|
Post by ag87 on Mar 20, 2024 6:52:34 GMT -8
Why is this so hard to understand? Because we've drained our tax payers for SPORTS and the other major state university has not. We're talking about athletic deficit, not f%#*ing public funding for the operation of the university. This is not hard to understand. The tax payers of the great state of Oregon subsidize our athletic programs. Again, you need to get a f%#*ing clue. It's not about being a publicly funded institution, it is about what those funds are used for. We take MILLIONS a year, almost every_single_year to fund the athletic department. We've been subsidized by the Pac conference and the state of Oregon for DECADES to fund athletics. No kidding. Some people really out themselves.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 20, 2024 9:22:06 GMT -8
If a super rich donor gives say 100 million to a university for its athletic program. This donor deducts this 100 million on his tax return as a donation. He saves 10 million on his oregon taxes. Is he doing good for the state of oregon because he donates 100 million to a specific university for athletics or is he costing the state of oregon 10 million that could be used in numerous ways in the state of oregon budget? Those donation tax benefits were cut under the Trump administration. I don't think they've been restated but I could easily be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 20, 2024 9:34:11 GMT -8
If a super rich donor gives say 100 million to a university for its athletic program. This donor deducts this 100 million on his tax return as a donation. He saves 10 million on his oregon taxes. Is he doing good for the state of oregon because he donates 100 million to a specific university for athletics or is he costing the state of oregon 10 million that could be used in numerous ways in the state of oregon budget? Those donation tax benefits were cut under the Trump administration. I don't think they've been restated but I could easily be wrong. The tax benefit was only cut for donations to obtain seating, luxury boxes, etc. Straight donations to AD departments are still tax deductible if they are not required in conjunction with season tickets.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 20, 2024 9:36:58 GMT -8
Those donation tax benefits were cut under the Trump administration. I don't think they've been restated but I could easily be wrong. The tax benefit was only cut for donations to obtain seating, luxury boxes, etc. Straight donations to AD departments are still tax deductible if they are not required in conjunction with season tickets. Ah, thank you. So the super-rich (Phil) can benefit, but no soap for the lowly average sports fan.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 20, 2024 9:52:02 GMT -8
Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. . Why is this so hard to understand? Because we've drained our tax payers for SPORTS and the other major state university has not. We're talking about athletic deficit, not f%#*ing public funding for the operation of the university. This is not hard to understand. The tax payers of the great state of Oregon subsidize our athletic programs. Again, you need to get a f%#*ing clue. It's not about being a publicly funded institution, it is about what those funds are used for. We take MILLIONS a year, almost every_single_year to fund the athletic department. We've been subsidized by the Pac conference and the state of Oregon for DECADES to fund athletics. Intercollegiate athletics have been considered an integral part of the American university system, and the American college experience, for more than 100 years. So someone somewhere figured it's OK for a tiny portion of the overall budget to help fund athletics. I'm not sure how you figure we've been "subsidized" by the Pac. We're a member. We pay conference dues. Members share all revenues. Wouldn't that mean every Pac school is subsidized?
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Mar 20, 2024 10:59:40 GMT -8
The tax benefit was only cut for donations to obtain seating, luxury boxes, etc. Straight donations to AD departments are still tax deductible if they are not required in conjunction with season tickets. Ah, thank you. So the super-rich (Phil) can benefit, but no soap for the lowly average sports fan. that's how I saw it
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Mar 20, 2024 11:06:28 GMT -8
Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. . Why is this so hard to understand? Because we've drained our tax payers for SPORTS and the other major state university has not. We're talking about athletic deficit, not f%#*ing public funding for the operation of the university. This is not hard to understand. The tax payers of the great state of Oregon subsidize our athletic programs. Again, you need to get a f%#*ing clue. It's not about being a publicly funded institution, it is about what those funds are used for. We take MILLIONS a year, almost every_single_year to fund the athletic department. We've been subsidized by the Pac conference and the state of Oregon for DECADES to fund athletics. "Drained our taxpayers for sports" how much? OSU gives athletics a subsidy from general funds. that varies from $7M a year to upwards of $16M a year. but only 21% of OSU budget is state funds. How much of your precious tax dollars went to Athletics? I suppose we can approximate that. $3.3 million is 21 percent of $16 million. Oregon tax payers are directly subsidizing sports for $3.3 million... out of roughly 12.8 billion in personal income tax collected. So, you know, like 0.000257 of total tax revenue. Median income tax in Oregon for an individual is about $3000 a year. I would be very happy to personally return the $0.77 of your hard earned money you were forced to give OSU against your will. Been subsidized by the Pac conference? University of Oregon would lose money on athletics if not for the Pac-12. what is