So a lot of what I planned to include was already posted by others. It seems everyone has a good grasp of what it will take to go FBS and the pro's and con's associated with a move. So the goal of this analysis is to logically and reasonable present some scenarios in which Sac State can make the transition to FBS. I will touch on a number of issues. The main idea to keep in mind is that a move is all about money. This money will either be an expense or potential revenue stream for the athletic department and university. I am basing this analysis on San Jose State and Fresno State, as they are a CSU that is currently in the WAC. Their attendance and revenue streams essentially represent what Sac State can expect from making the move to the WAC. There will be some assumptions that I am going to make to complete this analysis.
Budget
Presented below are both budgets of the other CSU WAC athletic programs to give a ballpark estimate of the impact a move to FBS has on the budget. Title IX is the driving factor in what sports will be sponsored or cut based upon the addition of 22 men's scholarships associated with FBS football.
San Jose State's athletic program expenses were $16.9M for the 08/09 fiscal year. They sponsor the NCAA minimum of 16 programs. They are as follows:
Fresno State's athletic program expenses were $26.6M for the 08/09 fiscal year. They sponsor 18 programs. They are as follows:
Sac State's athletic program expenses were $14.1M for the 08/09 fiscal year. We sponsor 20 sports:
As discussed in the other thread, sponsoring all WAC is meaningless with regard to a WAC invite. Note that Sac State sponsors all WAC sports except for women's swimming and diving. The options Sac State has are to increase budget by a meager $3M, cut 4 sports and have pathetic athletic programs (least amount added to budget), OR almost double the athletic budget to approximately the $27M range, make a few cuts or add a women's sport (swimming & diving) and have respectable athletic programs (most amount added to budget). I have to think the solution is somewhere in between. I'd hate to see Sac State sacrifice the well rounded athletic program it has built for the sake of being associated with the FBS. As stated in the MSU article, a $5M increase will put the athletic budget at about $19M, there is no reason why this wouldn't be sufficient to maintain success throughout the entire AD.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
Travel
This is the one area where Sac State's current conference affiliation really benefits them. The current geographic range will not increase significantly (if at all) with a move to the WAC (that is ignoring the outlier in Hawaii). The current Big Sky Conference and assumed WAC alignment compares as follows (ordered in farthest to shortest from Sacramento):
The WAC would probably add at least one other school to at least get to an 9 member conference. If they invite Cal Poly and/or "the farm extension", the travel situation would be very favorable and probably wouldn't have a negative impact with respect to additional travel expenses associated with a move. Note that football will only have to travel to Hawaii every other year, and in that year Sac State will be allowed to schedule an additional home game to help recover costs. The distances were taken from either Google maps driving directions when less that 300 miles (as this would be a bus trip) or Google Earth when farther than 300 miles (flight). When Google Earth was used, a straight line measurement was taken to the city that the school is located in.
Attendance
As stated by Green Laser, the regional conference matchups should draw quite well and have a great chance of selling out. This jump in attendance would probably hold true for all of the big ticket sports as well as football. Another important point to note is that Sac State will now have the potential to schedule some home and home matchups with some Pac-10 and MWC foes for football and basketball. These would serve as a solid revenue stream for the department as the Pac-10/MWC teams will be looking for opponents to fill its schedule. I have to think that the odds of those schools looking for a regional opponent would be quite high. Here are the attendance numbers for SJSU and Fresno State:
.......................2008 avg attn; % Capacity...........2009 avg attn; % Capacity
San Jose State:............20,952; 68.8%......................15,344; 50.4%
Fresno State:..............37,864; 92.3%.......................33,578; 81.8%
Sacramento State:..........8,184; 38.6%........................9,935; 46.9%
Assuming Sac State can accomplish a %75 capacity for all 6 home football games (16,896 @ $20 per ticket), this would generate approximately $0.32M per game for an approximate total of $1.9M for the season. This would be a significant jump from the current ticket revenue and would significantly help the budget. (I went with a conservative capacity to account for non-paying attendance and games that won't draw well coupled with a conservative ticket price that doesn't represent a significant increase of the current ticket prices and faith that the Hornet fans will show up to WAC games.) This does not include revenue generated from concessions and merchandise sales.
Bowl Revenue
This is a myth and playing in a bowl isn't really a revenue stream. Unless Sac State lands a BCS bowl bid (highly unlikely), most bowl payouts are barely enough to allow the participating teams to break even at best. Bowls appearances will bring media attention and exposure to the university and the program, however I really don't think there is a way to associate that with a value. There currently is revenue sharing of the BCS bowl money. The BCS breaks off a little piece and distributes it to the non-BCS conferences. This breaks down to roughly $130k per school if a conference member doesn't receive a BCS bowl berth and $550k with a BCS bowl berth. Sac State won't be eligible to participate in a bowl for the first 2 years in the FBS so I don't know if this can be factored in the startup scenarios. I will also add the point that the potential to lose money by playing in a bowl game also exists so the AD and HC will need to exercise caution and employ sound judgment when deciding on whether to accept a bowl invite. The following link will direct you to a list of the bowl games and their corresponding payouts. Participating schools are obligated to buy a certain amount of tickets from the bowl and sell them to the fans. The school loses money for any unsold tickets. I also threw in a link about some of the big programs taking a loss from playing in a non-BCS bowl.
http://www.groundreport.com/Sports/COLLEGE-FOOTBALL-BOWL-GAMES-THE-MONEY-FACTOR_2/2913351
http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=437:december-13-2009-college-bowl-payouts-dont-add-up&catid=1&Itemid=11
NCAA Tournament Revenue
The revenue associated with the tournament will probably double as the WAC will consistently get at least two conference members to the dance. MWC schools received a payout of $435k last year for having two of its members playing in the tournament the previous year. I don't think this value varies with conference affiliation.
