenue of $23.4 million, including $1.1M in student fees and $7.1M in school funds (31% of revenue).

MSU had revenue of $23.2M, including $2.0M in student fees and $9.7M in school funds (42% of revenue).

The school funds are essentially a subsidy to support athletics.
 
GRIZ PHAN said:
According to 2019 data reported to the NCAA, UM had total athletic revenue of $23.4 million, including $1.1M in student fees and $7.1M in school funds (31% of revenue).

MSU had revenue of $23.2M, including $2.0M in student fees and $9.7M in school funds (42% of revenue).

The school funds are essentially a subsidy to support athletics.
Click to expand...

And the reason the Big Sky is unlike any other league in the country is you have a collection of schools — Sac State, Cal Poly, UC Davis, Northern Arizona for sure — that are all among THE MOST subsidized athletic departments in all of Division I, paid for almost entirely by student athletic fees that are boosted by enormous student enrollments.

Fall of 2019 enrollments
Cal Poly - 22,300 students
UC Davis - 39,152 students
Sac State - 31,451 students
Northern Arizona - 29,569 students

Montana State - 16,766
Montana - 10,962 including only 6,900 under grads

Eastern Washington and Portland State each receive more than 80 percent of their athletic money from the state as well.
 
grizpack said:
Has been that way since the first years of Dennison. He saw what the athletic department could raise, and continually steered more and more money to other areas of the campus. When football was really rolling, the disparity was huge.
Click to expand...

Even in their absolute best revenue years, UM athletics still needed university money to survive. It's not as if the university is robbing the athletic budget to pay the power bill. Rather, athletics takes money from the university. They just take far less of it than most schools (including msu) because they earn more in revenue.
 
Thanks for finding out the below information Colter, excellent insight. That is crazy amounts of money being produced by UM athletic departments and MSU. Is that really sustainable?

Colter_Nuanez56 said:
In terms of subsidization from the state overall for the athletic department, Montana and Montana State are BY FAR the least subsidized athletic departments in the Big Sky Conference and the FCS. For example, James Madison earns more than $50 million in student athletic fees alone, which is more than double either UM or MSU's total athletic budget.

Here are the top 10 FCS athletic department budgets:

FCS
1. James Madison — $52.7 million
2. Delaware — $47.9 million
3. UC Davis — $41 million
4. Stony Brook — $35.6 million
5. Cal Poly — $34.5 million
6. Towson — $33.3 million
7. New Hampshire — $32.1 million
8. Sacramento State — $31 million
9. North Dakota — $30.5 million
10. William & Mary — $29.5 million

You ask "why do UC Davis, Cal Poly and Sac State generate so much revenue?" Student athletic fees plus huge student enrollments. That's it.

All but 23 schools in all of Division I athletics take state subsidies. But you'd be surprised that only about 50 schools in all D-I take LESS state money than Montana and Montana State. UM and MSU are the only two Division I schools that play FCS football that get less than 50 percent of their of their athletic department budgets from the State. I believe Montana gets 38 or 39 percent subsidized while MSU is around 45 percent. So roughly, about $8.5-10 million comes from the state, the other $10-15 million must be produced by the department.
Click to expand...
 
EverettGriz said:
grizpack said:
Has been that way since the first years of Dennison. He saw what the athletic department could raise, and continually steered more and more money to other areas of the campus. When football was really rolling, the disparity was huge.
Click to expand...

Even in their absolute best revenue years, UM athletics still needed university money to survive. It's not as if the university is robbing the athletic budget to pay the power bill. Rather, athletics takes money from the university. They just take far less of it than most schools (including msu) because they earn more in revenue.
Click to expand...
I will repeat. The money UM "takes" from the University is an inflated number to cover scholarships, booked at full value when they are incremental to the University. Meanwhile the University takes all concessions (food service), gear and logo income (bookstore), and rent for facilities (general fund) for which the AD has provided the capital. Yeah, the AD is such a drag on the University.
 
You guys know how awesome I am at math, but maybe this one time I should be double-checked:

If you add up all of MSC’s “subsidies” (including student fees), I am not sure they do break the 50/50 mark, do they? Does their athletic department really pay the majority?

Colter_Nuanez56 said:
MSU is around 45 percent.
Click to expand...

+

GRIZ PHAN said:
MSU had revenue of $23.2M, including $2.0M in student fees and $9.7M in school funds (42% of revenue).
Click to expand...

=\=

CDAGRIZ said:
I'm actually happy to see State College footing the majority of it's own bill for athletics for once.
Click to expand...

Right?
 
Looking at this week's regents minutes, it looks like UM receives $2,173/resident FTE in state allocation dollars than MSU does. Considering MSU has 8500 resident FTE's, that's a pretty huge gap in state subsidies....like $18.4 Million.

https://mus.edu/board/meetings/2021/may/adminbudget/BiennialBudget_StateAllocations.pdf
 
wbtfg said:
Looking at this week's regents minutes, it looks like UM receives $2,173/resident FTE in state allocation dollars than MSU does. Considering MSU has 8500 resident FTE's, that's a pretty huge gap in state subsidies....like $18.4 Million.

https://mus.edu/board/meetings/2021/may/adminbudget/BiennialBudget_StateAllocations.pdf
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with Athletics, the subject of this thread?
 
kemajic said:
wbtfg said:
Looking at this week's regents minutes, it looks like UM receives $2,173/resident FTE in state allocation dollars than MSU does. Considering MSU has 8500 resident FTE's, that's a pretty huge gap in state subsidies....like $18.4 Million.

https://mus.edu/board/meetings/2021/may/adminbudget/BiennialBudget_StateAllocations.pdf
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with Athletics, the subject of this thread?
Click to expand...

Meant to put in the regents thread.
 
wbtfg said:
Looking at this week's regents minutes, it looks like UM receives $2,173/resident FTE in state allocation dollars than MSU does. Considering MSU has 8500 resident FTE's, that's a pretty huge gap in state subsidies....like $18.4 Million.

https://mus.edu/board/meetings/2021/may/adminbudget/BiennialBudget_StateAllocations.pdf
Click to expand...

First of all, the State doesn't "subsidize" the universities or university system.

Second, the State and Regents don't allocate funds on the basis of the number of students.

There are other factors, including buildings, maintenance of campuses and specific programs.

I would guess that the State may subsidize MSU more on the basis of number of Montana students. Why should the state subsidize all of the out of state students UM has?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top