Story on Idaho Football...

[PBP]

Placed this here because I wasn't sure where else to put it.

In the Sunday Journal's Insight section on page C3 there's a terrific column titled, "Some thoughts on Vandal football" by Boise reporter Chuck Malloy. Looks at the Idaho football situation and quotes Doug Fullerton of the Big Sky.

My take on the story as I read it was that Malloy and in one comment by Fullerton, that they thought Idaho was making a mistake, perhaps a major one, by trying to play football in a conference a few time zones away simply because of money.

Regardless of your take on Idaho and what they should be doing, this is a worthwhile read in my opinion.

My opinion is well known, they are insane for doing this and not returning to the Big Sky. Idaho isn't, wasn't and never will be a "big time" football program and all they are going to be doing is racking up losses, getting players hurt and playing in front of thousands of empty seats in Moscow.

Idaho for example opens the season this year at Florida. What's the over / under on them losing by 50? LOL.

They belong in a conference where they may actually have a chance to win some games as well as have natural fan rivalries with Eastern, Montana, Montana State and ISU.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Placed this here because I wasn't sure where else to put it.

In the Sunday Journal's Insight section on page C3 there's a terrific column titled, "Some thoughts on Vandal football" by Boise reporter Chuck Malloy. Looks at the Idaho football situation and quotes Doug Fullerton of the Big Sky.

My take on the story as I read it was that Malloy and in one comment by Fullerton, that they thought Idaho was making a mistake, perhaps a major one, by trying to play football in a conference a few time zones away simply because of money.

Regardless of your take on Idaho and what they should be doing, this is a worthwhile read in my opinion.

My opinion is well known, they are insane for doing this and not returning to the Big Sky. Idaho isn't, wasn't and never will be a "big time" football program and all they are going to be doing is racking up losses, getting players hurt and playing in front of thousands of empty seats in Moscow.

Idaho for example opens the season this year at Florida. What's the over / under on them losing by 50? LOL.

They belong in a conference where they may actually have a chance to win some games as well as have natural fan rivalries with Eastern, Montana, Montana State and ISU.

PBP

I have mixed feelings about Idaho's situation. I can certainly understand why they are doing what they are doing: 1) Because they are FBS, they get paid double what FCS (1-AA) teams get for body bag games. They are going to get just short of $1 M from Florida, for example, while ISU is getting $400 to $500 K for its money games. 2) They will be getting $1 m a year from the Sun Belt as part of the revenue sharing formula from the new playoff system; 3) Their fans find games with teams like Northern Colorado and North Dakota unattractive after years of playing a D-1 schedule; 4) Their pride will always be hurt by the fact that BSU has not only moved up, but been wildly successful while doing it.

At the same time, Idaho faces many of the same problems that ISU has -- a small fan base, outdated facilities, no television sets, and no "big pocket" donors. Their plight is exacerbated by trying to compete in FBS with a $20 million budget, as opposed to trying to compete with FCS schools that have much smaller budgets. With the demise of WAC football, there are no western FBS conferences that are a natural fit for them. So they are really stuck between a rock and a hard spot.

I found Malloy's column naïve on one point: surely, he should know that college athletics these days is ENTIRELY about the money. Historic, regional rivalries have been sacrificed all across the country (see BYU-Utah, Missouri-Kansas, BSU-Idaho) so that schools can chase more prestigious conferences with huge television contracts. And he should also know that U of I fans see this all as about a lot more than football. They see BSU as a threat to their perceived academic leadership in this state, and I'd say that's probably a very real scenario. BSU is where the money, population and political power is, and they have used their rise as a football power to increase enrollment, political influence and academic growth. I'm not sure U of I, or ISU for that matter, will ever be able to fend off the blue-and-orange rise to dominance in this state.

Of course, Idaho fans will look at ISU's struggles in football and say, "Who are you to lecture us about what level of football we should be playing?" Ultimately, their administration and fan base will have to decide their own dreams and aspirations, and how to pay for their pursuit.

 

[PBP]

Brad:

Reading a number of comments in the Statesman over the past few years it appears that many of Idaho's fans feel they are nuts to keep trying to play D-1 football and that a small vocal minority (i.e. influential alumni) are driving this. There appears to be a percentage (how big is open to question) that to me, have a realistic view of their situation.

Time will tell but since they left the Big Sky they have struggled on the field, in the stands (i.e. attendance) and according to your budget stories over the past decade have been running millions of dollars in the red from an athletic department standpoint.

