Athletic Revenue

[Niner_National]

[quote=“chidave, post:39, topic:28852”]What happened to our travel costs when we joined CUSA? Hoping they stayed the same or went down a bit since we have a few schools that are closer to us.[/quote]I doubt ours changed much. We were traveling a lot in the A10 anyway.

[Mr_Bojangles]

@NinerWupAss

[quote=“NinerJags, post:27, topic:28852”]Some of this stuff is just crazy. Criticism of the subsidy to the athletic department is a back handed slap at the alumni base for not providing more private support. Marketing is an easy scapegoat. Did VCU not make a Final 4 run and have one of the most charismatic coaches in America on TV every time you turn around–yet they are subsidized basically the same as us? And they sell out virtually every game? Fastest track to national relevance in decades. Now a household name. Why are they in the student pockets at such a high rate? Fact is IAAA schools are heavily subsidized. Don’t have to like it, but don’t act like it is an anomaly that we are by ourselves. That peer group list is zero related to athletics. Those are our “academic” classification peers.

Touch a nerve there did we? It is a back handed slap at both the alumni base and the athletic department. The alumni base absolutely needs to step up more. Of course that same alumni base had the balls to go make football an issue, not like we got much vision or leadership from the AD on that matter until we did the hard work of making it an issue. Maybe if the AD had an ounce of vision and shared some sort of a strategy with the alumni there might be more support there. We also are absolutely pathetic at growing those donor relationships. When it comes to donors it really is a sit back and just see what comes to us instead of let’s go find some more support. It would help if the AD had hired a charismatic basketball coach instead of one of the most boring unemotional coaches I have ever seen. That sure as hell isn’t the fault of the alumni. Marketing is an easy scapegoat, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the right one. We are an after thought in this town. If it wasn’t for football, which originated with alumni and not the AD, there would be no talk of us. I mean when we were selling FSLs I had to go to the Union and hand out flyers to parents who were on campus because the AD didn’t see value in it. WHAT? Parent$ are on campus and giving them FSL info wasn’t worth the trouble? it is crap like this that makes it difficult to accept it’s all the fault of alumni - maybe the AD is also to blame for doing a crappy job at helping broaden the donor base.

As for the subsidy, as I said we all knew the subsidy would be high as we started football. The question is what are we going to do in the future to lower that number. VCU is also paying Smart close to 1.5M a year and is successful - little easier to justify that high student fee. In two flag ship sports that can legitimize high fees we have one program is it’s 2nd year and we have another that hasn’t seen the NCAAs in a decade, plays home openers at 4PM, has transfer issues and can’t win in feb or march and we signed the coach with a losing record to an extension. If you want to use VCU as justification for our fee we might want to go have some of the success they have had.

If we want to be serious contenders the alumni have to step up more and the AD has to do a better job at cultivating that base. Maybe we need some new leadership since the current group appears to just blame alumni instead of fixing the issue. Also I like the tone of that post - we should stop complaining and expecting the AD to do more because lots of other schools have high subsidies too. Yet again if we speak out and demand more you get branded a #badfan, we are supposed to be quiet, give some money if we want and maybe buy tickets. Far easier to have the majority of your budget come from fees where you don’t have to answer for poor decisions and season.[/quote]

Nice post.

I think a strategic plan for how we plan to get where we want to be would go a long way. We all get the annual report on what we did during the past season, but what about the future?

What is our next step in football stadium expansion? Lights? Long term plans?
How do we plan to maintain our success in soccer? Do we need facility upgrades and when? Locker rooms etc?
What improvements need to be made to Halton over the next 5-10 years to stay competitive with recruiting, etc?
What facility upgrades are needed at the Hayes to compete in C-USA, to host a Regional, etc?
What do we need to do to get softball to the NCAAs? Facility improvements?
How much and how long until we can build a Multi-sport indoor facility?

Check out what UL-Lafayette has on their website. They outline $115 million in future improvements. This year, they have played in their 3rd straight bowl game, played in the NCAA Tournament in men’s hoops, gone to the WCWS in softball, and are 1 game away from making it to the CWS in baseball.

http://ragincajuns.com/sports/2013/3/26/ATHL_0326132118.aspx?id=570

http://ragincajuns.com/custompages/PDF/UL_Masterplan_Final.pdf

[NinerWupAss]

@Mr. Bojangles

[quote=“NinerWupAss, post:30, topic:28852”][quote=“NinerJags, post:27, topic:28852”]Some of this stuff is just crazy. Criticism of the subsidy to the athletic department is a back handed slap at the alumni base for not providing more private support. Marketing is an easy scapegoat. Did VCU not make a Final 4 run and have one of the most charismatic coaches in America on TV every time you turn around–yet they are subsidized basically the same as us? And they sell out virtually every game? Fastest track to national relevance in decades. Now a household name. Why are they in the student pockets at such a high rate? Fact is IAAA schools are heavily subsidized. Don’t have to like it, but don’t act like it is an anomaly that we are by ourselves. That peer group list is zero related to athletics. Those are our “academic” classification peers.

