UM athletics and budget cuts - article

[EverettGriz]

The real issue with Barrett's statement really has nothing to do with State Vs local benefit from Griz athletic tourism, but rather the source of the statement. Barrett was part of the Tom Powers school of economics at UM - the "experts" who for 30 years told us the extraction economy was dead in Montana, and we need to transition to a "clean" tourism economy. They touted huge economic numbers from tourism, despite most Montana tourism visitors are Montanans. If they were justifying shutting down logging to increase tourism it didn't matter if the tourist came from Billings or New York, it was a new economy. Of course they totally missed the building boom for the first 8 years of the millennium, the Bakken energy boom, or record metal prices. They just insisted the resource economy was so last century. Barrett today is carrying the water for the Editorial letter writing campaign railing against the study from the UM BBER that the new EPA limits on CO2 emissions will shut down the coal industry in Montana, costing thousands of jobs. But to Barrett and Powers it really doesn't matter if it shuts down resource jobs, because tourism will make up for it. Unless of course the tourist are coming for Griz football, then it doesn't count, because apparently only people from Kalispell come to Missoula to watch football.

Some legitimate points made here. I didn't always agree with Barrett as a professor, or with all of his philosophies on extraction.

 

[PlayerRep]

Good grief. Look, no one has or will argue that there isn't some gain by states (especially ones such as NE and OR). But even your link above seems to further the point. It would appear that much of the gain they're counting for the state comes from wages and salaries paid by the athletic department (which would seemingly be net neutral, but who knows how they do their accounting). And this section from the link is precisely Barrett's point, which I fully agree with:

Fans attending Nebraska Athletics home events also contribute to the Lincoln economy with purchases at local restaurants, hotels, retail stores, gasoline service stations and other business activities on game days....The statewide economic impact of Nebraska Athletics, however, is less than the economic impact on the Lincoln Metropolitan Area because many of the fans who attend Husker events are from other parts of the state. These fans bring new spending to the Lincoln Metropolitan Area economy, but not to the Nebraska economy.

No, it absolutely supports my point. It says that after after backing out the in-state shifting to Lincoln, the increased economic for the state overall is still very significant.

 

[PlayerRep]

The real issue with Barrett's statement really has nothing to do with State Vs local benefit from Griz athletic tourism, but rather the source of the statement. Barrett was part of the Tom Powers school of economics at UM - the "experts" who for 30 years told us the extraction economy was dead in Montana, and we need to transition to a "clean" tourism economy. They touted huge economic numbers from tourism, despite most Montana tourism visitors are Montanans. If they were justifying shutting down logging to increase tourism it didn't matter if the tourist came from Billings or New York, it was a new economy. Of course they totally missed the building boom for the first 8 years of the millennium, the Bakken energy boom, or record metal prices. They just insisted the resource economy was so last century. Barrett today is carrying the water for the Editorial letter writing campaign railing against the study from the UM BBER that the new EPA limits on CO2 emissions will shut down the coal industry in Montana, costing thousands of jobs. But to Barrett and Powers it really doesn't matter if it shuts down resource jobs, because tourism will make up for it. Unless of course the tourist are coming for Griz football, then it doesn't count, because apparently only people from Kalispell come to Missoula to watch football.

Some legitimate points made here. I didn't always agree with Barrett as a professor, or with all of his philosophies on extraction.

But you sometimes agreed with him? He appears to be a total idiot from what I can see, and presumably moving towards senility.

 

[EverettGriz]

Good grief. Look, no one has or will argue that there isn't some gain by states (especially ones such as NE and OR). But even your link above seems to further the point. It would appear that much of the gain they're counting for the state comes from wages and salaries paid by the athletic department (which would seemingly be net neutral, but who knows how they do their accounting). And this section from the link is precisely Barrett's point, which I fully agree with:

Fans attending Nebraska Athletics home events also contribute to the Lincoln economy with purchases at local restaurants, hotels, retail stores, gasoline service stations and other business activities on game days....The statewide economic impact of Nebraska Athletics, however, is less than the economic impact on the Lincoln Metropolitan Area because many of the fans who attend Husker events are from other parts of the state. These fans bring new spending to the Lincoln Metropolitan Area economy, but not to the Nebraska economy.