Common sense would say they simply can't keep doing this forever.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Brad:

Reading a number of comments in the Statesman over the past few years it appears that many of Idaho's fans feel they are nuts to keep trying to play D-1 football and that a small vocal minority (i.e. influential alumni) are driving this. There appears to be a percentage (how big is open to question) that to me, have a realistic view of their situation.

Time will tell but since they left the Big Sky they have struggled on the field, in the stands (i.e. attendance) and according to your budget stories over the past decade have been running millions of dollars in the red from an athletic department standpoint.

Common sense would say they simply can't keep doing this forever.

PBP

I don't think they are running in the red, Mark. They are limited by the SBOE, as are ISU and BSU, on how much state appropriations and student fees they can spend on athletics. Also like BSU and ISU, they can't spend appropriated money on athletic facilities per se, although they used the "life safety" argument to use state funding to remodel the Kibbie Dome a few years ago. Financially, they are better off at FBS because, as I noted above, they get paid more for money games than FCS schools do, and they will get $1 million a year from playoff revenue sharing.

As to how their alums feel about it, I think you'd have to do a scientific poll to know for sure, but there sure aren't a lot of supporters for moving back to the Big Sky on their football message board. Again, that's certainly not a scientific poll, but I have to think that their president and athletic director would be hearing plenty from the rank and file and what they are hearingring now is stay the course at FBS.

How long can Idaho continue on this course? Well, both U of I and the Sun Belt have "opt out" clauses that kick in about 4 years, I believe. If Idaho holds up its end of the bargain, gets competitive in football and the Sun Belt still needs them, I don't see them ever bringing football back to FCS. If they continue to have 1-10 seasons and don't materially contribute to the conference, you could see them back in 4 years or so.

 

[spazdog1]

Skippy, I believe you are right. If the Vandals can bring something worth while to the Sun Belt, the Sun Belt will retain them. If not, the Vandals will be left to find another home. I can't see them in the Mountain West. Their football team does nothing but bring down the conference's strength of schedule. That's a killer for the new big bowl opportunity. Regionally, without another major shake up in the FBS landscape, there is no place for them to go at that level.

 

[JJB]

I don't blame them for staying the FBS course at this point. There are still too many unknowns about the future. They will always be able to move down a division, but they may not be able to move up again.

 

[boisebengal]

When Idaho moved up to FBS a while back then they needed to fund a few more sports, per NCAA requirements. Plus they need to pay more assistant FB coaches, and they needed to fund more scholarships -- from 63 to 85 every year. Plus the travel expenses associated with playing at Sun Belt schools would have to be much more than they are playing at Big Sky schools. And I've asked this question before and have yet to get an answer, but you wonder how much these added expenditures are every year relative to what they would have been if they would have just stayed in the Big Sky. And I doubt that the added revenues associated with the Sun Belt revenue sharing and the added revenues from the body bag games would more than compensate for the expenditures involved with competing at the FBS level.

But then again I've heard it said many times that if Idaho were to drop down to the Big Sky for FB then many of their donors would altogether quit supporting them, and this is a dollar amount that could be difficult to calculate. Because no one would know for sure until it happened. Many of the Idaho faithful aren't happy at all that they're going back to the Big Sky for all their Olympic sports. And to them if they were to drop down to the Big Sky for FB as well then that would be like ISU dropping down to a D-2 league to play teams like Adams State and Western State. And I can certainly see their point, after they've been competing in various FBS leagues for the last 20 years.

 

[spazdog1]

I've thought the same thing... funding is one thing, expenses are another. One thing I've learned over my 50 some odd years, when you cut expense, it falls to the bottom line. FBS may give Idaho more money but what's a scholarship cost the school, $5K to $7K per year. To stay FBS, they have to fund other sports, too. What are those costs? Let's talk about travel expense. What would be the cost to bus to Montana and E.Washington? Would it make sense to bus to ISU and Montana State? Compare those travel and meal costs to play half of their conference schedule in the Sun Belt? What are costs of an empty stadium? If you think about, the list could go on and on.

 

[Skippy]

I've thought the same thing... funding is one thing, expenses are another. One thing I've learned over my 50 some odd years, when you cut expense, it falls to the bottom line. FBS may give Idaho more money but what's a scholarship cost the school, $5K to $7K per year. To stay FBS, they have to fund other sports, too. What are those costs? Let's talk about travel expense. What would be the cost to bus to Montana and E.Washington? Would it make sense to bus to ISU and Montana State? Compare those travel and meal costs to play half of their conference schedule in the Sun Belt? What are costs of an empty stadium? If you think about, the list could go on and on.

