|
|
Post by CallingBS on Nov 1, 2023 15:50:05 GMT -6
I’m not sure I’m following your argument. I would think you would want the schools scraping the bottom of every barrel to offset those costs. Are you saying the schools should reject that 7% offset so the fans can enjoy Saturday afternoon games? Oh, I would say it's better to take espn's paltry pay out because it does save the students a little bit of money. But my point was more that the TV contract and exposure is just another ridiculous aspect of the overall dismal, pathetic and expensive effort at D1 football that the MAC schools persist in making. And that some dim-witted people portray the espn tv exposure as some big boon to MAC schools...such as the guy whose tweet is the original subject of this thread. I'm told that each MAC school essentially uses that money and more each year to produce ESPN+ broadcasts and stay up to date on video equipment, though. It's easily a net negative. Very bad contract that the MAC commissioner and presidents agreed to... |
|
|
|
Maction
Nov 1, 2023 16:19:53 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Nov 1, 2023 16:19:53 GMT -6
Oh, I would say it's better to take espn's paltry pay out because it does save the students a little bit of money. But my point was more that the TV contract and exposure is just another ridiculous aspect of the overall dismal, pathetic and expensive effort at D1 football that the MAC schools persist in making. And that some dim-witted people portray the espn tv exposure as some big boon to MAC schools...such as the guy whose tweet is the original subject of this thread. I'm told that each MAC school essentially uses that money and more each year to produce ESPN+ broadcasts and stay up to date on video equipment, though. It's easily a net negative. Very bad contract that the MAC commissioner and presidents agreed to... I don't think we lose money on the contract, just it isn't much of a gain if any.
Just like FB expenditure is justified for it's much greater overall negative financial results, the MAC Presidents justify and love the TV as a plus branding. As you see in Neu's comments today, he touts the "national TV" exposure as a plus for players and for recruiting.
There is some merit in the argument, although the General will chime in with it being more an embarrassment, but FB is such a money pit for us, the bigger question is justifying the overall expenditures, and this part of it is kind of the least of the problems. In economic theory, the marginal revenue for the TV contract no doubt covers the marginal costs. It's the high fixed costs compared to the low overall revenue, spread out over the season, that is killing us.
|
|
|
|
Maction
Nov 1, 2023 18:38:57 GMT -6
via mobile
00hmh likes this
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 1, 2023 18:38:57 GMT -6
Oh, I would say it's better to take espn's paltry pay out because it does save the students a little bit of money. But my point was more that the TV contract and exposure is just another ridiculous aspect of the overall dismal, pathetic and expensive effort at D1 football that the MAC schools persist in making. And that some dim-witted people portray the espn tv exposure as some big boon to MAC schools...such as the guy whose tweet is the original subject of this thread. I'm told that each MAC school essentially uses that money and more each year to produce ESPN+ broadcasts and stay up to date on video equipment, though. It's easily a net negative. Very bad contract that the MAC commissioner and presidents agreed to... Ball State spends more than most MAC schools. But I can tell you that statement is not true. |
|
|
|
Maction
Nov 1, 2023 20:48:30 GMT -6
via mobile
bsu73 likes this
Post by rmcalhoun on Nov 1, 2023 20:48:30 GMT -6
That is a good point though. Having this relationship with espn has to be incredible for sportslink which is now one big thing BSU is known for
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 2, 2023 9:00:01 GMT -6
That is a good point though. Having this relationship with espn has to be incredible for sportslink which is now one big thing BSU is known for SportsLink has been fantastic for the students. For the fans, it can be a little frustrating watching their games. I understand they're students, but sometimes that REALLY shows. For those of us that loathe bad sports TV, their volleyball game the other night, where they wore Halloween masks, was pretty cheesy. On the plus side, it looks like they've upgraded their replay to super slomo, which really helps on official reviews, so you can see in/out of bounds or a touch/no touch with a LOT of detail. It looks pretty awesome. |
|
|
|
Maction
Nov 2, 2023 19:35:49 GMT -6
Post by CallingBS on Nov 2, 2023 19:35:49 GMT -6
I'm told that each MAC school essentially uses that money and more each year to produce ESPN+ broadcasts and stay up to date on video equipment, though. It's easily a net negative. Very bad contract that the MAC commissioner and presidents agreed to... Ball State spends more than most MAC schools. But I can tell you that statement is not true. Cool, but someone involved in that process and budgeting told me that probably 4-5 years ago (just before covid). It's not like I just made it up. <shoulder shrug> |
|
|
|
Maction
Nov 2, 2023 20:13:22 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Nov 2, 2023 20:13:22 GMT -6
Ball State spends more than most MAC schools. But I can tell you that statement is not true. Cool, but someone involved in that process and budgeting told me that probably 4-5 years ago (just before covid). It's not like I just made it up. <shoulder shrug> I thought some money came from the academic budget, some from Foundation. Do not know the accounting and transfers though. It's possible total expenses are that high if including equipment, but doubt that much would all come from the athletic budget every year. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 3, 2023 7:07:55 GMT -6
