Athletics Annual Report to the State Board

[Skippy]

Every February, the state's four-year schools report to the Idaho State Board of Education on the financial state of their athletic departments. They give actual numbers for the fiscal year that ended June 30 of last year, and projections for the year ending this June 30. It's always instructive for me to see how those numbers look. This year, the "highlights" of the reports from Boise State, Idaho and ISU, as noted by the State Board staff, were:

Boise State's program is projecting a fiscal year net loss of $970 K, and their end of the year funding balance will be just $17 K. I know we all think of BSU as an athletic juggernaut, and it's true they raise a ton of money. But, they are also spending a ton -- For FY 13, the Broncos are expected to spend over $80,000 per participant in their athletic program. Compare that to ISU ($42,000 per participant), or Idaho ($61,000 per participant), and you can see why the Broncos are having a hard time making ends meet lately. The Broncos clearly can't continue on this budget trajectory for long. You can see why increasing their television revenues has become such a priority.

Idaho anticipates revenues from ticket sales to increase by 70 percent this year, and conference revenue to rise by 89 percent. The Vandals are projecting their total program revenue will be up 12 percent, with a net income of $20K and an ending funding balance at $344 K. The Vandals enter into the brave new world of football independence next fall, which will likely cut into their conference revenues significantly.

Idaho State is projecting that revenue from ticket sales will drop about 33 percent this year (to about $218K for all sports), that total program revenue will drop about 6 percent, but that revenue from game guarantees (those dreaded money games in football and basketball we all hate) will be up about 24 percent.

Once again, ISU's athletic program is staying afloat with game guarantees, student activity fees and revenue from the state coffers. The school is projecting that revenue from royalty/advertisement/sponsorship (down 39.6 percent) and Big Sky Conference revenue sharing (down 23.5 percent) will fall significantly. State and institutional support (taxpayer and student contributions) will be up 9 percent, the school estimates. ISU anticipates zero net income for the year, and an ending fund balance of $1.4 M.

Here's a link to all the meeting materials if you're interesting in more detail:

http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/meetings/board/archive/2013/02_20-21_13/07BAHR_FIN_FEB13.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Spudhead]

Wow, I had no idea the ISU athletic department's financial situation was so dire. Why on earth would a recruit reading this choose to come into such a mess?

 

[PBP]

Sin City:

It beats being a million in debt though as was the case a few years ago.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Wow, I had no idea the ISU athletic department's financial situation was so dire. Why on earth would a recruit reading this choose to come into such a mess?

I don't see ISU's situation as "dire." The department has $1.4 million in the bank vice $17,000 for BSU and $344,000 for U of I. Theoretically, if the Department continues to break even every year, ISU is in good shape. BSU, on the other hand, can't continue to lose $970,000 a year. With only $17 K in reserves, they are going to have to start making some money and soon.

 

[SLCBengal]

I don't know whether I'd say it's "dire," as much as I'd say it's the way of life for nearly every institution if you're not in one of the "big 5" conferences (i.e. BCS).

USA Today publishes a yearly update on college athletic department finances -- particularly, it includes the percent subsidy of each participating school. I believe the most recent update was from last May (through 2011)...

Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money. The NCAA and others consider such funds "allocated" or everything not generated by the department's athletics functions.

Percent subsidy: Percent of revenues come from allocated sources.

Click: USA Today: Sports' College Athletics Finances

Compare the percent subsidy for a school in a conference such as the Pac-12, SEC, or Big 10, and then look at the percent subsidy for everyone else. ISU is pretty similar to most of these other schools, and as of the last report, is below the Big Sky average...

Eastern Washington 72.7%
Idaho State 63.2%
Montana 40.2%
Montana State 70.3%
North Dakota 48.1%
Northern Arizona 78.4%
Northern Colorado 59.2%
Portland State 75.6%
Sacramento State 79.1%
Southern Utah 77.9%
Weber State 64.6%

(Other affiliate members, regional schools)

UC Davis 77.6%
Cal Poly 77.8%
Idaho 53.3%
Utah State 64.1%
Utah Valley 89.3%
BSU 28%

 

[sasquatch]

Idaho anticipates revenues from ticket sales to increase by 70 percent this year, and conference revenue to rise by 89 percent. The Vandals are projecting their total program revenue will be up 12 percent, with a net income of $20K and an ending funding balance at $344 K. The Vandals enter into the brave new world of football independence next fall, which will likely cut into their conference revenues significantly.

If I'm not mistaken, much of the projected increase in conference revenue for Idaho is because of the WAC falling apart. That is, Idaho and New Mexico State will be the lone schools to share in the exit fees, any bowl revenue carry over, and any other fee or penalty which the departing schools will forfeit.

 

[spazdog1]

I could be wrong, but I think Idaho's playing a couple of money games next year... Florida State and Ole Miss' come to mind. I'm not sure what kind of payday Washington State will be giving them for the 8 mile trip. All that said, I don't know how they will reach the predicted 80% increase in ticket sales. There's probably some new found excitement in their program based on the new coaching staff and an elevated sense of supporting their team while they begin their trek as an independent. But 80% increase?

 

[Skippy]

I could be wrong, but I think Idaho's playing a couple of money games next year... Florida State and Ole Miss' come to mind. I'm not sure what kind of payday Washington State will be giving them for the 8 mile trip. All that said, I don't know how they will reach the predicted 80% increase in ticket sales. There's probably some new found excitement in their program based on the new coaching staff and an elevated sense of supporting their team while they begin their trek as an independent. But 80% increase?

Keep in mind that most of the increase in ticket sales has already occurred -- these projections are for FY13, which began July 1 of last year, and ends June 30 of this year -- so the schools already know how their football ticket sales went and have a pretty good idea of how basketball is going to wind up.

Yes, the Vandals will be replacing conference revenue -- including the exit fees they'll collect as part of the demise of the WAC -- with money games in the future. That is the trade-off they signed up for as an independent.

 

[Skippy]

Just noticed this story in the Bozeman Chronicle about MSU athletics, which illustrates that, no matter how successful your athletic programs, you're always behind in the arms race. MSU is filling up its newly expanded 18,000-seat football stadium, but they are asking the university to provide an extra $1.1 million to the athletic department in state support. Keeping up with the Joneses -- or, in this case, the Grizzlies -- is a never-ending battle.


http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/montana_state_university/article_9954c7cc-7fab-11e2-a630-001a4bcf887a.html#user-comment-area" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[PBP]

I've been told that also works both ways when it comes to coaching salaries.

I head that when MSU raised Tricia Binford's salary it became close to what Robin Selvig was making so supposedly UM raised his to make sure he was ahead of the state competition.

PBP