No, it absolutely supports my point. It says that after after backing out the in-state shifting to Lincoln, the increased economic for the state overall is still very significant.

Even if the money comes from the state in the form of wages and salaries?

 

[EverettGriz]

The real issue with Barrett's statement really has nothing to do with State Vs local benefit from Griz athletic tourism, but rather the source of the statement. Barrett was part of the Tom Powers school of economics at UM - the "experts" who for 30 years told us the extraction economy was dead in Montana, and we need to transition to a "clean" tourism economy. They touted huge economic numbers from tourism, despite most Montana tourism visitors are Montanans. If they were justifying shutting down logging to increase tourism it didn't matter if the tourist came from Billings or New York, it was a new economy. Of course they totally missed the building boom for the first 8 years of the millennium, the Bakken energy boom, or record metal prices. They just insisted the resource economy was so last century. Barrett today is carrying the water for the Editorial letter writing campaign railing against the study from the UM BBER that the new EPA limits on CO2 emissions will shut down the coal industry in Montana, costing thousands of jobs. But to Barrett and Powers it really doesn't matter if it shuts down resource jobs, because tourism will make up for it. Unless of course the tourist are coming for Griz football, then it doesn't count, because apparently only people from Kalispell come to Missoula to watch football.

Some legitimate points made here. I didn't always agree with Barrett as a professor, or with all of his philosophies on extraction.

But you sometimes agreed with him? He appears to be a total idiot from what I can see, and presumably moving towards senility.

Of course I did. He was an Econ prof. He taught proven facts and concepts. Unlike a few on this board, I recognize and adapt to facts, even if they don't necessarily fit my agenda.

 

[EverettGriz]

Good grief. Look, no one has or will argue that there isn't some gain by states (especially ones such as NE and OR). But even your link above seems to further the point. It would appear that much of the gain they're counting for the state comes from wages and salaries paid by the athletic department (which would seemingly be net neutral, but who knows how they do their accounting). And this section from the link is precisely Barrett's point, which I fully agree with:

Fans attending Nebraska Athletics home events also contribute to the Lincoln economy with purchases at local restaurants, hotels, retail stores, gasoline service stations and other business activities on game days....The statewide economic impact of Nebraska Athletics, however, is less than the economic impact on the Lincoln Metropolitan Area because many of the fans who attend Husker events are from other parts of the state. These fans bring new spending to the Lincoln Metropolitan Area economy, but not to the Nebraska economy.

No, it absolutely supports my point. It says that after after backing out the in-state shifting to Lincoln, the increased economic for the state overall is still very significant.

Even if the money comes from the state in the form of wages and salaries?

Edit: Did you dig into those numbers in the Oregon example you presented? If you did, I presume you're now fully in support of a move to FBS, since about 90% of the "out of state" revenue they use are not available to us in the bsc ($14 mil Conf money, $10 mil TV contract, etc)

 

[PlayerRep]

Good grief. Look, no one has or will argue that there isn't some gain by states (especially ones such as NE and OR). But even your link above seems to further the point. It would appear that much of the gain they're counting for the state comes from wages and salaries paid by the athletic department (which would seemingly be net neutral, but who knows how they do their accounting). And this section from the link is precisely Barrett's point, which I fully agree with:

Fans attending Nebraska Athletics home events also contribute to the Lincoln economy with purchases at local restaurants, hotels, retail stores, gasoline service stations and other business activities on game days....The statewide economic impact of Nebraska Athletics, however, is less than the economic impact on the Lincoln Metropolitan Area because many of the fans who attend Husker events are from other parts of the state. These fans bring new spending to the Lincoln Metropolitan Area economy, but not to the Nebraska economy.

No, it absolutely supports my point. It says that after after backing out the in-state shifting to Lincoln, the increased economic for the state overall is still very significant.

Even if the money comes from the state in the form of wages and salaries?

The quote you chose to emphasize speaks of "fans", not state wages. But regardless, it's clear that college athletics adds to the state economies, in multiple ways.