Ball State spends more than most MAC schools. But I can tell you that statement is not true. Cool, but someone involved in that process and budgeting told me that probably 4-5 years ago (just before covid). It's not like I just made it up. <shoulder shrug> Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were full of crap. But most schools don't spend 1/10 of that money on equipment. They go with the low level equipment (brands like Hitachi), while BSU has always had top level, industry standard gear. Even then, it would only amount to maybe 1/4. |
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Nov 3, 2023 7:11:58 GMT -6
I’m not sure I’m following your argument. I would think you would want the schools scraping the bottom of every barrel to offset those costs. Are you saying the schools should reject that 7% offset so the fans can enjoy Saturday afternoon games? Oh, I would say it's better to take espn's paltry pay out because it does save the students a little bit of money. But my point was more that the TV contract and exposure is just another ridiculous aspect of the overall dismal, pathetic and expensive effort at D1 football that the MAC schools persist in making. And that some dim-witted people portray the espn tv exposure as some big boon to MAC schools...such as the guy whose tweet is the original subject of this thread. Before the ESPN deal, Ball State was broadcasting their own games. We really didn’t need them for internet exposure. I’d rather play Saturday games and do it ourselves. ESPN is the Pimp of college sports. They own us and screw us for their own self satisfaction. |
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Nov 3, 2023 7:55:43 GMT -6
Cool, but someone involved in that process and budgeting told me that probably 4-5 years ago (just before covid). It's not like I just made it up. <shoulder shrug> Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were full of crap. But most schools don't spend 1/10 of that money on equipment. They go with the low level equipment (brands like Hitachi), while BSU has always had top level, industry standard gear. Even then, it would only amount to maybe 1/4. No worries. This person also said the production costs were greater than equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by chupacabra on Nov 3, 2023 9:03:44 GMT -6
Looks like Espn witnessed our shitty football product.
Ball U vs NIU didn't make the cut next week.
So much for the importance of the tarnished bronze corn stalk
|
|
|
|
Maction
Nov 3, 2023 10:17:05 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Nov 3, 2023 10:17:05 GMT -6
Cool, but someone involved in that process and budgeting told me that probably 4-5 years ago (just before covid). It's not like I just made it up. <shoulder shrug> Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were full of crap. But most schools don't spend 1/10 of that money on equipment. They go with the low level equipment (brands like Hitachi), while BSU has always had top level, industry standard gear. Even then, it would only amount to maybe 1/4. That helps our students walk out the door more ready. How it's budgeted officially? In a business you would finance purchases, use capital budgeting principles, all over a period of years. Can't usually do that explicitly in our budgets. The University budget has lots of fictions in it and logic doesn't always make much difference in a budget request. So you rely on transfers from other units and foundation money and in this case no doubt ESPN revenue allocation. Even worse in athletics where state money has to be separate. I've seen Athletic budgets over 30+ years. So often you can't really say what the real total costs are and where operations money comes from. Depends on what you call operations. Notably, the Arena is " multi purpose" with spaces used by athletics funded separately from lines in the AD budget. Facilities and maintenance aren't operations under AD. New equipment and building money are merged in donor gifts. Not a line item. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Nov 3, 2023 11:49:54 GMT -6
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were full of crap. But most schools don't spend 1/10 of that money on equipment. They go with the low level equipment (brands like Hitachi), while BSU has always had top level, industry standard gear. Even then, it would only amount to maybe 1/4. That helps our students walk out the door more ready. How it's budgeted officially? In a business you would finance purchases, use capital budgeting principles, all over a period of years. Can't usually do that explicitly in our budgets. The University budget has lots of fictions in it and logic doesn't always make much difference in a budget request. So you rely on transfers from other units and foundation money and in this case no doubt ESPN revenue allocation. Even worse in athletics where state money has to be separate. I've seen Athletic budgets over 30+ years. So often you can't really say what the real total costs are and where operations money comes from. Depends on what you call operations. Notably, the Arena is " multi purpose" with spaces used by athletics funded separately from lines in the AD budget. Facilities and maintenance aren't operations under AD. New equipment and building money are merged in donor gifts. Not a line item. My favorite accounting trick is how they show student fees as "revenue" for football, thus portraying it as a break even proposition. A lot of the big money loser programs do this same thing, and you will often see the "break even" fiction reported at face value in media stories on football finances. Scam successful! |
|
|
|
Post by coastalcard on Nov 3, 2023 12:50:56 GMT -6
Looks like Espn witnessed our shitty football product. Ball U vs NIU didn't make the cut next week. So much for the importance of the tarnished bronze corn stalk So, there's a mid-week game for the benefit of No One? |
|
|
|
Maction
Nov 3, 2023 12:58:24 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Nov 3, 2023 12:58:24 GMT -6
Looks like Espn witnessed our shitty football product. Ball U vs NIU didn't make the cut next week. So much for the importance of the tarnished bronze corn stalk So, there's a mid-week game for the benefit of No One? Got to give the TV executives the choice. That's how the MAC got the "big" money deal. |
|
