http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=7725353&p=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Great thread..some good in-depth analysis to kill the time.
Great thread..some good in-depth analysis to kill the time.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
To kill the time...Good FBS Analysis
- Thread starter Green Cookie Monster
- Start date
Good read and some really good outside perspective on the situation. I do wonder why people assume a move to the FBS will guarantee that football will not lose money. Actually in all of D1 (including BCS), only a handful of athletic department don’t operate in the red so I don’t buy into the idea that a move to the WAC will magically solve all of our financial issues. There are definitely some benefits to a move and the WAC has nothing but potential (literally, that’s all they have to offer), but there are also a lot of financial liabilities that are involved with a move. Using the numbers ColoradoSpartan posted, here are the differences that will need to be made up:
We averaged 7.5k last season (no Causeway) and 9.9k the year before (with a Causeway). Assuming a rivalry with SJSU could be forged and there is a slight bump in attendance with a move to the WAC, I’ll assume average attendance see a 25% bump. This makes the averages 9.3k & 12.3k respectively. (SJSU averaged 15.3k in ’09 and 14.4k in ‘10.) I would like to use a ticket price x avg attendance x 6 games to obtain a value but based on SJSU’s attendance numbers this would be a large over estimation. I think the best we can hope for in the WAC is to double our current ticket revenue to see an increase of +$0.20M. SJSU made +$0.93M with regional rivalries and nationally known programs (Boise) coming to town every other year. The 2012 WAC lineup offers none of those perks to increase ticket sales so it’s safe to say we would at best see a modest increase in ticket revenue.
At this point I’ll note that SJSU’s (and the WAC’s) revenue will be severely impacted with the loss of Boise State this season and Hawaii, Fresno State, and Nevada following the 2011 season. The WAC’s TV deal was cut to around $1M. Also there is no way a WAC program will be a BCS buster beginning in ’12 further reducing potential payouts. Add the fact that as of now the WAC only has 1 bowl tie-in and the WAC’s main revenue will be coming from its NCAA hoops payouts. The difference from what WAC members receive and what we will see as a BSC member will almost be on par with each other.
SJSU sponsors the minimum amount of sports required to be associated with FBS, 16 sports. We sponsor 20 sports. Title IX will determine this expense, but the point is unless sports are axed this number will increase by 44 scholarships. I’ll assume sports are axed so that there is no change in this expense. $0M
At this point I will point to SJSU’s recent success in football and basketball and argue that this amount would need to increase significantly if the Hornets want to have success in the WAC. Hornet fans are well aware of what a shitty HC hire can do to a program(s).
So without raiding the general fund or increasing student fees (and not accounting for body bag game revenue), the athletic department would have to come up with about $1.56M just to operate an athletic department that is on par with SJSU. Assuming the marketing department continues as it does, that number jumps to $2.56M. So roughly an increase of $3M per year just to play in the FBS. (GCM’s estimation was spot on) This is just to play, not compete, but literally just to field a team and show up as SJSU has done for the past handful of years. A larger annual increase in the athletics budget would be needed to succeed at the FBS level. Keep in mind this also doesn’t take into account the tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) needed in facility improvements to attract top athletes as well as the increase in operation and maintenance costs associated with those facilities.
It’s a tough call and I’m glad I’m not the one who has to decide. One the one hand we are in a stable conference with a recent upswing in football success, and on the other there is a conference with a lot of potential and an opportunity for a large increase in exposure. Whether or not that potential and exposure can translate into increased money into the university coffers will and should be the determining factor on making a move.
PS: It’s good to see this evaluation with more current numbers. I recall I did something similar last year prior to all the conference movement but I wasn’t aware of the USAToday link that included a breakdown of athletic budget revenues and expenses.
http://hornets.bigskyfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=821&p=7977&hilit=WAC+Numbers#p7977
Some of the posts indicate/assume the casual Sac area fan will all of a sudden develop a desire to see programs from Utah, Idaho and Texas based solely on that fact that they are associated with the WAC brand. I feel that this is a terrible assumption. I agree that ticket sales would increase, but I have a hard time seeing fans get excited about those programs. Unless the Hornets were unbelievably good, I don’t see more than 15k showing up for any of those games. Also davis would demand/ask for a $200-300k payout for the Causeway assuming they remain FCS. Assuming the game is a sell out (20k x $25) that would be about half of the gate the program would see from the game. This would remove much of the cost benefit of continuing the rivalry and the life of the Causeway would be put on the clock.