 

[PlayerRep]

Good grief. Look, no one has or will argue that there isn't some gain by states (especially ones such as NE and OR). But even your link above seems to further the point. It would appear that much of the gain they're counting for the state comes from wages and salaries paid by the athletic department (which would seemingly be net neutral, but who knows how they do their accounting). And this section from the link is precisely Barrett's point, which I fully agree with:

[/b][/b]

No, it absolutely supports my point. It says that after after backing out the in-state shifting to Lincoln, the increased economic for the state overall is still very significant.

Even if the money comes from the state in the form of wages and salaries?

Edit: Did you dig into those numbers in the Oregon example you presented? If you did, I presume you're now fully in support of a move to FBS, since about 90% of the "out of state" revenue they use are not available to us in the bsc ($14 mil Conf money, $10 mil TV contract, etc)

Nope, I'm just focusing on the other piece of the out of state revenue, as support for college athletics increasing state economies. That was the point being discussed. I'm also pointing out the increased rate of spending of in-state fans, and the indirect benefits that college athletics, both of which contribute to state economies. Those clearly support my point in all of this.

 

[EverettGriz]

No, I highlighted that fans contribute to the LINCOLN economy. The state benefit coming from wages and salaries was covered elsewhere in the piece. Did you read it?

 

[EverettGriz]

No, it absolutely supports my point. It says that after after backing out the in-state shifting to Lincoln, the increased economic for the state overall is still very significant.

Even if the money comes from the state in the form of wages and salaries?

Edit: Did you dig into those numbers in the Oregon example you presented? If you did, I presume you're now fully in support of a move to FBS, since about 90% of the "out of state" revenue they use are not available to us in the bsc ($14 mil Conf money, $10 mil TV contract, etc)

Nope, I'm just focusing on the other piece of the out of state revenue, as support for college athletics increasing state economies. That was the point being discussed. I'm also pointing out the increased rate of spending of in-state fans, and the indirect benefits that college athletics, both of which contribute to state economies. Those clearly support my point in all of this.

So you're a move up guy!! Sweet! That's definitely where all the added state revenue is coming from.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

 

[PlayerRep]

No, I highlighted that fans contribute to the LINCOLN economy. The state benefit coming from wages and salaries was covered elsewhere in the piece. Did you read it?

Are you saying that state and university jobs don't contribute to state economies?

 

[PlayerRep]

Here's the statewide economic impact in Nebraska, which backs out in-state redistribution. See the 2d last sentence. $150 million net impact. Study for a period of time several years ago.

"The statewide economic impact of Nebraska Athletics is less than the economic impact on the Lincoln Metropolitan Area. This is because many of the fans who attend Nebraska Athletics games are from other parts of the state, such as the Omaha area or central Nebraska. These fans bring new spending to the Lincoln Metropolitan Area but not to Nebraska. Nonetheless, Nebraska Athletics still has a substantial economic impact on the State of Nebraska. The overall economic impact on the State of Nebraska including the “multiplier” impact was $149.5 million for the 2013-14 fiscal year. This impact includes $54.7 million in labor income spread over 1,890 jobs."

 

[PlayerRep]

Even if the money comes from the state in the form of wages and salaries?

Edit: Did you dig into those numbers in the Oregon example you presented? If you did, I presume you're now fully in support of a move to FBS, since about 90% of the "out of state" revenue they use are not available to us in the bsc ($14 mil Conf money, $10 mil TV contract, etc)

Nope, I'm just focusing on the other piece of the out of state revenue, as support for college athletics increasing state economies. That was the point being discussed. I'm also pointing out the increased rate of spending of in-state fans, and the indirect benefits that college athletics, both of which contribute to state economies. Those clearly support my point in all of this.

So you're a move up guy!! Sweet! That's definitely where all the added state revenue is coming from.

Nope, as the study concluded, that is not where all of the added state revenue is coming from, just some.

 

[Ursa Major]

JFC, you truly are a certifiably insane person.

My position has been rock solid consistent since my very first post on the matter: football games have an extremely negligible impact on the state's economy, and they do not drive any meaningful or measurable economic benefit at that level. I've never wavered. I've never been unclear. I've never been obtuse. My message has been 100% consistent. And more importantly, 100% accurate and proven time and time again.

