Athletics FY 25 budget

[Loyal Coug1]

First go read the Brand X article on this. So many things to pick on here:

• Regent's seeming disinterest in the details. I would be all over this shit if I were one. Where's Bill Marler when you need him?
• The previously budgeted $4M deficit has ballooned to $9M
• We are going to close the deficit with Pac-12 cash. Well duh
• Brand X's comment that Chun and Smith's buyouts will "buoy" the FY25 budget by $1.4 million. Uh guys, it is FY24, they are gone, and if the traitors have some clause that lets them defer this to next fiscal year then we are bigger idiots than previously proven
• We are paying Riley half of what Smith made? And Smith made $1.5M not the $1.2 the article refers to. Wulffian....EWU HC......hmmm
• We are setting aside $65M of Pac-12 money to rebuild the conference? Don't know if that is Brand X's opinion or if it is documented. But either way, it is complete BS for the Pac-2 to pay teams to join. F-that!

Ok, so let's look at the actual Regent's meeting documents, shall we? (link below). I don't have the time to totally dissect this 400-page document, but:

• The precipitous enrollment drops (grad and undergrad, all under Schulz's watch) should horrify all Cougs. Page 268
• Employment figures for FY 23 and 24. Grad down 23, faculty up 27. But fear not! Admin employees up 135, and Classified up 110! Sounds about right with enrollment plunging, eh?
• Credit Hour totals have fallen 32,000 since the year before Schulz came. Page 279. But the Global Campus is doing well as Pullman plunges. Page 282
• The old 1%, 3% and 5% budget reduction exercise. Starting on Page 294. Been around for a looong time. Hint (from personal experience with this process) - the colleges, etc. will throw out their best and most golden goose programs as what they would cut first
• On to Athletics, starting on Pag 299. Lots to digest here
• Notice that a big budget killer was "admin expense" - $6.1M rather than 4.6M budgeted. Page 301. And they forgot to put brackets around the bowl revenue shortfall of $2.6M. What bowl did they think we were going to?
• Then, the FY25 Budget. Page 305. Read for yourself. 0-0 in media rights, $20 million extra in Conference money distributions (I'm cool with that backfill), less in scholarships (wait tuition is going up 3%). Less in contributions. FY 24 was originally $10.5M, reduced to $9.5M, down to $7.8M for FY25. Note that Endowment revenue stays at $.9M. How does $9.5M and $.9M reconcile with the $60 million Chun claims to have brought in last year? And go read the other fundraisers' bios - record-setting donations everywhere!
• Finally, $5 million in salary reductions. And the Regents were not interested in the details. Wow

https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/3087/2024/04/04.18.24_Meeting-Book-v3.pdf

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Just one thought, Loyal. Not huge in the scheme of things, but would be interesting to know, if the athletic department salary info was sufficiently granular. I would not be surprised if the fundraiser's compensation is in the "Admin Expense" bucket. Most of those folks are probably either on commission or have a bonus keyed to the amount of money raised. If all that is the case, then seeing those folks make more is a sign of successful fundraising. A net gain, even as the expenses rise. That is only a small part of the whole picture, but it is one that would be of interest to me.

 

[ttowncoug]

WSU needs to significantly change its overhead and cost structure.

More and more education opportunities for students (think 2-year degree) that pay more than a lot of college degrees (thinking nursing).

 

[Loyal Coug1]

WSU needs to significantly change its overhead and cost structure.

More and more education opportunities for students (think 2-year degree) that pay more than a lot of college degrees (thinking nursing).

Absolutely not. WSU is a tier 1 Doctoral University, not a community college. Smaller colleges, including CC's, are starting to offer RN to BSN degrees. That is OK, probably already exists in some form.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Absolutely not. WSU is a tier 1 Doctoral University, not a community college. Smaller colleges, including CC's, are starting to offer RN to BSN degrees. That is OK, probably already exists in some form.

Replying to myself. Hey shitheads, I worked hard on this thread/post, pointing all of you right to the important elements of the Regents meeting. 270 views and 2 replies? C'mon. WTF? You will feed the mutt trolls ad nauseum, but Gawd forbid you scratch your brains and opine on this F-ed up mess we call WSU and WSU Athletics?

 

[Observer11]

The year of reckoning has come. Good work putting together an overview, loyal.

Perhaps all women’s athletics can be dismantled now that Title IX has been tossed in the trash can. Save a few bucks.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Just one thought, Loyal. Not huge in the scheme of things, but would be interesting to know, if the athletic department salary info was sufficiently granular. I would not be surprised if the fundraiser's compensation is in the "Admin Expense" bucket. Most of those folks are probably either on commission or have a bonus keyed to the amount of money raised. If all that is the case, then seeing those folks make more is a sign of successful fundraising. A net gain, even as the expenses rise. That is only a small part of the whole picture, but it is one that would be of interest to me.