We averaged 7.5k last season (no Causeway) and 9.9k the year before (with a Causeway). Assuming a rivalry with SJSU could be forged and there is a slight bump in attendance with a move to the WAC, I’ll assume average attendance see a 25% bump. This makes the averages 9.3k & 12.3k respectively. (SJSU averaged 15.3k in ’09 and 14.4k in ‘10.) I would like to use a ticket price x avg attendance x 6 games to obtain a value but based on SJSU’s attendance numbers this would be a large over estimation. I think the best we can hope for in the WAC is to double our current ticket revenue to see an increase of +$0.20M. SJSU made +$0.93M with regional rivalries and nationally known programs (Boise) coming to town every other year. The 2012 WAC lineup offers none of those perks to increase ticket sales so it’s safe to say we would at best see a modest increase in ticket revenue.
Discussed under “Marketing” expenses.
Based on this we are already on par with SJSU student fees. This will probably need to increase, but for now I’ll assume no change. $0M
SJSU has an additional $1.7M drain on the university general fund at FBS than we do for FCS. Given the recent financial issues in state funding, I’ll use a $0M increase to athletics from the university general fund.
If we were in the WAC, theses values would pretty much be the same. +$0.52M
At this point I’ll note that SJSU’s (and the WAC’s) revenue will be severely impacted with the loss of Boise State this season and Hawaii, Fresno State, and Nevada following the 2011 season. The WAC’s TV deal was cut to around $1M. Also there is no way a WAC program will be a BCS buster beginning in ’12 further reducing potential payouts. Add the fact that as of now the WAC only has 1 bowl tie-in and the WAC’s main revenue will be coming from its NCAA hoops payouts. The difference from what WAC members receive and what we will see as a BSC member will almost be on par with each other.
SJSU sponsors the minimum amount of sports required to be associated with FBS, 16 sports. We sponsor 20 sports. Title IX will determine this expense, but the point is unless sports are axed this number will increase by 44 scholarships. I’ll assume sports are axed so that there is no change in this expense. $0M
FBS coaching salaries have been increasing at an alarming rate. All mid-major programs are nothing more than a stepping stone to get a BCS job. Sure there are exceptions, but that is the reality. For the sake of argument let’s assume the coaching salaries will be increased such that they equal what SJSU currently pays. -$1.34M
At this point I will point to SJSU’s recent success in football and basketball and argue that this amount would need to increase significantly if the Hornets want to have success in the WAC. Hornet fans are well aware of what a shitty HC hire can do to a program(s).
Same as above. -$1.69M
This is the one area we are best positioned for by being in the Big Sky. With the retarded addition of North Dakota, I wouldn’t be shocked to see our travel expenses exceed that of SJSU’s WAC travel expenses. I’d bet traveling from Sac to Dallas/Austin is cheaper than Sac to Grand Forks. For now I’ll just use the difference between what was posted as a cost that will need to be covered. -$0.25M
SJSU’s current ratio of marketing dollars spent to contributions received is 58.3% (Ours is 47.9%). Assuming our marketing budget is increased 4 fold; the budget would be about -$1M. Assuming the same return would be seen as SJSU, the contributions received would be about +$1.58M. This is something that would increase over time but it would eventually find its cap. SJSU brings in a solid amount of contributions but they as a university have been around for over a hundred years. This is an area that currently needs to be improved even at the FCS level but would be a crucial aspect into creating a successful FBS program. In this comparison, I’ll assume Sac State can initially raise an annual athletics contribution from fans & alumni to exceed the marketing budget by +$1M (50% marketing budget vs contributions received).
So without raiding the general fund or increasing student fees (and not accounting for body bag game revenue), the athletic department would have to come up with about $1.56M just to operate an athletic department that is on par with SJSU. Assuming the marketing department continues as it does, that number jumps to $2.56M. So roughly an increase of $3M per year just to play in the FBS. (GCM’s estimation was spot on) This is just to play, not compete, but literally just to field a team and show up as SJSU has done for the past handful of years. A larger annual increase in the athletics budget would be needed to succeed at the FBS level. Keep in mind this also doesn’t take into account the tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) needed in facility improvements to attract top athletes as well as the increase in operation and maintenance costs associated with those facilities.