And yes, yes I have proven EVERYthing. I've even provided you studies to support the position that the dollars spent at football games are going to be spent in Montana whether or not there are games. I can't really do much more to prove an obvious economic point understood by most high school juniors. But since you're simply one of those people who will never admit they're wrong, even when they don't have the slightest fucking idea what they're talking about, I'll give you what you want: you're right (at least in your own disturbed mind), and the rest of the entire world's body of economic study is wrong, pr. :roll:



There, I trust that someone giving validity to your ridiculous (and wildly incorrect) position makes you feel better about yourself. I hate to see people suffering through mental illness.

EG just dropped mic on PR. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[kemajic]

It's unfortunate that the way UM allocates revenues makes it exceedingly difficult to assess the impact of the sporting events on overall UM revenues. It's truly bad accounting.

For instance, the athletic department gets no concession revenue. I collided heads on with this about 15 years ago, to no avail. My argument: UM wouldn't earn a nickle in concession sales without the event, the event should at least get a % of the gross. Nope. No way. Food Services gets 100% of the till. Same for licensing of vendors. UM gets the fees, not the event.

Football stadium or Field House? Athletic Department gets to pay for the privilege of renting them from the University. So that money likewise disappears into facilities services. So, it goes down the food chain at the University whereby everybody with a sticky finger gets to benefit from athletic event revenues, and those revenues buoy up all sorts of other auxiliary services making them look better and the athletic department much worse.

And you don't even mention the substantial gear and logo license sales, the profit which goes to the bookstore. This creative accounting was set up by Dennison as he played numerous pea and shell games with revenue streams to fund his pet projects and to draw more donations from boosters when the AD was left wanting. Engstrom inherited this cash cow and still he flounders.

 

[UMGriz75]

I've even provided you studies to support the position that the dollars spent at football games are going to be spent in Montana whether or not there are games.

Well, yes, but that has nothing to do with the "velocity" of money, because that metric is time-dependent, and it is highly unlikely that the average person is going to spend that money in the same time period. Indeed, if they keep it in the bank, it reduces the velocity of the money, and the economy shrinks.

Using Missoula's retail sales as the base, the money spent on football (collegiate sports) is about 1.33% of the total. Is that "meaningful?" Well, per capita for Missoula, its about $263 per person, a larger amount than the median income US income increase over the past 8 years.

Missoula represents about 15% of the state's retail sales volume. The effect of the football games (and other sports) would impact the Missoula economy in terms of the "velocity" of money by increasing it from "6" -- the estimated current V/M in the US economy -- to about 6.1%. Is that huge? As a national multiplier, yes. On a state-wide basis, that would increase the V/M to just over 6.01%. Not much, but it is measureable. And it is a "plus." Add in the other sports in Montana and it has significance.

 

[The_Real_Chief]

Trump could fix the budget at U of M...and he'd get Mexico to pay for it!

 

[Buttegrizzle]

Not all Griz game attendees are from Montana. While it may not be blip on the states' overall economy I guarantee there are businesses in Missoula that will disappear if Griz athletics fall off. Missoula needs to collectively realize your pandering Rep Barrett is just another bandwagon anti-business politician ready to kill every economically viable golden goose that comes along. Mining, timber, coal, oil, transportation and now Griz games? I for one won't be traveling to Missoula to watch the math club lecture series.

I chose UM as a high school senior because I saw Derrick Pope break a backboard. Not a really impressive criteria for academic selection but still. UM got me to pony up for two degrees because of sports.

 

[The_Real_Chief]

Not all Griz game attendees are from Montana. While it may not be blip on the states' overall economy I guarantee there are businesses in Missoula that will disappear if Griz athletics fall off. Missoula needs to collectively realize your pandering Rep Barrett is just another bandwagon anti-business politician ready to kill every economically viable golden goose that comes along. Mining, timber, coal, oil, transportation and now Griz games? I for one won't be traveling to Missoula to watch the math club lecture series.

I chose UM as a high school senior because I saw Derrick Pope break a backboard. Not a really impressive criteria for academic selection but still. UM got me to pony up for two degrees because of sports.

Kind of sad you chose your academic future based on a dunk...I agree though athletics should be prioritized because they give the school exposure, I personally chose U of M because of the amazing campus, academic departments, people, tight knit community, and the awesome place that is Missoula.