forums

University of Miami FY2021 Financials (We aren’t broke)

CaneInHeelCountry said:
I’m not sure you understand what you posted.

The article is pointing out that it’s a BAD thing when athletic departments have to be subsidized by the general university budget. No school wants to do that. They want the athletic department to support itself.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension deficit probably. I posted a USAA Today article below that is current.
 
Advertisement
Canedude08 said:
NO ONE SAID THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. AS AN ENTITY IS BROKE. Amazing that our fans come up with these dumbass narratives, then again our typical fan has never been on campus so I'm not shocked.

WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE A BOTTOMLESS BUDGET. WHY? BECAUSE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS ARE FUNDED BY A MIX OF DONATIONS AND REVENUE FROM THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF. Miami, like every other school in the country, does not fund their athletic department from the general fund(Outside of salaries, and even that is a result of revenue drawn in). Thanks to Miami not having a huge donor pool, thanks to being a small private institution, the budget has to managed. This is WHY having a quality AD matters.
Click to expand...

Technically you are correct but there are a million ways to work around this. For example, let's say UM currently charges students $200 per year for activity fees and athletic fees ( I think it all adds up to somewhere near that). The school decides to double the fee "due to an unexpected rise in costs." UMs students are generally financially well off (their parents are anyways) so paying another $200 isn't going to break their piggy bank, but if for some reason it causes upset tummies, the school can say it is planning to offset the increase to students with more financial aid. Financial aid comes from the general fund. I think Miami's total student body including grad schools is around 20k. 20k*200=2 million. Doubling that = 4 million. Voila, you have now essentially shifted 2 million from the general fund to the athletic department even though on paper it doesn't look the school has moved a penny from the general fund to athletics. Could increase the fees 3x or 5x, the principle is the same. Most students don't actually pay more since it could be offset with more financial aid, and the athletic department gets hundreds of thousands, if not millions more per year.
 
Last edited:
CaneInHeelCountry said:
I’m not sure you understand what you posted.

The article is pointing out that it’s a BAD thing when athletic departments have to be subsidized by the general university budget. No school wants to do that. They want the athletic department to support itself.
Click to expand...
I 100% understand what I posted.

Of course they don't WANT to have to support the athletics budget but 95% have to and the what the ***-clown said about the general fund not supporting any athletic budgets is patently false. There are about 20 schools out of every D1, D2, D3, NAIA, etc that are NOT supported by the schools general fund.
 
Pentagon Cane said:
Reading comprehension deficit probably. I posted a USAA Today article below that is current.
Click to expand...
My reading comprehension is perfectly fine. The article says exactly the opposite of what the ****-for-brains porster is arguing.
 
Canedude08 said:
How much of that 432 million isn't earmarked or tied up in ways that the athletic department can't access? Once again, no school, NO SCHOOL funds their athletic department through the general fund, and it be an optimal arrangement. In most cases, schools that have to do it see it as a temporary arrangement. Keep in mind, the last time the University of Miami had to heavily subsidize the athletic department, the school came close to ditching football.

I don't understand what's so incredibly difficult about understanding how things work in collegiate athletic departments.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what the budgeted margin was, but this far exceeded it. So, ultimately a very small amount of it is earmarked or tied up. I’ve read your posts across other threads and you are way off on how the dollars are allocated and this general fund concept is implemented. Way off.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
BigCaneAl said:
I am not sure what the budgeted margin was, but this far exceeded it. I’ve read your posts across other threads and you are way off on how the dollars are allocated and this general fund concept is implemented. Way off.
Click to expand...
If I'm so off, then why aren't other schools doing what you and the rest of the peanut gallery are suggesting? A school like Georgia, that is facing a budgetary shortfall in their athletic department should be able to easily make it go away by just tapping into the schools budget. They aren't. UC Berkeley cut sports instead of tapping in and I'm quite sure they make more in revenue than Miami....
 
Canedude08 said:
If I'm so off, then why aren't other schools doing what you and the rest of the peanut gallery are suggesting? A school like Georgia, that is facing a budgetary shortfall in their athletic department should be able to easily make it go away by just tapping into the schools budget? That aren't. UC Berkeley cut sports instead of tapping in and I'm quite sure they make more in revenue than Miami....
Click to expand...

What have I suggested? The school is not broke, that’s all I pointed out.. This assumption you have that we need to access non-athletic dollars to increase spending in athletics is incorrect. Not sure why you keep harping on it. Even if you were to say, well the school might rely on the athletics surplus to fund other expenses in academics or health, you would be way off as evidenced by the numbers. Flatly, you are arguing with a straw man that doesn’t exist. Probably time to step away from the computer and take a walk. Relax.
 
SIAP but does anyone have access to actual AD budgets somewhere for comparison? That would be a more apples to apples argument I think.
 