Bottom line for Idaho financially: according to their annual report to the SBOE, Idaho athletics generated $106,000 in income during FY 14 (revenues over expenses), and they have about $590 K in the bank. Idaho athletics has generated more revenue than expenses in each of the last five years, after running a $441 K deficit in FY 09. So the Vandal program is not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but they are paying the bills. They can "afford" to be an FBS football program. The question then becomes can they ever be competitive at that level. With the exception of a few seasons since they left the Big Sky after the 1995 season, the answer has been no, but as Bengal fans, we all know that hope springs eternal.

 

[PBP]

Fullerton's comment in the column about "filling the seats" to me was a noteworthy remark. (And I took it as a veiled shot at Idaho's "philosophy".)

I have caught an Idaho home game occasionally via satellite and in Pocatello their games are broadcast on a radio station. When I've watched those few games there has been almost no one in the seats (I have no idea what they are claiming attendance is but that's basically tickets supposedly sold anyway...as opposed to being given away...LOL) Listening on the radio usually when driving home after the ISU broadcast the Kibbie Dome sounds empty, like a ghost town when they are playing at home.

To me that says in a very real basic sense Idaho's situation is not working.

They couldn't draw (based on fans actually showing up) for such teams as oh...Northern Illionis and New Mexico State...can't wait to see what they draw for schools like Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Troy or South Alabama!

From what I've read it seems to me like was mentioned earlier, a small ,vocal group of alumni are driving this. So far it seems Idaho might be listening to the wrong people.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Fullerton's comment in the column about "filling the seats" to me was a noteworthy remark. (And I took it as a veiled shot at Idaho's "philosophy".)

I have caught an Idaho home game occasionally via satellite and in Pocatello their games are broadcast on a radio station. When I've watched those few games there has been almost no one in the seats (I have no idea what they are claiming attendance is but that's basically tickets supposedly sold anyway...as opposed to being given away...LOL) Listening on the radio usually when driving home after the ISU broadcast the Kibbie Dome sounds empty, like a ghost town when they are playing at home.

To me that says in a very real basic sense Idaho's situation is not working.

They couldn't draw (based on fans actually showing up) for such teams as oh...Northern Illionis and New Mexico State...can't wait to see what they draw for schools like Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Troy or South Alabama!

From what I've read it seems to me like was mentioned earlier, a small ,vocal group of alumni are driving this. So far it seems Idaho might be listening to the wrong people.

PBP

Idaho's revenues from ticket sales have fallen from $969 K in 2009 (when they last went to a bowl game) to $717 K in FY 14. Of course, compared to Idaho State's ticket revenues ($250 K in FY 14), the Vandals are still selling a lot more tickets.

Idaho is really in a no-win situation. If they don't start winning some football games, the current situation isn't going to get any better, but it's not clear that moving back to the Big Sky Conference will solve all their problems either.

 

[boisebengal]

One could say that Idaho made a slight profit from football with all things considered. But then again they receive a fair amount more in non-program revenues than we do -- which includes things like money from student fees, general education funds, and institutional support. And therefore their reported figure can be a little misleading. The total non-program support that ISU received in 2010, 2011 and 2012 was about $5.5 million (which are the most recent figures that I could find while searching the 'net). Whereas Idaho received $6.5 million in 2010, $6.8 million in 2011, and they estimated that they'd receive just $6.1 million for 2012 (but they can tell the State Board whatever they want to make their program look good).

Right now ISU's athletic dept. budget sits at around $11 million, which puts us in the lower third of the league in funding. I think that if we were to try to come up with another $500,000 to $1,000,000 or so in non-program revenues, then I would think you'd see a big difference in the product that we put on the field in various sports (depending where they'd use that money).

Idaho has reported a fair amount more in FB ticket sales than we do, but we hold our own pretty well when you look at attendance figures for the Olympic sports. When we start winning in football then I think that we can increase ticket sales dramatically. We've got a losing culture we've got to try to overcome.

One area that Idaho has a big difference from what we have is in terms of booster contributions. For some time we've averaged about $370,000 per year in this area, whereas Idaho normally averages about $2,000,000 per year in contributions. And I know that Donna and staff have been doing everything they can possibly do to increase this, but I think that once we put a quality, competitive football team on the field and can build a tradition, then contributions should increase significantly as well.

 

[JJB]

Idaho is not the only school in this situation. Ask yourself what's wrong with the system when schools in similar predicaments choose to remain FBS rather than moving down to FCS.