Interesting notion but I don't think so. Pretty sure all salaries and benefits are up in Compensation. Look at Admin Expense - half of it is dues and memberships that are basically being eliminated in FY25. Pac-12 dues maybe? And the bump in Direct Admin is going back down in FY25.

Also, while coaches (HC's mostly) do have bonuses in their contracts, regular employees don't, and there are no commissions in Higher Ed.

I sure would like to see how Compensation is going to go from 30.6 to 25.5 million. Think I'll copy and paste our employee roster and compare it in 6 months. I guess we will save $700,000 plus benefits on Chun's salary (less whatever bump Anne is getting).

Off this topic - wonder WTH is going on at the Pac-12 network? Lots of desks being cleaned out I assume. A full accounting for that, and the Conference in general, would be nice.

 

[UberCougars]

First go read the Brand X article on this. So many things to pick on here:

• Regent's seeming disinterest in the details. I would be all over this shit if I were one. Where's Bill Marler when you need him?
• The previously budgeted $4M deficit has ballooned to $9M
• We are going to close the deficit with Pac-12 cash. Well duh
• Brand X's comment that Chun and Smith's buyouts will "buoy" the FY25 budget by $1.4 million. Uh guys, it is FY24, they are gone, and if the traitors have some clause that lets them defer this to next fiscal year then we are bigger idiots than previously proven
• We are paying Riley half of what Smith made? And Smith made $1.5M not the $1.2 the article refers to. Wulffian....EWU HC......hmmm
• We are setting aside $65M of Pac-12 money to rebuild the conference? Don't know if that is Brand X's opinion or if it is documented. But either way, it is complete BS for the Pac-2 to pay teams to join. F-that!

Ok, so let's look at the actual Regent's meeting documents, shall we? (link below). I don't have the time to totally dissect this 400-page document, but:

• The precipitous enrollment drops (grad and undergrad, all under Schulz's watch) should horrify all Cougs. Page 268
• Employment figures for FY 23 and 24. Grad down 23, faculty up 27. But fear not! Admin employees up 135, and Classified up 110! Sounds about right with enrollment plunging, eh?
• Credit Hour totals have fallen 32,000 since the year before Schulz came. Page 279. But the Global Campus is doing well as Pullman plunges. Page 282
• The old 1%, 3% and 5% budget reduction exercise. Starting on Page 294. Been around for a looong time. Hint (from personal experience with this process) - the colleges, etc. will throw out their best and most golden goose programs as what they would cut first
• On to Athletics, starting on Pag 299. Lots to digest here
• Notice that a big budget killer was "admin expense" - $6.1M rather than 4.6M budgeted. Page 301. And they forgot to put brackets around the bowl revenue shortfall of $2.6M. What bowl did they think we were going to?
• Then, the FY25 Budget. Page 305. Read for yourself. 0-0 in media rights, $20 million extra in Conference money distributions (I'm cool with that backfill), less in scholarships (wait tuition is going up 3%). Less in contributions. FY 24 was originally $10.5M, reduced to $9.5M, down to $7.8M for FY25. Note that Endowment revenue stays at $.9M. How does $9.5M and $.9M reconcile with the $60 million Chun claims to have brought in last year? And go read the other fundraisers' bios - record-setting donations everywhere!
• Finally, $5 million in salary reductions. And the Regents were not interested in the details. Wow

https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/3087/2024/04/04.18.24_Meeting-Book-v3.pdf

Perhaps each of the Regents read t

Replying to myself. Hey shitheads, I worked hard on this thread/post, pointing all of you right to the important elements of the Regents meeting. 270 views and 2 replies? C'mon. WTF? You will feed the mutt trolls ad nauseum, but Gawd forbid you scratch your brains and opine on this F-ed up mess we call WSU and WSU Athletics?

Perhaps each of the Regents reviewed the report provided to them days before the meeting and had their questions addressed by the background information they received.

 

[95coug]

Replying to myself. Hey shitheads, I worked hard on this thread/post, pointing all of you right to the important elements of the Regents meeting. 270 views and 2 replies? C'mon. WTF? You will feed the mutt trolls ad nauseum, but Gawd forbid you scratch your brains and opine on this F-ed up mess we call WSU and WSU Athletics?

Wait a second…you post on a 400 page document on a Friday afternoon, and you expect responses that night? You really did work in French Ad.

