Except if OU and UT stay until 2025 and fulfill their obligations they owe the league nothing. They gave the proper notice they were leaving so wouldn't be penalized there either. They only get penalized if they leave before the GOR expire. That's why they set the departure date of 2025.
Couple stories on the web. One stated it's standard in their contracts and another they did it to the AAC when UConn left for the Big East.
So you are saying the FY 2019 report submitted to the Board of Regents is wrong? It states Iowa athletic revenues of $122 million. Iowa State is reported at $90 million.
Looks like the Iowa number reported to the Regents didn’t include $35M in donations.
www.thegazette.com
That would explain it. Makes it harder to sort out. I wonder if certain donations go to the Foundation, like the facilities donations, while the donations tied to ticket privileges stays on the athletic department books.
They still owe, according to the bylaws. Each team has to pay the equivalent of what their disbursement was the previous two years, which would come to around $80 million for OU and a bit more for UT.
That's easy: There is no trusted source. Because they all count different things different ways. I got my numbers from the Knight Commission.
I have found the detailed NCAA reports for both schools. The numbers Lone Clone quoted are indeed what is reported to the NCAA.
Too bad there is so much deferred maintenance; eventually it will be called “Building of the Cemetary”.
All donations to Iowa are given directly to the UI Center for Advancement, which, unlike ISU's Foundation, is a separate 501(c)3, with separate governance. Thus, donations to UI Athletics very likely wouldn't appear as revenue for the athletic department. No accounting tricks, just increased transparency, and more assurance to donors that funds earmarked for particular initiatives will be used as intended. So that should explain why the numbers reported to the NCAA would include donations for ISU, but exclude those for Iowa. So you both are right, Lone Clone and Psyclone. But the most meaningful number for 2019 is this: Iowa's AD revenue was $152M, which has to have included over $30M in donations for Kinnick additions and other initiatives.
I'll learn more when I compare the reports, but looking at the reports to the regents, they both contain income attributed to Foundation support. They are roughly the same size for both schools, less than 10% difference. But I'm pretty sure there are way more donations to athletics or athletic facilities than is represented by that line item.All donations to Iowa are given directly to the UI Center for Advancement, which, unlike ISU's Foundation, is a separate 501(c)3, with separate governance. Thus, donations to UI Athletics very likely wouldn't appear as revenue for the athletic department. No accounting tricks, just increased transparency, and more assurance to donors that funds earmarked for particular initiatives will be used as intended. So that should explain why the numbers reported to the NCAA would include donations for ISU, but exclude those for Iowa. So you both are right, Lone Clone and Psyclone. But the most meaningful number for 2019 is this: Iowa's AD revenue was $152M, which has to have included over $30M in donations for Kinnick additions and other initiatives.
If I'm wrong about the above, I'll dress up in black and gold and try to crowd surf the ISU student section.
Is it really “wishful thinking” or simply future reality? It will be interesting how it all plays out.
Athletic departments are self sustaining, or are at least supposed to be. The BOR cannot allocate state funds for athletics, only approve bonds for facilities.
What happened to the guy who started posting under this name? He was semi-serious and civil.
I would just caution that the image of ISU athletics presented on a Hawkeye internet message board may not be entirely accurate. Whether ISU at some time in the future has to borrow money from the general fund, as Iowa did last year, is a question that really can't be answered now by anyone.
The outlook is sunny. All the forever loyal and true Clone sports fans will pony up and pay that debt off like good fans. Maybe even a little extra for a truckload of hair gel for Campbell.
So the Big 12 is like the Hotel California, you can check out any time you like but you can never leave (without paying a price). What kind of a deal is that? Even if you stay to the end of the contract you STILL owe a penalty to get out of a contract that has expired?
The contract will not have expired. From the bylaws:
Well, it was a nothing burger of a question.
I wonder if ISU athletics will be back on the public dole if things pan out as badly as some predict.
I don't have a full picture of the debt. Although some numbers have been thrown around on this board, I need to see the financial report before accepting them as fact. No offense intended for those that have posted numbers.
I apologize for hurt feelings, but I just so happen to detest concrete, and I think the buildings around Jack Trice, as well as the stadium, and all the acres and acres of concrete, are just doubleplusungood, and it’s Orwellian to spin it otherwise.
It is amazing how little 'smart people' know about how HVAC functions. Currently looking to get one of our contracted architects(smart people) banned from working on any of our projects. My Dad was always my resource and the stories that he had about some of the systems at Iowa made me shake my head.
The construction company for the children’s hospital has done some, let’s say, eyebrow raising stuff. The design, though, is wonderful. A beautiful building aesthetically. And The Wave is one of the best things not just about CFB, but sports in general.
I've always been astounded at the building designs Iowa has chosen....the Dental Building is an eyesore too. They started with the Pentacrest...beautiful classic buildings that really fit the school. They should have at least made an attempt to maintain that level of class and timeless beauty. Instead we got the law building, the laser center, the dental building....all attempts to make a building look like something else (scroll, fish, molar). Just stupid, ugly and a complete departure from the history of the school.
I don't disagree with that. As for the ISU buildings, it's a matter of personal taste. I think Stephens is majestic and I've always loved the look of Hilton. I haven't seen the new Hancher. The old one was extremely functional but looked like a two-car garage.
They should have used a little more concrete in some of those buildings. Two or three of the smaller ones have the curve at the top made of wood painted to look like concrete. Hilton is concrete. Those buildings with the wood look terrible when it's time to be repainted, which happens to be now.