Louisiana-Monroe has a budget which would rank second to last in the Big Sky. They moved up to FBS 20 years ago, and they have had only 1 winning season. Eastern Michigan's football attendance last season averaged just over 4,000! It has had only 1 winning season in the last 20 years.

Perhaps it's time to encourage the Power 5 conferences to leave the NCAA, rather than sitting around and waiting for it to happen.

 

[Skippy]

One could say that Idaho made a slight profit from football with all things considered. But then again they receive a fair amount more in non-program revenues than we do -- which includes things like money from student fees, general education funds, and institutional support. And therefore their reported figure can be a little misleading. The total non-program support that ISU received in 2010, 2011 and 2012 was about $5.5 million (which are the most recent figures that I could find while searching the 'net). Whereas Idaho received $6.5 million in 2010, $6.8 million in 2011, and they estimated that they'd receive just $6.1 million for 2012 (but they can tell the State Board whatever they want to make their program look good).

Right now ISU's athletic dept. budget sits at around $7 million, which puts us in the lower third of the league in funding. I think that if we were to try to come up with another $500,000 to $1,000,000 or so in non-program revenues, then I would think you'd see a big difference in the product that we put on the field in various sports (depending where they'd use that money).

Idaho has reported a fair amount more in FB ticket sales than we do, but we hold our own pretty well when you look at attendance figures for the Olympic sports. When we start winning in football then I think that we can increase ticket sales dramatically. We've got a losing culture we've got to try to overcome.

One area that Idaho has a big difference from what we have is in terms of booster contributions. For some time we've averaged about $370,000 per year in this area, whereas Idaho normally averages about $2,000,000 per year in contributions. And I know that Donna and staff have been doing everything they can possibly do to increase this, but I think that once we put a quality, competitive football team on the field and can build a tradition, then contributions should increase significantly as well.

Idaho State's reported budget to the SBOE is a tick over $12 M, a bit more than what USA Today estimated in its study. According to figures compiled by USA Today, here is a budget breakdown of all the schools in the Big Sky, which I noted in a previous post:

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 %


You can see that ISU ranks near the bottom of the league, and you can also see that Eastern Washington's huge in-state recruiting advantage makes it a football power despite small budgets. It really points up the value of having great talent in your own backyard.

As to non-program revenue, nobody in the Big Sky is really making any money off athletics when you look at the percentage of their programs that is subsidized. ISU's program is 64 percent reliant on state money and student fees, according to the USA Today figures. If our program relied solely on money games, ticket sales and royalty and advertising fees ("program revenue"), we'd have an athletic department with less than a $4 million a year budget -- a good DII school, at best.

 

[PBP]

Idaho is not the only school in this situation. Ask yourself what's wrong with the system when schools in similar predicaments choose to remain FBS rather than moving down to FCS.

Louisiana-Monroe has a budget which would rank second to last in the Big Sky. They moved up to FBS 20 years ago, and they have had only 1 winning season. Eastern Michigan's football attendance last season averaged just over 4,000! It has had only 1 winning season in the last 20 years.

Perhaps it's time to encourage the Power 5 conferences to leave the NCAA, rather than sitting around and waiting for it to happen.

JJB:

The NCAA votes on the measures the power five conferences are asking for in August. Emmert expects them to pass, of course they didn't the last time because the power 65 schools don't have the number of votes the smaller conferences / schools do. The commissioners of the ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 all stated separately that if the measures they want don't pass, they'll take matters into their own hands. Many think that means breaking away, taking all the money and forming their own governing body outside of the NCAA.

If that happens, the NCAA becomes about as meaningful as the NIT.

We'll see what happens.

PBP

 

[PBP]

Add the SEC to the power conferences saying "change...or else" to the NCAA.

This story was on the Chicago Tribune web site tonight (Monday):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-sec-mike-slive-ncaa-change-20140714,0,1555669.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PBP

 

[biobengal]

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 %

If our program relied solely on money games, ticket sales and royalty and advertising fees ("program revenue"), we'd have an athletic department with less than a $4 million a year budget -- a good DII school, at best.

Okay, it looks bad, ISU needs to get into the $13 M range to become a more competitive (football) program. However, when looking at this list you see a dramatic split between the top 7 and the bottom 7. ISU does well when compared to latter group in program revenue, $4.21 M, more than any other program in the bottom 7. Clearly, ISU is less reliant on the non-program revenue than any other program in the bottom 7, especially EWU and NAU. If ISU had PSU's non-program revenue they would be close to $14 M and could even drop a money game... not that I am advocating an increase in these sources, if anything, we will likely see these institutional funds shrink in the future.