It’s a tough call and I’m glad I’m not the one who has to decide. One the one hand we are in a stable conference with a recent upswing in football success, and on the other there is a conference with a lot of potential and an opportunity for a large increase in exposure. Whether or not that potential and exposure can translate into increased money into the university coffers will and should be the determining factor on making a move.
PS: It’s good to see this evaluation with more current numbers. I recall I did something similar last year prior to all the conference movement but I wasn’t aware of the USAToday link that included a breakdown of athletic budget revenues and expenses.
http://hornets.bigskyfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=821&p=7977&hilit=WAC+Numbers#p7977
Bottom line is that the ceiling for FBS is much higher than for FCS as thing are now. If Sac were to build a consistent winning program at the FCS level, I still don't think it would profit more than an up and down program at the FBS level.
One of the posters brought up the point the Sacramento sold out for Mountain Lions games, simply because it was pro ball. This always puzzled me, but it speaks to how people in Sacramento perceive things. It's not simply that they see themselves as a major league town. It's the fact that the bay area is so close that we see ourselves as a long extension of it. Why wold people follow Sac State when they are within driving distance of Cal and Stanford and on our local sports channels when Sac is the lesser product. On several occasions, I even heard UNR talk on KHTK. Turn on ESPN on a Friday night and see a Sac State game, like we saw UNR, and all of a sudden the program appears more legit. Put Sac State at technically the same level and now people have to make a choice.
An example of this was last year when the WAC was making changes and Sac States name kept coming up. This started getting reported on the local tv news stations. Since when does news stations report on Sac State, except to give you the box score? If Sac was mentioned as moving to another FCS conference, it would not have made the news. Sac State has to decide if they want to be a big boy or 2nd tier. If they want to play it safe or build a school with prestige. It's a tough choice but if they want to move up, they better go all in. This is why Gonzalez gets paid the big bucks.
One of the posters brought up the point the Sacramento sold out for Mountain Lions games, simply because it was pro ball. This always puzzled me, but it speaks to how people in Sacramento perceive things. It's not simply that they see themselves as a major league town. It's the fact that the bay area is so close that we see ourselves as a long extension of it. Why wold people follow Sac State when they are within driving distance of Cal and Stanford and on our local sports channels when Sac is the lesser product. On several occasions, I even heard UNR talk on KHTK. Turn on ESPN on a Friday night and see a Sac State game, like we saw UNR, and all of a sudden the program appears more legit. Put Sac State at technically the same level and now people have to make a choice.
An example of this was last year when the WAC was making changes and Sac States name kept coming up. This started getting reported on the local tv news stations. Since when does news stations report on Sac State, except to give you the box score? If Sac was mentioned as moving to another FCS conference, it would not have made the news. Sac State has to decide if they want to be a big boy or 2nd tier. If they want to play it safe or build a school with prestige. It's a tough choice but if they want to move up, they better go all in. This is why Gonzalez gets paid the big bucks.
If we want to be a destination campus as Gonzalez claims, then we need a destination draw.
We will never be an academic Harvard, but we could be a successful athletic Fresno State or SDSU.
The WAC is the only option of ever going FBS. Bite the bullet and jump or be stuck in no-glamour FCS.
The clock is running out.
Fantastic analysis SD, as usual.
We will never be an academic Harvard, but we could be a successful athletic Fresno State or SDSU.
The WAC is the only option of ever going FBS. Bite the bullet and jump or be stuck in no-glamour FCS.
The clock is running out.
Fantastic analysis SD, as usual.
Thanks guys and good post H25. I’ll just point out that the only “big boys” in the FBS are those in a BCS conference. The BCS conferences hold all the chips while the rest of the FBS is left fighting over crumbs. Moving to FBS just to appease our “play with the big boys” ego is not a mentality needed when evaluating whether the move should be made. The financial aspect is just one of the many dynamics playing into whether such a move is plausible.
