-
Hi Guest,
We've updated the site to combine all the forums that were part of the Big Sky Fans Network into one location. This will make it easier to navigate and participate in all the discussions for each school without having to have multiple accounts, etc. We are still working out some tweaks but please let us know if you notice anything.
With the migration, in some circumstances, your username could have been merged with one of your other usernames from the other forums. If this is the case, you can request to change your username in your account details page of your profile. -
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
-
Guest, do want an ad free experience on BigSkyFans.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!
Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > BigSky Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month
Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!
Money, Money, Money
- Thread starter clawman1
- Start date
“If we didn’t have the stadium expansion, we’d generate a lot less revenue than now,” Fields said.
That’s why he shuffled this fall’s football schedule to ensure six home games. That meant canceling and buying out a long-scheduled game at North Dakota State University at a cost of $100,000; replacing that game with a season-opening home game against Monmouth College, for which the Bobcats will pay a $200,000 guarantee; and adding a game against Southern Methodist University in Dallas to earn the Bobcats a $300,000 guarantee to pay for the changes.
“We had to generate a home game,” Fields said, calling it “critically important to us financially.”
That’s why he shuffled this fall’s football schedule to ensure six home games. That meant canceling and buying out a long-scheduled game at North Dakota State University at a cost of $100,000; replacing that game with a season-opening home game against Monmouth College, for which the Bobcats will pay a $200,000 guarantee; and adding a game against Southern Methodist University in Dallas to earn the Bobcats a $300,000 guarantee to pay for the changes.
“We had to generate a home game,” Fields said, calling it “critically important to us financially.”
OK, OK that is a little bit of an exaggeration but you get my point. They have far greater revenue opportunities with home games that the Eagles do. Plus with all of those additional fans many more are Bobcat booster member and their season tickets command far higher prices than ours do. Thus the disparity in revenue is much more than twice ours.EWURanger said:
The important point here is not about the schedule but the antiquated high school stadium in Cheney. While we have had success in recent years, if the board members care at all about future success we must improve facilities. Like it or not athletics is the front porch of the University.
clawman said:
To that point, news has been disturbingly quiet in regards to our own stadium expansion... which really should be the major focal point of the university. Clearly, we should have some spare time available since scheduling isn't getting any consideration... :roll:
I think the BOT is taking a long and careful look at the Gateway project revenue forecasts before they jump all in. If you recall, Brewster Hall was touted to be a similar deal. A residential hall near the business district that would blend community and university together and be partially funded by retail rental. Brewster Hall has flopped with every attempt at drawing community businesses into it failing. I have never heard how much money the university has lost from projected rental revenue that never materialized but half the retail space has never been rented, not even once. The other half has finally settled on a university dining facility cause they can't keep anyone else. Multiple that cost X 10 and you have the Gateway project.
I'm all for the Gateway project, don't get me wrong but the vibes I am hearing is that there is some skepticism that the projected revenue from retail etc. will materialize. Last I heard, they project was having to offer up some firm long term numbers that show that it can sustain itself. Kind of a show, don't tell challenge from the BOT.
I'm all for the Gateway project, don't get me wrong but the vibes I am hearing is that there is some skepticism that the projected revenue from retail etc. will materialize. Last I heard, they project was having to offer up some firm long term numbers that show that it can sustain itself. Kind of a show, don't tell challenge from the BOT.
ewueagle2010
Active member
Just because there hasn't been any new information for the public, doesn't mean nothing is happening. I sat in on an updated presentation about 3 weeks ago and quite a bit had been accomplished but this kind if project doesn't happen over night. My guess is that we're still 2-3 years away. At the time of this presentation, the university was waiting on a 5 million dollar donation to finish the architecture design phase. This project has so much neat stuff that the University and City of Cheney would benefit from!
BLACKFALKIN1
Active member
ewueagle2010 said:
Groundbreaking should have began for this in feb 2011. Eastern can wait forever if they want to but Beau Baldwin is a great coach and he won't be at Eastern forever. And Eastern cant remain great without great recruits and its easier to get great recruits with great facilities. If EWU is constantly playing catch up bc the powers that be refuse to put FB first. Get that shxt built and let it pay for itself later down the line. All that needs to be done is to accept more students and add a recreation/athletics fee. Done.
Larry Weir
Active member
While I'm in the responding mood, the title of Clawman's subject hits the nail right on the head. Here are some things to think about from that linked article:
MSU grossed $2.4 million dollars in ticket sales from six home games last year and will add another $400,000 from ticket increases in 2013. Anyone care to guess what EWU gets from ticket sales per (non-Montana) home game?