Touch a nerve there did we? It is a back handed slap at both the alumni base and the athletic department.

As for the subsidy, as I said we all knew the subsidy would be high as we started football. The question is what are we going to do in the future to lower that number. VCU is also paying Smart close to 1.5M a year and is successful - little easier to justify that high student fee. In two flag ship sports that can legitimize high fees we have one program is it’s 2nd year and we have another that hasn’t seen the NCAAs in a decade, plays home openers at 4PM, has transfer issues and can’t win in feb or march and we signed the coach with a losing record to an extension. If you want to use VCU as justification for our fee we might want to go have some of the success they have had.

If we want to be serious contenders the alumni have to step up more and the AD has to do a better job at cultivating that base. Maybe we need some new leadership since the current group appears to just blame alumni instead of fixing the issue. Also I like the tone of that post - we should stop complaining and expecting the AD to do more because lots of other schools have high subsidies too. Yet again if we speak out and demand more you get branded a #badfan, we are supposed to be quiet, give some money if we want and maybe buy tickets. Far easier to have the majority of your budget come from fees where you don’t have to answer for poor decisions and season.[/quote]

Nice post.

I think a strategic plan for how we plan to get where we want to be would go a long way. We all get the annual report on what we did during the past season, but what about the future?

What is our next step in football stadium expansion? Lights? Long term plans?
How do we plan to maintain our success in soccer? Do we need facility upgrades and when? Locker rooms etc?
What improvements need to be made to Halton over the next 5-10 years to stay competitive with recruiting, etc?
What facility upgrades are needed at the Hayes to compete in C-USA, to host a Regional, etc?
What do we need to do to get softball to the NCAAs? Facility improvements?
How much and how long until we can build a Multi-sport indoor facility?

Check out what UL-Lafayette has on their website. They outline $115 million in future improvements. This year, they have played in their 3rd straight bowl game, played in the NCAA Tournament in men’s hoops, gone to the WCWS in softball, and are 1 game away from making it to the CWS in baseball.

http://ragincajuns.com/sports/2013/3/26/ATHL_0326132118.aspx?id=570

http://ragincajuns.com/custompages/PDF/UL_Masterplan_Final.pdf[/quote]

Shhhh #badfan

[ninermike]

Shhhh #badfan

Don’t have to be a #badfan. Here’s some advice from my friends at WikiHow:

[font=helvetica]There’s an art to giving critical feedback that encourages someone an AD to improve, rather than hurting his or her their self esteem. Constructive criticism should be positive in tone with a focus on a clear, achievable objective. It’s also important to choose a thoughtful time and place to deliver the critique, since any type of criticism can be hard to take in front of others on a message board. Read on to learn more about how to give effective constructive criticism.The goal of constructive criticism is to improve the behavior or the behavioral results of an AD person, while consciously avoiding personal attacks and blaming. This kind of criticism is carefully framed in language acceptable to the target person AD, often acknowledging that the critics themselves could be wrong.[/font]
[font=helvetica]http://www.wikihow.com/Criticize-Constructively[/font]

[NinerWupAss]

[quote=“ninermike, post:44, topic:28852”]Shhhh #badfan

Don’t have to be a #badfan. Here’s some advice from my friends at WikiHow:

[font=helvetica]There’s an art to giving critical feedback that encourages someone an AD to improve, rather than hurting his or her their self esteem. Constructive criticism should be positive in tone with a focus on a clear, achievable objective. It’s also important to choose a thoughtful time and place to deliver the critique, since any type of criticism can be hard to take in front of others on a message board. Read on to learn more about how to give effective constructive criticism.The goal of constructive criticism is to improve the behavior or the behavioral results of an AD person, while consciously avoiding personal attacks and blaming. This kind of criticism is carefully framed in language acceptable to the target person AD, often acknowledging that the critics themselves could be wrong.[/font]
[font=helvetica]http://www.wikihow.com/Criticize-Constructively[/font][/quote]

LOL this is laughable. If I have to coddle them and coach them then they are in the wrong business. No one here has bought a billboard, no one here calls them names, no one here (well maybe 1 person) gets personal. We want what is best for the U. If that hurts their feelings I am sorry. I am not going to apologize for demanding better. They would love for us to be quiet and just tell them privately - keeps the heat off them and nothing changes. If we had all gone to them privately and asked for football we would be sitting here today wondering why we don’t have football. If they don’t like it they can do a better job or find a less public job. If asking for a vision and strategy, publicly asking for us to do better with donors and asking critical questions bothers them - then that is even more a sign we have the wrong leaders.