SDHornet said:
You're absolutely right with this statement. I would never suggest move up to the FBS and lose a bunch of money and get nothing out of it. But to be honest, sports at universities is all about ego, pride, bragging rights and entertainment. The reason why schools have athletic programs is to add value in the eyes of it's student body and alumni. Relatively few Universities prosper heavily monetarily through their athletic programs. But the easiest way to bring status to your school is through athletics. The effects of the increased status trickles down to the rest of the school and can't directly be measured by the athletic budget. I've said before that I don't think BSC football and the future WAC football are that much different in talent. But there is a certain prestige that goes along with D1 football.
farmfanucdgrad
New member
Hey Hornet fans....I've been on the scout.com site regarding the WAC expansion and possible FCS additions and have participated in some fascinating discusions. No matter one's affiliation, I think it's pretty obvious that what ever happens to SAC State will affect UCD and actually vice versa. The link you have posted here (scout) is interesting because it does show the various arguments that can be made for and against Sac State pursuing BCS status. Personally, I think that aside from Sac State's current financial situation (which affects all California schools), Sacramento State eventually will just become to big for the FCS ranks. I don't mean you'll be too successful per se, but that due to the lack of FCS schools in California (aside from Davis and CP), FCS football is like D2 football.....a sort of no man's land and that to survive schools like Davis, Sac and CP will be forced to compete on the FBS level to find regional opponents. It would be a different story if there was a viable Big West-like FCS league but FCS is tough to compete successfully on the West Coast (lack of fan interest, far flung opponents, etc). The question is of course cost.....can Sac State afford to stay FCS or can they afford not to go FBS? Sacramento State also faces all the issues of competing for the casual Sacramento fan with opponents that don't exactly inspire interest. Has Sacramento attempted to at least withdraw its olympic sports to the Big West (a la Davis, CP) or is the Big Sky really the future for all sports? Quite the compelling and complex problem. I don't think this issue will go away for Sac and no matter what Sac State does it will affect Davis one way or another.
Welcome ffucdg, you have provided some interesting perspective and theories about a move to FBS for the Hornets. I have to admit that the scout thread is a good read. I will point one thing out though; the train of thought and line of questioning tends to be that of is Sac State and the other CA FCS schools ever being able to afford FBS…but it just has to be asked, can SJSU (and to a lesser extend Fresno and SDSU) continue to afford maintaining FBS status?farmfanucdgrad said:
http://hornets.bigskyfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1329
superhornet
Active member
Well, technically speaking, the WAC is NOT the only FBS option. It IS, however, the best of a slew of BAD options.
The Pac-12 and MWC aren't viable for obvious reasons. We could theoretically go to the Sun Belt, but the travel issues there make that a non-starter. Independent status would kill us. Yet those are all technically "options." The WAC is the best of them, and SOME of our fans at least (i.e. those who ALSO follow our baseball and gymnastics programs) would be familiar with the competition. But the fact that it's the best of a list of BAD options doesn't make the WAC a GOOD option. As has been already noted in a zillion threads, the WAC is a Titanic waiting to happen.
The BEST option for the foreseeable future is to stand pat in the Big Sky. IMO.
The Pac-12 and MWC aren't viable for obvious reasons. We could theoretically go to the Sun Belt, but the travel issues there make that a non-starter. Independent status would kill us. Yet those are all technically "options." The WAC is the best of them, and SOME of our fans at least (i.e. those who ALSO follow our baseball and gymnastics programs) would be familiar with the competition. But the fact that it's the best of a list of BAD options doesn't make the WAC a GOOD option. As has been already noted in a zillion threads, the WAC is a Titanic waiting to happen.
The BEST option for the foreseeable future is to stand pat in the Big Sky. IMO.
farmfanucdgrad
New member
Welcome ffucdg, you have provided some interesting perspective and theories about a move to FBS for the Hornets. I have to admit that the scout thread is a good read. I will point one thing out though; the train of thought and line of questioning tends to be that of is Sac State and the other CA FCS schools ever being able to afford FBS…but it just has to be asked, can SJSU (and to a lesser extend Fresno and SDSU) continue to afford maintaining FBS status?