 

[Skippy]

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 %

If our program relied solely on money games, ticket sales and royalty and advertising fees ("program revenue"), we'd have an athletic department with less than a $4 million a year budget -- a good DII school, at best.

Okay, it looks bad, ISU needs to get into the $13 M range to become a more competitive (football) program. However, when looking at this list you see a dramatic split between the top 7 and the bottom 7. ISU does well when compared to latter group in program revenue, $4.21 M, more than any other program in the bottom 7. Clearly, ISU is less reliant on the non-program revenue than any other program in the bottom 7, especially EWU and NAU. If ISU had PSU's non-program revenue they would be close to $14 M and could even drop a money game... not that I am advocating an increase in these sources, if anything, we will likely see these institutional funds shrink in the future.

My sources tell me EWU is about to announce a big stadium expansion project. It would be so great if we could get our hands on a $3 to $5 M to do a nice Holt remodel. I keep buying lottery tickets....

 

[Siouxfan2]

The return of Idaho football is mandated by the agreement that the Vandals signed with the Big Sky. They have a few years, but they are contractually obligated to return football to the Sky.

Fullerton revealed Monday that changes to the FBS bylaws in 10 days will have a major positive impact on the Big Sky.

Presumably, the change will allow FCS conferences to move up to FBS, which wasn't previously allowed. If this is the case, the entire Big Sky may reclassify. Fullerton talked openly about getting NDSU, and SDSU to join back in June in a North Dakota paper. Those two would move if they could go FBS.

Perhaps Idaho St, Weber St, SUU, NAU, N Colo would stay FCS. Don't know yet. All the other schools in the Big Sky are either above the 15,000 seat threshold, or planning to build to get there.

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-694992.html

 

[Siouxfan2]

One could say that Idaho made a slight profit from football with all things considered. But then again they receive a fair amount more in non-program revenues than we do -- which includes things like money from student fees, general education funds, and institutional support. And therefore their reported figure can be a little misleading. The total non-program support that ISU received in 2010, 2011 and 2012 was about $5.5 million (which are the most recent figures that I could find while searching the 'net). Whereas Idaho received $6.5 million in 2010, $6.8 million in 2011, and they estimated that they'd receive just $6.1 million for 2012 (but they can tell the State Board whatever they want to make their program look good).

Right now ISU's athletic dept. budget sits at around $7 million, which puts us in the lower third of the league in funding. I think that if we were to try to come up with another $500,000 to $1,000,000 or so in non-program revenues, then I would think you'd see a big difference in the product that we put on the field in various sports (depending where they'd use that money).

Idaho has reported a fair amount more in FB ticket sales than we do, but we hold our own pretty well when you look at attendance figures for the Olympic sports. When we start winning in football then I think that we can increase ticket sales dramatically. We've got a losing culture we've got to try to overcome.

One area that Idaho has a big difference from what we have is in terms of booster contributions. For some time we've averaged about $370,000 per year in this area, whereas Idaho normally averages about $2,000,000 per year in contributions. And I know that Donna and staff have been doing everything they can possibly do to increase this, but I think that once we put a quality, competitive football team on the field and can build a tradition, then contributions should increase significantly as well.

Idaho State's reported budget to the SBOE is a tick over $12 M, a bit more than what USA Today estimated in its study. According to figures compiled by USA Today, here is a budget breakdown of all the schools in the Big Sky, which I noted in a previous post:

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 %


You can see that ISU ranks near the bottom of the league, and you can also see that Eastern Washington's huge in-state recruiting advantage makes it a football power despite small budgets. It really points up the value of having great talent in your own backyard.

As to non-program revenue, nobody in the Big Sky is really making any money off athletics when you look at the percentage of their programs that is subsidized. ISU's program is 64 percent reliant on state money and student fees, according to the USA Today figures. If our program relied solely on money games, ticket sales and royalty and advertising fees ("program revenue"), we'd have an athletic department with less than a $4 million a year budget -- a good DII school, at best.

Nice post.

UND's budget is understated, because it doesn't control Engelstad Arena (REA), which is a charity organization that gives its profits to UND athletics. The only money UND gets directly from fans are seat licenses (hockey licenses are expensive). The ticket money to the REA (as well as suite rental, concessions, parking, etc) are used to pay the expenses of operating the REA (over 250,000 fans pay at least $30 per game and their are other events as well as concerts). When the REA becomes part of UND athletics, UND's athletic budget will be $30 mill in todays dollars.