[Nugget]

@NinerWupAss

Marshall’s subsidy is 50% I think that is a realistic goal for us once football is established. If we take advantage of the city, our growing alumni base, CUSA, growing ticket sales, the impact of football on recent graduates - all of those things should put 50% within reach even with the increased costs associated with FBS. UTEP is around 50, LA Tech is around 50, UCF is 55%, ECU is at 41 and Southern Miss is at 43%.

IIRC NC does not allow University athletic programs to utilize state funds, but many other states do. That would make it difficult to compare some of these programs. I have no specific knowldege of Marshall’s situation, and obviously ECU is in our same boat. Just something to consider.

[NinerWupAss]

@Nugget

[quote=“NinerWupAss, post:40, topic:28852”]Marshall’s subsidy is 50% I think that is a realistic goal for us once football is established. If we take advantage of the city, our growing alumni base, CUSA, growing ticket sales, the impact of football on recent graduates - all of those things should put 50% within reach even with the increased costs associated with FBS. UTEP is around 50, LA Tech is around 50, UCF is 55%, ECU is at 41 and Southern Miss is at 43%.

IIRC NC does not allow University athletic programs to utilize state funds, but many other states do. That would make it difficult to compare some of these programs. I have no specific knowldege of Marshall’s situation, and obviously ECU is in our same boat. Just something to consider.[/quote]

That is true - but given all we have going for us I still think 50% is reasonable. In 2013 it says we used 4.7M in school funds, last year it was over 6M. I am curious where that is from because I believe you are correct about using school funds for certain athletic endeavors.

[Niner_National]

@NinerWupAss

[quote=“Nugget, post:46, topic:28852”][quote=“NinerWupAss, post:40, topic:28852”]Marshall’s subsidy is 50% I think that is a realistic goal for us once football is established. If we take advantage of the city, our growing alumni base, CUSA, growing ticket sales, the impact of football on recent graduates - all of those things should put 50% within reach even with the increased costs associated with FBS. UTEP is around 50, LA Tech is around 50, UCF is 55%, ECU is at 41 and Southern Miss is at 43%.

IIRC NC does not allow University athletic programs to utilize state funds, but many other states do. That would make it difficult to compare some of these programs. I have no specific knowldege of Marshall’s situation, and obviously ECU is in our same boat. Just something to consider.[/quote]

That is true - but given all we have going for us I still think 50% is reasonable. In 2013 it says we used 4.7M in school funds, last year it was over 6M. I am curious where that is from because I believe you are correct about using school funds for certain athletic endeavors.[/quote]My best guess is those school funds are for paying for facilities construction and upkeep. The bonds for those are probably tied to the school and not the athletic department, so the re-payment would probably also come from the school.

[NinerWupAss]

@Niner National

[quote=“NinerWupAss, post:47, topic:28852”][quote=“Nugget, post:46, topic:28852”][quote=“NinerWupAss, post:40, topic:28852”]Marshall’s subsidy is 50% I think that is a realistic goal for us once football is established. If we take advantage of the city, our growing alumni base, CUSA, growing ticket sales, the impact of football on recent graduates - all of those things should put 50% within reach even with the increased costs associated with FBS. UTEP is around 50, LA Tech is around 50, UCF is 55%, ECU is at 41 and Southern Miss is at 43%.

IIRC NC does not allow University athletic programs to utilize state funds, but many other states do. That would make it difficult to compare some of these programs. I have no specific knowldege of Marshall’s situation, and obviously ECU is in our same boat. Just something to consider.[/quote]

That is true - but given all we have going for us I still think 50% is reasonable. In 2013 it says we used 4.7M in school funds, last year it was over 6M. I am curious where that is from because I believe you are correct about using school funds for certain athletic endeavors.[/quote]My best guess is those school funds are for paying for facilities construction and upkeep. The bonds for those are probably tied to the school and not the athletic department, so the re-payment would probably also come from the school.[/quote]

That makes sense.