Money Talks

[Skippy]

USA Today is out with their annual data base showing what Division I athletic programs spend each year. This one is for FY13: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is how the Big Sky schools rate in athletic department spending, followed by the percentage of their budget that is subsidized (i.e, comes from state, institutional or student fee support, vs. "earned income" through ticket sales, television revenue, etc.)

1. *Cal-Davis, $28.2 M, 79 %
2. North Dakota, $22.1 M, 49.5 %
3. *Cal Poly, $21 M, 76 %
4. Montana, $20 M, 43 %
5. ~Idaho, 19.5 M, 47.4 %
6. Sac State, $19.4 M, 78 %
7. Montana State, $17.9 M, 58%
8. Portland State, $13.4 M, 72
9. Northern Arizona, $12.8 M, 74 %
10. Weber State, $12.3 M, 66 %
11. Northern Colorado, $12.2 M, 68 %
12. IDAHO STATE, $11.7 M, 64 %
13. Eastern Washington, $11.4 M, 72 %
14. Southern Utah, $11.1 M, 75 %

*--Football only members
~Members in all sports but football.

Off-the-cuff observations: Any questions as to why Idaho State struggles in the two big revenue sports?
Any questions why Idaho struggles as it attempts to sit at the big boy table in football?
Eastern Washington's football program should get some kind of national award for doing the most with the least. Really shows the importance of having a healthy recruiting base in your backyard, doesn't it?

Non-Big Sky observations: Utah State should get the same award as EWU. The Aggies' budget for FY13 was $23 M, and they were outspent by the likes of New Hampshire, Stony Brook, Rhode Island and Flordia Atlantic. Yet the Aggies are putting a quality product on the football field, and continually upgrading their facilities off of it.

Boise State has the 59th largest budget in D-1, at $42 M, about 26 percent of which is subsidized. The Broncos have seen huge growth in ticket sales over the last 8 years, but you have to wonder if their growth is reaching its natural cap. It's a good thing the Broncos have a relatively deep pool of generous donors. While growth in their ordinary revenues streams like ticket sales may have peaked out, they continue to build new facilities.

 

[spudbowl]

I remain convinced that ISU has a loyal and solid fan base. Considering that the football team last had a winning season in 2003 and the men's basketball team has not been consistently competitive in over 20 years, ISU is lucky to have any fan base but it certainly does. Some winning will bring in some new, younger fans and that is much needed.

 

[Skippy]

I remain convinced that ISU has a loyal and solid fan base. Considering that the football team last had a winning season in 2003 and the men's basketball team has not been consistently competitive in over 20 years, ISU is lucky to have any fan base but it certainly does. Some winning will bring in some new, younger fans and that is much needed.

There's no question about that, Spud. For as little success as we have had in the two revenue sports recently, it is impressive the number of fans we retain. I have sold ISU football tickets at work for a couple of years and sold over 100 season tickets each year. Last year I didn't do it, and it was amazing the number of calls and emails I got from folks wondering if I was going to sell them. There is a real pent up demand for a competitive team to root for.

What ISU doesn't have is a core of deep pocket donors who can make major facilities happen. They've done a good job of cultivating the $100 k type donors that have resulted in things like the new practice field and the softball stadium. Unfortunately we are a little short of the millionaires we need to build a new basketball stadium or remodel Holt.

The other reality is we get precious little income from ticket sales (less than $250 k a year from all sports), so we have to play more money games than I'd like to see in order to pay the day to day operating costs.