http://hornets.bigskyfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1329[/quote]
I've been gone the last week up in South Lake Tahoe so I've been unable to reply online. Anyway, regarding being able to afford FBS: SJSU is a good example to debate. SJSU has despite a non-competitive football product with limited fan interest (15Kish) or administrative support from the university over the past decade, still managed to break even occasionally but mostly performs in the black financially from the football perspective. They have been able to do this with body bad games with 1M payouts (i.e Alabama, Wisconsin, etc) and of course with some money from the WAC's TV deal and BCS money and this has been done with very little support from the university until very recently. The last two (TV and BCS revenue) will decrease substantially over the next 3 seasons but SJSU is now actually supporting their football program with marketing and outreach to alumni/fans (for the first time) and investing in facilities improvements, etc. As far as being able to afford being FBS, I think there will nonetheless be a challenge for the immediate future (with the WAC) but the football portion is so far on relatively stable financial footing and even helps fund the remaining sports programs. A very large amount of donations from alumni are predicated on football's existence and without FBS level football, there would first of all be no football (FCS is expensive and w/o revenue or support options in the Bay Area), and second of all donations would decline rather significantly. The cost of all non-football sports (with limited revenue produced) is what makes SJSU's situation precarious. Cutting football would amount to cutting a lot of other sports because the same costs would be there without any source of revenue to support the expenses of these non-revenue producing sports.
An analogy to cutting football at the FBS level to say the FCS level is similar to mass transit making drastic service cuts to "save money": what happens is that cutting service makes is less attractive to it's riders which then forces additional cuts until the train/bus line is eliminated altogether because revenue and interest continue to decline. SJSU without FBS football will mean no football and further cuts and elimination of other sports. SJSU does struggle being FBS (and successful) but they have found a rarther sustainable business model in terms of funding itself and all its other sports programs...by having a football team at the FBS level (and in an urban area).
http://hornets.bigskyfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1329[/quote]
I've been gone the last week up in South Lake Tahoe so I've been unable to reply online. Anyway, regarding being able to afford FBS: SJSU is a good example to debate. SJSU has despite a non-competitive football product with limited fan interest (15Kish) or administrative support from the university over the past decade, still managed to break even occasionally but mostly performs in the black financially from the football perspective. They have been able to do this with body bad games with 1M payouts (i.e Alabama, Wisconsin, etc) and of course with some money from the WAC's TV deal and BCS money and this has been done with very little support from the university until very recently. The last two (TV and BCS revenue) will decrease substantially over the next 3 seasons but SJSU is now actually supporting their football program with marketing and outreach to alumni/fans (for the first time) and investing in facilities improvements, etc. As far as being able to afford being FBS, I think there will nonetheless be a challenge for the immediate future (with the WAC) but the football portion is so far on relatively stable financial footing and even helps fund the remaining sports programs. A very large amount of donations from alumni are predicated on football's existence and without FBS level football, there would first of all be no football (FCS is expensive and w/o revenue or support options in the Bay Area), and second of all donations would decline rather significantly. The cost of all non-football sports (with limited revenue produced) is what makes SJSU's situation precarious. Cutting football would amount to cutting a lot of other sports because the same costs would be there without any source of revenue to support the expenses of these non-revenue producing sports.
An analogy to cutting football at the FBS level to say the FCS level is similar to mass transit making drastic service cuts to "save money": what happens is that cutting service makes is less attractive to it's riders which then forces additional cuts until the train/bus line is eliminated altogether because revenue and interest continue to decline. SJSU without FBS football will mean no football and further cuts and elimination of other sports. SJSU does struggle being FBS (and successful) but they have found a rarther sustainable business model in terms of funding itself and all its other sports programs...by having a football team at the FBS level (and in an urban area).
I hate to sound like an ass but can you provide a link or something indicating some figures showing the solvency of the SJSU athletic department? If BCS payouts, WAC TV money, and body bag games been the only thing keeping their head above the water, they will have some serious revenue issues starting in 2012. Sure donations and marketing revenues help float SJSU’s boat, but the bulk of their (and probably most/all public Universities) funding comes from student fees and funding from the University general fund. This wouldn’t change regardless if FBS or FCS.
$4.68M (student fees) & $5.92M (direct institutional support) are a combined 51% of the revenues needed to support the $20.78M athletics budget. Relying on $5.92M in subsidies from the University is by no means a sustainable platform. Sac State would be no different if we moved to the FBS.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm
$4.68M (student fees) & $5.92M (direct institutional support) are a combined 51% of the revenues needed to support the $20.78M athletics budget. Relying on $5.92M in subsidies from the University is by no means a sustainable platform. Sac State would be no different if we moved to the FBS.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm
Latest posts
-
-
-
2025 Starting Lineup - Post Best Guesses as Offseason Progresses
- Latest: FootballAlum84
-
-