MSU is paying $200,000 to Monmouth for this game. So much for the folks who think EWU can buy a non-conference game vs. a D-1 opponent for $50-75,000. Granted MSU was desperate and could do better if they had more time to get a deal done and more schools with openings than they have now. But it still costs BSC teams somewhere around $125,000 to buy a game. And as a clue to the question above, that's more money than EWU grosses in ticket sales for a single game.
Costs are higher. Just with two new teams coming into the conference, EWU is paying roughly $70,000 in extra airfare just this season. Just the general plane ticket is much more expensive than it was five years ago. Not to mention about double the scholarship cost, the increased cost to feed and house athletes when the campus is generally closed during August and over holidays, equipment, training supplies, and on and on and on. Our football assistants are finally getting a well-deserved raise next year, but are still underpaid compared to much of the rest of the conference. And so, volleyball, soccer, etc. assistants are probably going to be getting raises as well. Don't know this for a fact, but guessing it's around the corner if it's not happening for the next school year.
The bottom line is unless you have a program that is generating over two million dollars in ticket sales, your school is going to be playing a couple of big boys every year to balance the budget. In the BSC, that means everyone but UM and MSU are probably in the same boat, unless their university (not athletic) administration is willing to bite the bullet. Add North Dakota in with the Montana's because of their men's hockey team, which sells out 18 games a year at probably around $225,000 per game, if not more.
EWU has almost maxed out the amount of money they get per home game as there are not enough good seats to sell. This is why the Gateway project is so important. That will add another 8,500 seats or so that are better than what we have now to sell. And the average price per ticket will go up with better seats available. Then EWU can join that club and we'll start seeing more favorable schedules on a regular basis.
MSU grossed $2.4 million dollars in ticket sales from six home games last year and will add another $400,000 from ticket increases in 2013. Anyone care to guess what EWU gets from ticket sales per (non-Montana) home game?
MSU is paying $200,000 to Monmouth for this game. So much for the folks who think EWU can buy a non-conference game vs. a D-1 opponent for $50-75,000. Granted MSU was desperate and could do better if they had more time to get a deal done and more schools with openings than they have now. But it still costs BSC teams somewhere around $125,000 to buy a game. And as a clue to the question above, that's more money than EWU grosses in ticket sales for a single game.
Costs are higher. Just with two new teams coming into the conference, EWU is paying roughly $70,000 in extra airfare just this season. Just the general plane ticket is much more expensive than it was five years ago. Not to mention about double the scholarship cost, the increased cost to feed and house athletes when the campus is generally closed during August and over holidays, equipment, training supplies, and on and on and on. Our football assistants are finally getting a well-deserved raise next year, but are still underpaid compared to much of the rest of the conference. And so, volleyball, soccer, etc. assistants are probably going to be getting raises as well. Don't know this for a fact, but guessing it's around the corner if it's not happening for the next school year.
The bottom line is unless you have a program that is generating over two million dollars in ticket sales, your school is going to be playing a couple of big boys every year to balance the budget. In the BSC, that means everyone but UM and MSU are probably in the same boat, unless their university (not athletic) administration is willing to bite the bullet. Add North Dakota in with the Montana's because of their men's hockey team, which sells out 18 games a year at probably around $225,000 per game, if not more.
EWU has almost maxed out the amount of money they get per home game as there are not enough good seats to sell. This is why the Gateway project is so important. That will add another 8,500 seats or so that are better than what we have now to sell. And the average price per ticket will go up with better seats available. Then EWU can join that club and we'll start seeing more favorable schedules on a regular basis.
marceagfan5
Active member
ewueagle2010 said:
Not sure if we were in the same meeting or not, but I heard similar things. The University needs commitments from their donors that they have sought out, or are currently seeking out. The really need commitments from 3-5 of the Big Fish to really move this in the right direction. We should know a lot more in the coming months but I think we are still 9-12 months out on the design and donor phase to get the ball rolling.
I was skeptical about the Gateway project before I heard a lot of the EWU admin talk about it and I really think Clawman and Larry are correct, if you build it, they will come. If we keep our winning tradition (which we will) and upgrade our facilities, it will make for a great game day atmosphere and eventually generate a lot of $$$.
marceagfan5
Active member
Larry Weir said:
Always thought we could put a pretty good college hockey team out there with a lot of fan support, always wondered why we never did. The Chiefs have great support, we are in a region close enough to Canada to attract a lot of quality players, and our club team seems to do well...
Rontheoldwiseeagle
Active member
Title 9, Title 9, Title 9, Title 9, Title 9, Title 9.marceagfan5 said:
My understanding is we are still short a women athletic team to completely comply with Title 9
Maybe we could field a co-ed Hockey team. Sad, in order to field a team that might provide income, we have to loose more $$ on another womens team. Our cheapest avenue is still to build mens and womens championship basketball teams. Costs are known and revenues would go to up to feed the budget.