even your point here? every school in the Pac would lose money if they didn't get conference payouts. Just how do you expect athletics to fund themselves if they don't receive conference payouts for media and tournament participation? this is the single stupidest argument I have ever heard. and before your idiot train fully derails, OSU was routinely one of the top watched programs this year and last. If anything, the media deal UNDERPAID OSU relative to it's TV ratings. We subsidized half the conference... Lastly, again, you didn't say why funding sports is bad. Athletics at a university are a function of the university. why is it bad that the university funds athletics? what is the moral crisis here? OSU's budget is $1.3 billion, athletics subsidy is practically a rounding error in that budget... If you want outrage at dubious lists of state funds going to questionable things, buddy I have about 100 things on the list way, way, WAY ahead of OSU sports.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Mar 20, 2024 11:36:44 GMT -8
Why would I be upset that a publicly funded university in this state takes state funds? There is a large differential in what OSU gets from the state (~$271 million per year) compared to UofO (about $90 million). Their are a lot of reasons, across a dozen different programs and funds and all that, but it all boils down to one really simple overall theme: OSU does way more stuff. We have 10,000 more students on a bigger campus with more degrees, more research and of course, multiple extension services and off campus facilities that UofO simply does not have. OSU is also significantly integrated with state interests in land management, forestry, agriculture, and fish and wildlife, which brings in a huge amount of extra state funding. In other words, the state pays OSU to manage state things, and in doing so, OSU also gets to awards degrees to students in the things they manage. Oregon State has one of the best Forestry programs in the nation. Oregon has a lot of Forests too. Imagine that. Of course I could see how a U of O person would be upset at the general numbers. OSU gets 3x the state funds. But I also believe a U of O grad probably would have a hard time understanding that OSU does 3x (or more) of the things U of O does. They aren't a research university, so numbers are probably hard for them. But they have a halfway okay law school, so I guess I will stop making fun of them, less one of them sues me. As for athletic budget... well who gives a s%#t? Who literally cares, AT ALL, how much any university provides for athletics. Do you get mad at your local high school for funding all the sports they do? or do you expect the football car wash should pay for every uniform? Universities have sports for a lot of reasons, and they are all beneficial to not just the student athletes themselves, but the university. They is absolutely no denying the correlation between athletic success and enrollment and general public perception of the university. As such, there should be zero controversy, at all, about any university using general funds to support athletics. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the equitable thing to do. A directive that all universities should have self funded athletics is effectively a directive to eliminate all women's sports and most Men's sports that are not football and basketball. So after typing all this out... I suppose I still don't know what the f%#* point you were trying to make even was. OSU is a state funded public university, getting state funds. They got a special appropriation because of factors outside of their control resulted in a loss of a substantial amount of expected funding. I fail to see any controversy with this move at all. . Why is this so hard to understand? Because we've drained our tax payers for SPORTS and the other major state university has not. We're talking about athletic deficit, not f%#*ing public funding for the operation of the university. This is not hard to understand. The tax payers of the great state of Oregon subsidize our athletic programs. Again, you need to get a f%#*ing clue. It's not about being a publicly funded institution, it is about what those funds are used for. We take MILLIONS a year, almost every_single_year to fund the athletic department. We've been subsidized by the Pac conference and the state of Oregon for DECADES to fund athletics. I have read a lot of stupid takes over the years, but this one is at or near the top. Jesus dude.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 20, 2024 11:41:30 GMT -8
Why is this so hard to understand? Because we've drained our tax payers for SPORTS and the other major state university has not. We're talking about athletic deficit, not f%#*ing public funding for the operation of the university. This is not hard to understand. The tax payers of the great state of Oregon subsidize our athletic programs. Again, you need to get a f%#*ing clue. It's not about being a publicly funded institution, it is about what those funds are used for. We take MILLIONS a year, almost every_single_year to fund the athletic department. We've been subsidized by the Pac conference and the state of Oregon for DECADES to fund athletics. I have read a lot of stupid takes over the years, but this one is at or near the top. Jesus dude. "Dude" comes on about once a month with similar takes on all sorts of topics. It makes you think it is a meds cycling issue??
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Mar 20, 2024 11:55:58 GMT -8
I have read a lot of stupid takes over the years, but this one is at or near the top. Jesus dude. "Dude" comes on about once a month with similar takes on all sorts of topics. It makes you think it is a meds cycling issue?? I’ve always wondered if he’s actually a Beaver fan, that he’s as much or more of a duck fan. Often seems to come on and throw little slights towards the Beavers while supporting the ducks.