Some counterpoints to the gloom…

The enrollment drops really do correlate with Covid. A lot of students decided not to take 2020-21 online, and “took the year off.” A lot of them got jobs. And because of the peculiarities of the labor market after the first few months of the pandemic and ever since…they’ve been making decent money. Enough that they don’t feel the need to go back to school. Even with the rises in inflation, the labor market has stayed pretty tight, and for the most part the people who want a job have one (unemployment currently 3.8%). College enrollment tends to rise as the labor market weakens, and we’re seeing a pretty strong employment market now.

The thing that concerns me most with the enrollment numbers is in the grad school. Those are the students who drive research also, and this will impact research dollars coming in. Same as above applies though - kids can find work with a BS/BA, so they’re not going to grad school as much.

Both numbers will probably bounce a bit when the market softens and economy weakens. But these are strange times.

I do like seeing that the more technical programs - engineering, medicine, for example - have modest increases. The bigger declines are in the “do you want fries with that” fields. Hints that maybe kids are getting more savvy about choosing a major.

The 1,3,5% cuts - this time - aren’t actually 1,3,5%. It’s cuts to the legislative allocation portion of the budget, which is just about 50% now. The actual reductions are half of the face value. Nearly all of those will be made up by not filling vacant positions…and piling more work on CS and AP staff. Positions that get filled will be in the faculty, because god forbid we make a Ph.D teach more than 2 classes a semester.

Haven’t dug into the athletics portion yet, because, well…I don’t care that much. It’s bloated and needs cuts. But it’s Saturday, and I have no impact on it.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

Wait a second…you post on a 400 page document on a Friday afternoon, and you expect responses that night? You really did work in French Ad.

Some counterpoints to the gloom…

The enrollment drops really do correlate with Covid. A lot of students decided not to take 2020-21 online, and “took the year off.” A lot of them got jobs. And because of the peculiarities of the labor market after the first few months of the pandemic and ever since…they’ve been making decent money. Enough that they don’t feel the need to go back to school. Even with the rises in inflation, the labor market has stayed pretty tight, and for the most part the people who want a job have one (unemployment currently 3.8%). College enrollment tends to rise as the labor market weakens, and we’re seeing a pretty strong employment market now.

The thing that concerns me most with the enrollment numbers is in the grad school. Those are the students who drive research also, and this will impact research dollars coming in. Same as above applies though - kids can find work with a BS/BA, so they’re not going to grad school as much.

Both numbers will probably bounce a bit when the market softens and economy weakens. But these are strange times.

I do like seeing that the more technical programs - engineering, medicine, for example - have modest increases. The bigger declines are in the “do you want fries with that” fields. Hints that maybe kids are getting more savvy about choosing a major.

The 1,3,5% cuts - this time - aren’t actually 1,3,5%. It’s cuts to the legislative allocation portion of the budget, which is just about 50% now. The actual reductions are half of the face value. Nearly all of those will be made up by not filling vacant positions…and piling more work on CS and AP staff. Positions that get filled will be in the faculty, because god forbid we make a Ph.D teach more than 2 classes a semester.

Haven’t dug into the athletics portion yet, because, well…I don’t care that much. It’s bloated and needs cuts. But it’s Saturday, and I have no impact on it.

Hasn't U of I has a major spike in enrollment? Covid is a reason, but things should be turning around.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Wait a second…you post on a 400 page document on a Friday afternoon, and you expect responses that night? You really did work in French Ad.

Some counterpoints to the gloom…


The 1,3,5% cuts - this time - aren’t actually 1,3,5%. It’s cuts to the legislative allocation portion of the budget, which is just about 50% now. The actual reductions are half of the face value. Nearly all of those will be made up by not filling vacant positions…and piling more work on CS and AP staff. Positions that get filled will be in the faculty, because god forbid we make a Ph.D teach more than 2 classes a semester.

Haven’t dug into the athletics portion yet, because, well…I don’t care that much. It’s bloated and needs cuts. But it’s Saturday, and I have no impact on it.

Touche' on your first sentence. I was a little impatient, eh?

1,3,5% - not gonna argue what the base is, just pointing out that it is an archaic and flawed exercise.

Un gloom me by explaining the employment figures. Dramatic rise in AP and Classified, drop in grad and almost no change in Faculty. And total salaries up 7% from 2023 to 2024. Page 275 BTW, I forgot to mention that previously.

 

[95coug]

Touche' on your first sentence. I was a little impatient, eh?

1,3,5% - not gonna argue what the base is, just pointing out that it is an archaic and flawed exercise.

