Self-Sustaining

[bigskyconf]

People, both here and far, keep tossing out the idea that PSU would be in better shape financially just by nixing the football team. However, just like most FCS schools (and all the Big Sky teams except North Dakota currently), the PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport. So, while closing the football program may eliminate some expenses, you are also losing the revenue associated with the sport. In most cases, the end result is a wash. Therefore, it makes no sense to shutter a self-sustaining program. There is no benefit to the university in this case.

 

[BroadwayVik]

Any self-sustaining program has earned the right to its own continuance. That's why PSU and some other programs commit to playing at least two revenue games a season in their Out-of-Conference schedule. This is the price of football program continuance.

Go Viks!!

 

[Alan1]

People, both here and far, keep tossing out the idea that PSU would be in better shape financially just by nixing the football team. However, just like most FCS schools (and all the Big Sky teams except North Dakota currently), the PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport. So, while closing the football program may eliminate some expenses, you are also losing the revenue associated with the sport. In most cases, the end result is a wash. Therefore, it makes no sense to shutter a self-sustaining program. There is no benefit to the university in this case.

I believe you are mistaken. In its FY 2014 report to the NCAA we reported football revenues of $2,310,429 (including student fee revenue of $538,505 and direct institutional support of $1,134,123). We also reported football expenditures of $3,876,738. Later reports may show better numbers but I doubt the difference would be significant.

 

[bigskyconf]

People, both here and far, keep tossing out the idea that PSU would be in better shape financially just by nixing the football team. However, just like most FCS schools (and all the Big Sky teams except North Dakota currently), the PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport. So, while closing the football program may eliminate some expenses, you are also losing the revenue associated with the sport. In most cases, the end result is a wash. Therefore, it makes no sense to shutter a self-sustaining program. There is no benefit to the university in this case.

I believe you are mistaken. In its FY 2014 report to the NCAA we reported football revenues of $2,310,429 (including student fee revenue of $538,505 and direct institutional support of $1,134,123). We also reported football expenditures of $3,876,738. Later reports may show better numbers but I doubt the difference would be significant.

I believe we were put on notice by the school administration back in 2011 or 2012 that we had to start striving towards self-sustaining status, otherwise face being dropped (big news around the city back then). 2014, we were still in the transition stage and then we had Burton's buyout on the expenditures. However, shortly after we did achieve self-sustaining status.

 

[bigskyconf]

People, both here and far, keep tossing out the idea that PSU would be in better shape financially just by nixing the football team. However, just like most FCS schools (and all the Big Sky teams except North Dakota currently), the PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport. So, while closing the football program may eliminate some expenses, you are also losing the revenue associated with the sport. In most cases, the end result is a wash. Therefore, it makes no sense to shutter a self-sustaining program. There is no benefit to the university in this case.

I believe you are mistaken. In its FY 2014 report to the NCAA we reported football revenues of $2,310,429 (including student fee revenue of $538,505 and direct institutional support of $1,134,123). We also reported football expenditures of $3,876,738. Later reports may show better numbers but I doubt the difference would be significant.

I believe we were put on notice by the school administration back in 2011 or 2012 that we had to start striving towards self-sustaining status, otherwise face being dropped (big news around the city back then). 2014, we were still in the transition stage and then we had Burton's buyout on the expenditures. However, shortly after we did achieve self-sustaining status.

From Ken Goe of Olive,
http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootball/index.ssf/2013/12/portland_states_football_progr.html

Then the next year, from ESPN,
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/93033/meet-portland-state-the-leading-light-of-oregon-football-on-a-tight-budget

 

[Alan1]

@bigskyconf wrote:"[T]he PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport."

So where does the $3,000,000+ we spend on football come from? We have no radio and tv revenue. Attendance of around 4,000 can't generate it. I haven't seen any press releases of some Phil Knight kind of generosity.

Surprise! the vast majority comes from funds allocated by the University to support football and student fees allocated to support football.

 

[martymoose]

@bigskyconf wrote:"[T]he PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport."

So where does the $3,000,000+ we spend on football come from? We have no radio and tv revenue. Attendance of around 4,000 can't generate it. I haven't seen any press releases of some Phil Knight kind of generosity.

Surprise! the vast majority comes from funds allocated by the University to support football and student fees allocated to support football.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but each BSC program gets some sort of the revenue pie of the Root TV deal.

 

[Alan1]

@bigskyconf wrote:"[T]he PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport."

So where does the $3,000,000+ we spend on football come from? We have no radio and tv revenue. Attendance of around 4,000 can't generate it. I haven't seen any press releases of some Phil Knight kind of generosity.

Surprise! the vast majority comes from funds allocated by the University to support football and student fees allocated to support football.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but each BSC program gets some sort of the revenue pie of the Root TV deal.

Maybe a few thousand.

 

[martymoose]

@bigskyconf wrote:"[T]he PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport."

So where does the $3,000,000+ we spend on football come from? We have no radio and tv revenue. Attendance of around 4,000 can't generate it. I haven't seen any press releases of some Phil Knight kind of generosity.

Surprise! the vast majority comes from funds allocated by the University to support football and student fees allocated to support football.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but each BSC program gets some sort of the revenue pie of the Root TV deal.

Maybe a few thousand.

So, "We have no radio and tv revenue" = "Maybe a few thousand"

 

[bigskyconf]

Surprise! the vast majority comes from funds allocated by the University to support football and student fees allocated to support football.

Got a link for that?

I can give you more proof if you want. Both Goe and ESPN don't generally put their reputation on the line regarding bogus information. They're pretty thorough in their research.

 

[bigskyconf]

@bigskyconf wrote:"[T]he PSU football team is self-sustaining. That means they generate enough revenue to cover their own expenses, therefore the university does not have to allocate any funds for the sport."

So where does the $3,000,000+ we spend on football come from? We have no radio and tv revenue. Attendance of around 4,000 can't generate it. I haven't seen any press releases of some Phil Knight kind of generosity.

Surprise! the vast majority comes from funds allocated by the University to support football and student fees allocated to support football.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but each BSC program gets some sort of the revenue pie of the Root TV deal.

1. The ROOT TV deal, as well as Pluto TV and Eleven Sports.
2. Any appearances on any other network TV (Pac-12, ESPN, FOX, etc.), that school gets to keep it.
3. Each school gets an equal share from the conference.
4. Each school shares in any playoff revenue generated from any conference school.
5. School keeps all the profits from any merchandise sold (shirts, hats, etc.)
6. School keeps all donations.

To clear it up, what I am meaning here by the term "school" is that particular university's football program. There are other sources, of course (radio advertising), but these are the main ones.