Advertisement
Canedude08 said:
If I'm so off, then why aren't other schools doing what you and the rest of the peanut gallery are suggesting? A school like Georgia, that is facing a budgetary shortfall in their athletic department should be able to easily make it go away by just tapping into the schools budget. They aren't. UC Berkeley cut sports instead of tapping in and I'm quite sure they make more in revenue than Miami....
Click to expand...
UGA athletics makes $10M+ per year in a normal year and only had a "shortfall" b/c of Covid.

Cal Berkeley (and others) used Covid as their excuse to cut NON-revenue neutral sports.

MOAR bull**** from the bull**** artist.

PS: the football team was $87M in the black in '20 (of which $64.6M was contributions).
 
Last edited:
UMCenturion said:
I’ll say this. I’ve reviewed their financials the last several years. They purchase daVinci surgical robots from my company. They are never late on a bill. Prompt. They have the money.
Click to expand...
Once again, this has nothing to do with the University of Miami athletic department, which is a self supporting entity.

Keep in mind, the University of Miami as an overall entity turns a "Profit", but the athletic department is significantly different than the Chem department.
 
ssvir said:
You show your ignorance with statements like this.

MOST schools supplement their athletic budget through the schools general fund.

2 second google search ****-for-brains:

www.goacta.org

Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies

At a time of tight budgets throughout higher education, even the nation’s few financially self-sufficient major-college athletics departments are continuing to receive subsidies in the form of student fees, school or state support, a USA TODAY Sports analysis finds. Just 23 of 228 athletics...
www.goacta.org www.goacta.org

You Lose Good Day GIF
Click to expand...
If the point of that article is that schools supplemental athletics from the general fund, then that much is true.

But that supplement is miniscule according to the article.
 
Canedude08 said:
NO ONE SAID THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. AS AN ENTITY IS BROKE. Amazing that our fans come up with these dumbass narratives, then again our typical fan has never been on campus so I'm not shocked.

WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE A BOTTOMLESS BUDGET. WHY? BECAUSE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS ARE FUNDED BY A MIX OF DONATIONS AND REVENUE FROM THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF. Miami, like every other school in the country, does not fund their athletic department from the general fund(Outside of salaries, and even that is a result of revenue drawn in). Thanks to Miami not having a huge donor pool, thanks to being a small private institution, the budget has to managed. This is WHY having a quality AD matters.
Click to expand...
We? Oh so you are apart of the media that's putting out reports of us not having enough money for Mario?? Got it fam.
 
Advertisement
$900 Million increase in net assets for the fiscal year.

In the world of university accounting, this means they took in almost a billion dollars more than they spent, notwithstanding some of it was earmarked or part of MTM increases in unrealized/realized portfolio gains.

bottom line??

this university has a lot more money than they are claiming.

and on a per capita (student) basis, has much better asset base than state universities that rely upon public welfare
 
Canedude08 said:
Once again, this has nothing to do with the University of Miami athletic department, which is a self supporting entity.

Keep in mind, the University of Miami as an overall entity turns a "Profit", but the athletic department is significantly different than the Chem department.
Click to expand...
I agree. It’s up to them how they allocate funds.
 
Pentagon Cane said:
Not as much as you think. In almost all cases it is to cover athletic department deficits and/or in some cases to fund Title IX programs with student fees, etc. The NCAA definitely has restrictions behind it as well. See link below.

NCAA Finance Article
Click to expand...
From an INCREDIBLY SIMPLISTIC view, UM's peanut butter spread burn rate is $300MM/mo.

Now, could some (small amount) of the $432MM be used as seed money to develop revenue generating FB and BB programs? Yes. But its risky even if they hired Saban or Saban's BB equivalent (I dont know who that is).

Just a bad year alone at Jackson/UMMG could cost hundreds of millions*.


*unlikely, but dont kid yourself what the medical. side can run up with incompetent docs making financial decisions
 
Advertisement
RedSquare said:
$900 Million increase in net assets for the fiscal year.

In the world of university accounting, this means they took in almost a billion dollars more than they spent, notwithstanding some of it was earmarked or part of MTM increases in unrealized/realized portfolio gains.

bottom line??

this university has a lot more money than they are claiming.

and on a per capita (student) basis, has much better asset base than state universities that rely upon public welfare
Click to expand...
vs a COVID year though??

Curious about the y-t-y comparison across FY17-FY18-FY19-FY20-FY21.

👆Probably tells are better story
 
UMCenturion said:
I’ll say this. I’ve reviewed their financials the last several years. They purchase daVinci surgical robots from my company. They are never late on a bill. Prompt. They have the money.
Click to expand...
Exactly, my department regularly sends bills to UM and we get paid the next day.
 
I made the thread weeks ago. Stop pushing the line of Miami aint got no money. The BOT and University benefit from it because they can use it as an excuse as to why they keep hiring cheap rookie coaches who are not experienced enough nor qualified to coach at Miami
 
Advertisement
Back
Top