Un gloom me by explaining the employment figures. Dramatic rise in AP and Classified, drop in grad and almost no change in Faculty. And total salaries up 7% from 2023 to 2024. Page 275 BTW, I forgot to mention that previously.

Yeah, the 1,3,5 is stupid. Everyone knows it’ll never be 1, probably won’t be 3, and 5 requires an optimistic long term view. Reality is that if it’s 5 this year, it’s probably 7-9 next year.

Can’t really explain the rise in classified, I’m not sure where that is. There’s definitely administrative bloat, with associated hiring of AP pets.
There’s also been expansion of what I’d call administrative dreaming programs like DEI and strategic planning - stuff that creates a lot of news articles and fancy words on paper, but doesn’t do any actual work. With the president stepping down, strategic plan work should be halted anyway. The new guy will throw it all out as his first act…and in reality, even if the president stayed, it’ll probably just get rewritten in a year. It’s an exercise in moving the goalposts.

If someone really wanted to be pissed about the salary increases, they’d look at how much/many services the university contracts out, and how that compares with the past.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Yeah, the 1,3,5 is stupid. Everyone knows it’ll never be 1, probably won’t be 3, and 5 requires an optimistic long term view. Reality is that if it’s 5 this year, it’s probably 7-9 next year.

Can’t really explain the rise in classified, I’m not sure where that is. There’s definitely administrative bloat, with associated hiring of AP pets.
There’s also been expansion of what I’d call administrative dreaming programs like DEI and strategic planning - stuff that creates a lot of news articles and fancy words on paper, but doesn’t do any actual work. With the president stepping down, strategic plan work should be halted anyway. The new guy will throw it all out as his first act…and in reality, even if the president stayed, it’ll probably just get rewritten in a year. It’s an exercise in moving the goalposts.

If someone really wanted to be pissed about the salary increases, they’d look at how much/many services the university contracts out, and how that compares with the past.

I spent the bulk of my career in Higher Ed, much of that at WSU, then other stops. Always was a fish out of water, always considered myself a private sector kind of guy. You know, focus on the bottom line? I did fine but got hurt at times because I could never embrace the go along to get along, group-think mentality of Higher Ed (not just WSU). The thing is, there is no accountability. The Guv appoints the Regents, who are just window dressing. They are spoon-fed by the Prez and Administration. Regents don't give a shit, they don't have stockholders to hold them accountable. Administration feeds off itself - they aren't accountable either. Just kiss ass and don't make waves or question anything and you will (particularly AP) have a lifetime of salary increases and BS promotions.

I could and should have just done that myself at WSU, but chose to leave for a career opportunity, which turned out OK but reinforced that it is the same everywhere in Higher Ed. When I occasionally torture myself by looking at some of the WSU AP employees that I worked with that were and should still be mid-level, competent staff and are now Directors, Exec Directors or AVP's or whatever, I want to barf.

The fact that WSU added 134 AP employees in one year (Page 275 in the Regents document) while Faculty (less FTE than AP now) went up 23 FTE is abominable. But who calls BS? NO ONE.

Gawd. Rant over. I hope, 95, that you are a little more like me than the colleagues around you. But don't lift your head up and crow - guess you already know that.

 

[95coug]

I spent the bulk of my career in Higher Ed, much of that at WSU, then other stops. Always was a fish out of water, always considered myself a private sector kind of guy. You know, focus on the bottom line? I did fine but got hurt at times because I could never embrace the go along to get along, group-think mentality of Higher Ed (not just WSU). The thing is, there is no accountability. The Guv appoints the Regents, who are just window dressing. They are spoon-fed by the Prez and Administration. Regents don't give a shit, they don't have stockholders to hold them accountable. Administration feeds off itself - they aren't accountable either. Just kiss ass and don't make waves or question anything and you will (particularly AP) have a lifetime of salary increases and BS promotions.

I could and should have just done that myself at WSU, but chose to leave for a career opportunity, which turned out OK but reinforced that it is the same everywhere in Higher Ed. When I occasionally torture myself by looking at some of the WSU AP employees that I worked with that were and should still be mid-level, competent staff and are now Directors, Exec Directors or AVP's or whatever, I want to barf.

The fact that WSU added 134 AP employees in one year (Page 275 in the Regents document) while Faculty (less FTE than AP now) went up 23 FTE is abominable. But who calls BS? NO ONE.

Gawd. Rant over. I hope, 95, that you are a little more like me than the colleagues around you. But don't lift your head up and crow - guess you already know that.

I don’t have time to crow. Too busy trying to work.

At this point I’m trapped by the retirement system. Too close to the end to leave, but far enough that it’s hard to imagine continuing to watch others fail upward.