|
|
Post by dancingcharlie on Nov 22, 2024 5:04:02 GMT -6
We don’t have to back up the Brinks truck to get a quality coach. We cannot compete with the schools that can, *cough* IU. However to a guy like Jason Eck for example who is making $378,000 in Idaho, our $700K looks pretty good. Plus Muncie is one of the most affordable places to live in the US. Dedicate the money to assistants and NIL and make a nice offer. Our compensation is middle of the road in the MAC, which for a new coach is fine.
Also, Title IX states that your athletics support (budgets, scholarships, etc.) need to match your student population makeup which for BSU is 60.7% female and 39.3% male. Football and basketball always gets the lion’s share of the 39%. If we dropped a women’s sport we would need to cut significantly on the men’s side to make up for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 22, 2024 8:04:35 GMT -6
Title IX is not strictly proportional to student ratio. Not the case here.
However, under current law you are correct that dropping programs would require dropping men's programs. Not the answer.
The problem with FB funding is current MAC level spending has to increase to stay FBS. Not be a joke. Revenue sharing and NIL will not be sustainable.
We can make this hire, kick the can down the road this time, but longer term it looks grim.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Nov 23, 2024 7:20:43 GMT -6
Title IX is not strictly proportional to student ratio. Not the case here. However, under current law you are correct that dropping programs would require dropping men's programs. Not the answer. The problem with FB funding is current MAC level spending has to increase to stay FBS. Not be a joke. Revenue sharing and NIL will not be sustainable. We can make this hire, kick the can down the road this time, but longer term it looks grim. Sounds like something a few of us have been preaching for a long time. MAC presidents have been derelict in their fiscal duties to their schools for a very long time regarding football. The can has been kicked down the road for at least 2 decades now. As I have been predicting, schools will now be forced to make a move in the next few years. It's 100% unsustainable. That's a bad place to be, because now you're reactive to a situation instead of proactive. The criminal part of it is we've known this would happen for a while, yet continued to burn $10-15 million per year the last decade+. And the Title IX implications (matching scholarships and budgets) pretty much double the real cost of football. It's wild. |
|
dcat
Freshman
Posts: 97
Member is Online
|
Post by dcat on Nov 23, 2024 8:42:55 GMT -6
We have 11 women’s sports, a majority of which bring nothing to the table but expenses. Sorry girl dads, a majority of alumni don’t give a damn about them. IF finances are that much of a concern, drop ‘em like a bad habit. An athletic department doesn't exist just to please alumni...especially those who care so much but don't buy tickets or support a sport losing millions every year. Title IX is based on the idea men and women should have equal educational opportunity. Scholarships, support. Those programs bring a lot to the table, and lose less money by any measure. What if we just offered the scholarships to women, but not field a team / sponsor the sport? That would be a lot cheaper, and might keep us in compliance with Title IX? |
|
|
|
Post by southpaw63 on Nov 23, 2024 11:10:38 GMT -6
Is it time to rethink corporate sponsorship for the stadium? I.e going back to the papa johns rumors.. forgive my ignorance on this question though.. this was before my time and I do not the ins and outs
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 23, 2024 12:31:28 GMT -6
An athletic department doesn't exist just to please alumni...especially those who care so much but don't buy tickets or support a sport losing millions every year. Title IX is based on the idea men and women should have equal educational opportunity. Scholarships, support. Those programs bring a lot to the table, and lose less money by any measure. What if we just offered the scholarships to women, but not field a team / sponsor the sport? That would be a lot cheaper, and might keep us in compliance with Title IX? The assumption is that the athletic participation is part of education. I don't think that works.
Whatever we drop the problem is that FB is costly, operating at a large deficit, AND that it is becoming more costly.
Mid majors with strapped budgets will eventually be forced to so something.
IF a school drops from FBS, that comes with fewer scholarships, lower costs in some areas, and also a smaller requirement for support of Women's programs.
IF a school drops FB altogether, a real gut shot, conceivably you could add replacement men's programs totaling fewer scholarships, and still drop women's programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsFB1 on Nov 24, 2024 7:50:37 GMT -6
What if we just offered the scholarships to women, but not field a team / sponsor the sport? That would be a lot cheaper, and might keep us in compliance with Title IX? The assumption is that the athletic participation is part of education. I don't think that works.
Whatever we drop the problem is that FB is costly, operating at a large deficit, AND that it is becoming more costly.
Mid majors with strapped budgets will eventually be forced to so something.
IF a school drops from FBS, that comes with fewer scholarships, lower costs in some areas, and also a smaller requirement for support of Women's programs.
IF a school drops FB altogether, a real gut shot, conceivably you could add replacement men's programs totaling fewer scholarships, and still drop women's programs.
I don't know all of the legal requirements for Title IX, which forces us to support 11 women's sports vs. 7 men's sports. I don't anyone is going to miss Girls cross country, golf, softball, swimming & diving, track & field or miss Boys swimming & diving. We should go to 6 sports for both men & women (basketball, volleyball, tennis, golf for both, football & baseball for boys, field hockey & softball or gymnastics for girls. I would love the see just the expenses for those sports vs. revenue! |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 24, 2024 8:17:14 GMT -6
You should just look at it then.
I have. Closely.
FB is massively more deficit per student athlete.
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsFB1 on Nov 24, 2024 8:55:03 GMT -6
You should just look at it then. I have. Closely. FB is massively more deficit per student athlete. I got it - FB loses $. That was not my point - some sports are essential with FB being one. Other sports are not essential. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 24, 2024 9:48:19 GMT -6
You should just look at it then. I have. Closely. FB is massively more deficit per student athlete. I got it - FB loses $. That was not my point - some sports are essential with FB being one. Other sports are not essential. Essential? All sports lose money in the sense revenue is outpaced by expenses. All sports still have value. FB included.
