Before we get started, I need to clarify one thing: Ragin’ Review is not a sunshine pumper.

I know. Shocker.

Over the years that our show has existed, we have often been crowned by certain UL insiders as the negative cloud hanging over Reinhardt Drive.

Our team prides itself on giving opinions from a fan’s perspective. Let’s face it... that’s all we are. We’re just a group of (mostly) purebred Cajun guys who bleed vermilion and white and embrace Ragin’ Cajuns fandom like few others do.

We criticize. We critique. We question.

But we do it because we care, and we do it from a side of the equation that can easily be missed by those making the decisions.

Sometimes we’re positive. Sometimes we’re negative. But it always comes from the heart.

Several months ago, the University found itself in turmoil after revealing a financial gap that included a $25 million operating deficit and another $25 million in accumulated deficits. Like almost everyone else, we were surprised and frustrated when the news became public.

Local media began digging into the situation, and we followed along while offering our own thoughts about what happened.

How did it get this far? Who was responsible? Where did the money go? Why wasn’t the problem identified and addressed earlier?

Those questions remain fair.

We were embarrassed and angry about the financial position the University faced. We knew difficult decisions were ahead, and we knew new University President Dr. Ramesh Kolluru would be challenged from his first day on the job.

Fast-forward several months, and there are at least signs that UL is beginning to confront the problem.

That brings us to a recent article from The Current, titled “UL Athletics Is Losing More Money Than You Think.”

The article takes a detailed look at UL Athletics, the University’s auxiliary funds and the institutional support transferred into the athletic department. It reports that athletics generated less than $16 million of its own revenue against roughly $46 million in expenses during the 2025 fiscal year. It argues that, without approximately $17 million in institutional support and student fees, the department’s true shortfall would be close to $29 million.

Those numbers deserve attention. They should not be ignored, spun or waved away simply because we enjoy football games on Saturdays.

But numbers also need context.

When the headline outruns the story

Let’s also acknowledge how modern media works.

Headlines are designed to attract attention. Likes, shares, clicks and page views matter, and controversy usually performs better than context. A headline suggesting UL Athletics is “losing more money than you think” naturally creates the feeling that something shocking, or even scandalous, has been uncovered.

But what exactly is the scandal here?

The athletic department receives institutional support. That support is publicly reported, included in its financial documents and common throughout Division I athletics. Reasonable people can debate whether UL provides too much support, whether the money is being spent wisely or whether athletics should generate more of its own revenue. Those are fair and necessary conversations.

But a debatable budget allocation is not automatically evidence of deception, corruption or some hidden financial scheme.

There is a difference between uncovering information and presenting previously available information in the most alarming way possible.

Maybe that framing is intended to generate attention. Maybe it reflects a genuine belief that athletics is receiving more than its fair share. Maybe it is simply an effort to provoke a larger conversation about University spending.

Whatever the motivation, the effect is the same: the headline can make an ordinary, but important, budget debate sound like a scandal.

UL’s financial crisis is real. The questions surrounding athletic spending are real. But those facts should be examined with context rather than inflated for outrage, likes or page views.

There is plenty here to debate without manufacturing a scandal where one does not exist.

Most college athletic departments require support

The first important point is that UL’s reliance on institutional support is not unusual in Division I athletics.

Even The Current acknowledges that other Louisiana programs would show substantial shortfalls without institutional support. Its own comparison lists estimated gaps of $20 million at Louisiana Tech, $12 million at ULM and $9 million at Grambling. The article also notes that Marshall received $13.3 million in direct institutional support and another $6.8 million through student fees.

That does not automatically justify every dollar UL spends.

But it does show that this is not simply an isolated case of UL Athletics recklessly discovering a strange new way to lose money. Institutional support is part of the financial model used throughout much of college athletics, especially outside the small group of programs receiving enormous media-rights distributions.

Yes, that school across the Basin (lovingly known around here as TSAB) operates an athletic department with annual expenses well above $200 million. LSU is capable of generating massive amounts through SEC television revenue, something that UL doesn't have the benefit of.  And it's National Championship baseball team?  They operated in the red the very next season.  

But LSU is the exception, not the standard.

Comparing UL’s ability to generate revenue with LSU’s is like comparing a locally owned grocery store to Walmart and wondering why the grocery store cannot negotiate the same wholesale prices.

They are technically in the same industry. They are not operating in the same financial universe.

Institutional support is not necessarily hidden money

The phrase “athletics lost $29 million” is attention-grabbing.

But it depends on treating institutional support as though it should never have been considered athletic revenue in the first place.

The University chose to allocate those funds to athletics. The transfer is reported in the athletic budget as direct institutional support. The Current correctly explains that much of it comes through UL’s auxiliary division, which includes operations such as housing, dining and transportation.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether $16.5 million is the right amount.

There is also a legitimate debate about whether some of those dollars should instead be reinvested into dormitories, dining services or transportation. Students have a right to ask what they are paying for and whether they are receiving an acceptable return.

But describing the full transfer as an additional loss can blur the difference between an undisclosed financial hole and a budget allocation made by the institution.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Universities spend money on countless programs that do not directly generate enough revenue to cover their expenses. Libraries, student organizations, campus events, research programs and many academic offerings are not evaluated solely according to whether they turn a profit.

That does not make those expenditures wasteful. It means universities exist to provide more than individually profitable business units.