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Mar 20, 2024 14:41:58 GMT -8
Some bitchin and moanin about the state of oregon giving money to a PUBLIC institution, oregon state university, for athletic scholarships. I haven't heard anybody complaining about the city of hillsboro (18 mil), Washington County (8 mil), and the state of Oregon (15 mil) giving money to a PRIVATE entity, the Hillsboro Hops, to build a stadium.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Mar 20, 2024 14:42:02 GMT -8
"Dude" comes on about once a month with similar takes on all sorts of topics. It makes you think it is a meds cycling issue?? I’ve always wondered if he’s actually a Beaver fan, that he’s as much or more of a duck fan. Often seems to come on and throw little slights towards the Beavers while supporting the ducks. I am slow to go with labeling someone as a duck troll. It just seems like a lot of work, whereas being an asshole with s%#tty opinions is pretty easy to do. Occam's Razor applies.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 20, 2024 14:50:09 GMT -8
I’ve always wondered if he’s actually a Beaver fan, that he’s as much or more of a duck fan. Often seems to come on and throw little slights towards the Beavers while supporting the ducks. I am slow to go with labeling someone as a duck troll. It just seems like a lot of work, whereas being an asshole with s%#tty opinions is pretty easy to do. Occam's Razor applies.His take was more of the dollar shave club variety.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 20, 2024 15:51:00 GMT -8
I am slow to go with labeling someone as a duck troll. It just seems like a lot of work, whereas being an asshole with s%#tty opinions is pretty easy to do. Occam's Razor applies.His take was more of the dollar shave club variety. Beat me to it, although I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with "Harry's"?!
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Mar 20, 2024 16:01:37 GMT -8
Some bitchin and moanin about the state of oregon giving money to a PUBLIC institution, oregon state university, for athletic scholarships. I haven't heard anybody complaining about the city of hillsboro (18 mil), Washington County (8 mil), and the state of Oregon (15 mil) giving money to a PRIVATE entity, the Hillsboro Hops, to build a stadium. Of all the hills to die on over tax policy and state funding of things, university athletics is the dumbest hill. The so called Flutie Effect (clearly, named after Doug Flutie and his efforts into bringing Boston College to prominence, the following year after his miraculous 48 yard hail mail to defeat Miami. The following year Boston College had a 30% bump in admission applications) has been studied by Harvard marketing researches. they found on average, sports programs that go from mediocre to successful see an average increase in college applications of 17.7% the following year. Hell, even Boise State saw massive rewards after their spot light fiesta bowl win over Oklahoma. Stealing from an article written a few years ago on the googles: Take Boise State’s unlikely but memorable win over Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl. The epic game put Broncos football on the map. “Whatever the pros and cons of intercollegiate athletics, Boise State is the model of what athletic success can do for an institution. And Boise State’s success stems from that New Year’s night in Glendale, Arizona,” Berry Tramel wrote in The Oklahoman in 2018. Boise State’s enrollment jumped from a stagnant 18,876 in fall 2006 to 24,145 in spring 2018. The percentage of students from out of state skyrocketed. The percentage of in-state students, but outside the Treasure Valley that surrounds Boise, increased dramatically, Tramel reported. The president of the university at the time said faculty recruitment became easier and the state legislature took more interest in Boise State. Research dollars exploded. Campus infrastructure blossomed, with new buildings all over campus, from dormitories to an alumni center to new engineering and business academic buildings, according to the story. All involved, Tramel wrote, pointed to the 43-42 Fiesta Bowl win.if we use that "state share" of $3.3 million in tax payer funds... do you know how many new applications we need to break even? to equal $3.3 million in new tuition? we need 275 more applications. OSU only needs to boost enrollment just a little under 1% year over year due to interest from sports to break even from that state investment. Of all the ways we are spending state dollars. putting them into sports is hardly a poor investment. It isn't just the opportunity for the some 600 student athletes at OSU, it isn't just the free and fun entertainment for some 35,000 enrolled students to choose to follow and participate in, it is proven and known widespread marketing that works to attract students and interest in the university. It is dollars with a known and tangible return on investment. Outside of men's basketball, right now OSU sports programs are largely successful if not highly ranked. Even our fledgling sports like Women's track are seeing new highs (they just set a school record relay time). Baseball is obviously highly ranked. Women's basketball is a 3 seed, soccer has been recently highly successful, we have an Olympic gold medalist on our nationally ranked gymnastics team that is still giving us half a season before she leave to... you know, compete in those Olympics! All of this stuff is eyes on OSU. all of this stuff is worth a f%#*-ton more than 3 million or so bucks. At least, that is if you are not a complete moron.
|
|