The question is what level of FB is essential? At what cost?
Some would say no sports are actually essential. Maybe. But, athletics are at least of some importance and historically part of any major university's student and alumni experience. FB IMHO does justify a larger deficit on a per student basis, it is important. But. Costs are out of hand and growing rapidly for FBS level. Other sports are valuable, too, and expenses are much more manageable.
How exactly do you measure value to come to the conclusion current expense is justified? What university part of the mission creates "essential" status?
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsFB1 on Nov 24, 2024 10:08:39 GMT -6
I got it - FB loses $. That was not my point - some sports are essential with FB being one. Other sports are not essential. Essential? All sports lose money in the sense revenue is outpaced by expenses. All sports still have value. FB included.
The question is what level of FB is essential? At what cost?
Some would say no sports are actually essential. Maybe. But, athletics are at least of some importance and historically part of any major university's student and alumni experience. FB IMHO does justify a larger deficit on a per student basis, it is important. But. Costs are out of hand and growing rapidly for FBS level. Other sports are valuable, too, and expenses are much more manageable.
How exactly do you measure value to come to the conclusion current expense is justified? What university part of the mission creates "essential" status?
Really? - the core sports of FB and men & women's BB are the essential sports at almost every university in the US regardless of expense. |
|
|
|
Post by grass on Nov 24, 2024 10:36:01 GMT -6
For context:
::::::::::
Sources: ChatGPT and Google
::::::::::
The average cost per student:
1. Tuition:
- Public, In-State: Around $10,000 per year.
- Public, Out-of-State: Around $27,000 per year.
- Private: Around $39,000 per year.
2. Room & Board:
- Average across all types of institutions: Around $12,000–$14,000 per year.
3. Athletic Fees:
- Many universities charge a mandatory athletic or recreation fee.
- The average cost: $100–$500 per year.
- BSU, it appears to be $600 annually.
Total Cost (Approximate Annual Averages):
- Public, In-State: $22,000–$25,000.
- Public, Out-of-State: $39,000–$42,000.
|
|
|
|
Post by grass on Nov 24, 2024 10:37:49 GMT -6
For context: :::::::::: Sources: ChatGPT and Google :::::::::: The average cost per student: 1. Tuition: - Public, In-State: Around $10,000 per year. - Public, Out-of-State: Around $27,000 per year. - Private: Around $39,000 per year. 2. Room & Board: - Average across all types of institutions: Around $12,000–$14,000 per year. 3. Athletic Fees: - Many universities charge a mandatory athletic or recreation fee. - The average cost: $100–$500 per year. - BSU, it appears to be $600 annually. Total Cost (Approximate Annual Averages): - Public, In-State: $22,000–$25,000. - Public, Out-of-State: $39,000–$42,000. Given football’s cultural draw, the very low cost/student/year, and BSU’s largest athletics revenue generator, I cannot imagine this even being talked about. Wow. Good day. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 24, 2024 10:49:49 GMT -6
Essential? All sports lose money in the sense revenue is outpaced by expenses. All sports still have value. FB included.
The question is what level of FB is essential? At what cost?
Some would say no sports are actually essential. Maybe. But, athletics are at least of some importance and historically part of any major university's student and alumni experience. FB IMHO does justify a larger deficit on a per student basis, it is important. But. Costs are out of hand and growing rapidly for FBS level. Other sports are valuable, too, and expenses are much more manageable.
How exactly do you measure value to come to the conclusion current expense is justified? What university part of the mission creates "essential" status?
Really? - the core sports of FB and men & women's BB are the essential sports at almost every university in the US regardless of expense. Whoa now. If that is your definition of "essential" then you should consider that the majority of American universities do not have FBS FB.
Mostly because it is simply too expensive. So, I'd conclude not at all essential...In the early history of FB, small schools and large schools fielded FB teams that competed with the big boys. University of Chicago and other small schools were powerhouse programs...In Indiana, IU, Wabash College, Ball State at one time or the other competed at the same level... Those very early days established FB as THE iconic college sport. Those days are gone.
By comparison, BB came along to prominence much later.
But, considering what is sustainable, and practical for an athletic program, high level (D1) Men's Basketball is played at 350 institutions. But, FBS FB at less than half of those schools. There are D1 BB schools with no FB at all. And, there are a large number of other lower division FB schools who are not D1 in BB or FBS. Essential?
Men's and women's BB are good examples of sports programs which do not bust the budget and have impact not only for students and alumni. No argument there that we need to cut back. Well worth the expense.
However, you should note that women's basketball does not generate any great amount of revenue. Although recently that has changed for the "P5" level schools, BSU certainly doesn't generate a profit there.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 24, 2024 11:18:52 GMT -6
3. Athletic Fees: - Many universities charge a mandatory athletic or recreation fee. - The average cost: $100–$500 per year. - BSU, it appears to be $600 annually. Given football’s cultural draw, the very low cost/student/year, and BSU’s largest athletics revenue generator, I cannot imagine this even being talked about. Wow. Good day. It is talked about because FB has the largest deficit of any program. By far. And because costs are increasing and the athletic department does not have revenue to cover it.
It is not entirely clear how much of total BSU student fee revenue goes to the athletic department. Do you propose we raise fees to cover increasing costs? cut other sports?
I think that should be in your imagination talking about our situation.
That "large" revenue generated by FB is just not enough to pay for it's large deficit, even if we allocate athletic fees per capita across all programs. Which we do not...
As for context, I am not so sure as you exactly how "many universities" have a fee as high as ours with as little value in exchange. Many of those schools get more bang for their buck... |
|