Athletics should still be held accountable. But it should be judged by the complete value it provides, not by a standard almost no university department is expected to meet.

Athletics provides value that does not appear on its income statement

How much is national exposure worth?

How much value comes from having “Louisiana” displayed on ESPN, ESPN2 or national tournament coverage?

What is the financial value of bringing alumni back to campus, keeping graduates engaged with the University and creating an emotional connection that can eventually result in donations outside athletics?

What is the value of a football weekend to hotels, restaurants, bars and local businesses?

How much does a successful athletic program contribute to school identity, student recruitment and campus life?

Those questions are more difficult to answer than reading a line on a spreadsheet, but that does not mean their value is zero.

The article quotes a University spokesperson saying athletics enhances the student experience, builds school pride and creates opportunities for alumni and community engagement.

Naturally, the University is going to defend its investment. But the underlying argument is not unreasonable.

For many alumni, athletics is their most consistent connection to UL after graduation. They may not regularly visit an academic department’s website, attend a faculty meeting or return to campus for a lecture.

But they watch the Cajuns.

They buy tickets. They wear Louisiana gear. They bring their children to games. They follow recruiting. They attend alumni events built around athletic contests. They donate because they still feel connected to the University.

That relationship has value, even when it cannot be neatly deposited into the athletic department’s ticket-revenue account.

The spending increase still requires an explanation

This is where supporters of UL Athletics should not become defensive.

According to The Current, athletic spending increased by more than $10 million between 2020 and 2025 while full-time enrollment and overall University revenue declined.

That is a serious concern.

College athletics became far more expensive during that period. Coaching salaries increased. Travel costs increased. Facility expenses increased. Nutrition, academic support, medical services, staffing and recruiting all became more expensive. The arrival of athlete-revenue sharing has created another major expense in the current era.

Still, “college athletics is expensive” cannot be the end of the explanation.

UL Athletics should clearly explain where the additional money went, which increases were unavoidable, which investments produced results and which areas can be reduced without destroying the department’s ability to compete.

Supporters should demand that information.

Athletics cannot ask fans, donors, students and the University to invest more while treating reasonable financial questions as attacks on the program.

Transparency should not be considered anti-athletics.

Accountability should not be confused with disloyalty.

The Marshall comparison needs more context

The article presents Marshall as a useful comparison because Marshall received substantial institutional and student support while reporting a balanced athletic budget. It also notes that Marshall averaged 25,298 fans at home football games in 2025, compared with UL’s reported average of 19,982.

UL’s attendance absolutely needs improvement.

A renovated stadium with thousands of empty seats is not good enough. Fans have responsibilities in this conversation, too. We cannot demand championships, upgraded facilities, better coaches, improved recruiting and national relevance while refusing to purchase tickets or show up consistently.

However, a one-year comparison between two athletic departments does not automatically prove that one is responsibly managed and the other is not.

Athletic accounting can vary based on debt payments, facility projects, conference distributions, donor gifts, internal transfers and the timing of major expenses. A department reporting a balanced budget after receiving more than $20 million in institutional support and student fees is not necessarily “profitable.” It means its support and reported revenue equaled its reported expenses that year.

Marshall may still be doing some things better than UL. We should study those things.

But the comparison needs to go deeper than one bottom-line number.

The real debate is not whether athletics costs money

Of course UL Athletics costs the University money.

That is not breaking news.

The more important questions are whether the current level of support is sustainable, whether the money is being spent effectively and whether athletics is producing enough value for students, alumni, fans and the broader University.

Those are much harder questions.

The answer cannot simply be that athletics is sacred and every expenditure must be protected.

It also cannot be that athletics fails because it does not generate enough direct revenue to completely fund itself.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

UL should review every part of its athletic operation. It should identify unnecessary expenses, improve fundraising, increase ticket sales, create better corporate partnerships and build a much stronger culture of attendance.

The department should also be honest about what it can realistically afford.

At the same time, University leadership should recognize that aggressively stripping athletics during a financial crisis could create new long-term problems. Cutting the product can reduce attendance. Reduced attendance hurts sponsorships. Weaker programs reduce visibility. Reduced visibility can weaken alumni engagement and fundraising.

There is a point at which cutting expenses stops fixing the operation and begins shrinking its ability to produce revenue.

Accountability without surrender

We appreciate The Current for examining the University’s finances and putting information in front of the public. UL needed more scrutiny long before its financial problems became impossible to ignore.

The figures in the article should make every Cajuns supporter uncomfortable. But discomfort should lead to better questions, not automatic conclusions.

UL Athletics should be more transparent. It should justify its spending. It should reduce waste. It should increase self-generated revenue. It should explain why its expenses grew so dramatically while the University’s overall financial position weakened.

But we should also acknowledge what athletics means to this institution.

Louisiana Athletics is not merely a side business that failed to turn a profit.

It is one of the University’s most visible public faces. It connects generations of alumni, creates statewide and national exposure, supports student-athletes and gives this community something around which it can rally.

The goal should not be to protect athletics from scrutiny. The goal should be to make athletics stronger, smarter and more sustainable.

There is room to criticize how we reached this point while still believing the Ragin’ Cajuns are worth investing in.

That isn’t sunshine pumping.

That’s caring enough to demand better without burning down one of the most valuable connections the University has to its community.