TV/Advertisement Revenue
The bulk of this revenue will come from the TV contract that the WAC has with ESPN. This contract runs through the 2016/17 year and covers football, basketball, and the Olympic sports. I could not find a dollar value associated with contract but it is safe to say it is significantly higher than what they are getting now (if anything). As the regional exposure of Sac State increases, they will have the opportunity to find more corporate sponsors. This potential revenue stream would be maximized by higher attendance and wins. The more Sac State can get its name in the papers and on TV, the likelihood of obtaining higher revenue from advertisements and corporate sponsors would increase.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3569332
Total Revenue
Presented below are the revenues of the other CSU WAC athletic programs. This will give us an approximate idea of what to expect with a move. A description of what went into the revenue vales was not given, so I have to assume that it is TV, advertisement, ticket sales, concessions, and anything else all thrown into one lump sum.
San Jose State's athletic program revenues were $10.6M for the 08/09 fiscal year. The breakdown by sports are as follows:
I think it's safe to say that revenue will increase significantly with a move to the WAC. However whether the revenues will be enough to support the added expenses is the question Gonzo and Wanless will have to justify. Finally I'll close by providing a link to a report that Wyoming did to justify keeping their program at the FBS level. I'm not sure about the validity of it but here it is anyways:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ming+To+Remain+Division+I-A+(FBS)&hl=en&gl=us
PS: I think this is like the 10th WAC thread this off-season. :lol: Mods, feel free to merge this with another WAC thread if you like.
- 1) Boise State and La Tech are the only schools that are raided/leave the WAC. If Nevada and Fresno State are raided/leave, most of the positives associated with moving into the WAC is greatly reduced as the regional conference rivalries will be lost which will negatively impact attendance and interest in the Sac State athletic programs resulting in lower revenue.
2) Sac State's initial success in the WAC will be similar to SJSU's current success. Given that FSU and SJSU are fellow CSU with a low to moderate level of football success, it's fair to say their current athletic expenses and revenues would be an ideal indication of what to expect at the FBS level.
Budget
Presented below are both budgets of the other CSU WAC athletic programs to give a ballpark estimate of the impact a move to FBS has on the budget. Title IX is the driving factor in what sports will be sponsored or cut based upon the addition of 22 men's scholarships associated with FBS football.
San Jose State's athletic program expenses were $16.9M for the 08/09 fiscal year. They sponsor the NCAA minimum of 16 programs. They are as follows:
- • Men: baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf and soccer
• Women: basketball, softball, cross country, golf, gymnastics, soccer, swimming & diving, tennis, volleyball, and water polo.
Fresno State's athletic program expenses were $26.6M for the 08/09 fiscal year. They sponsor 18 programs. They are as follows:
- • Men: baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, tennis and outdoor track & field
• Women: basketball, softball, cross country, golf, equestrian, soccer, swimming & diving, tennis, outdoor track & field, volleyball, and lacrosse.
Sac State's athletic program expenses were $14.1M for the 08/09 fiscal year. We sponsor 20 sports:
- • Men: baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, soccer, tennis, outdoor & indoor track & field
• Women: basketball, softball, cross country, golf, gymnastics, soccer, tennis, volleyball, rowing, and outdoor & indoor track & field
As discussed in the other thread, sponsoring all WAC is meaningless with regard to a WAC invite. Note that Sac State sponsors all WAC sports except for women's swimming and diving. The options Sac State has are to increase budget by a meager $3M, cut 4 sports and have pathetic athletic programs (least amount added to budget), OR almost double the athletic budget to approximately the $27M range, make a few cuts or add a women's sport (swimming & diving) and have respectable athletic programs (most amount added to budget). I have to think the solution is somewhere in between. I'd hate to see Sac State sacrifice the well rounded athletic program it has built for the sake of being associated with the FBS. As stated in the MSU article, a $5M increase will put the athletic budget at about $19M, there is no reason why this wouldn't be sufficient to maintain success throughout the entire AD.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
Travel
This is the one area where Sac State's current conference affiliation really benefits them. The current geographic range will not increase significantly (if at all) with a move to the WAC (that is ignoring the outlier in Hawaii). The current Big Sky Conference and assumed WAC alignment compares as follows (ordered in farthest to shortest from Sacramento):
- Big Sky, miles to destination..................................WAC, miles to destination
Northern Colorado, 900 mi............................................Hawaii, 2,470 mi.
Montana State, 720 mi...........................................New Mexico State, 930 mi.
Montana, 675 mi........................................................Idaho, 595 mi.
Eastern Washington, 635 mi.........................................Utah State, 550 mi.
Northern Arizona, 595 mi............................................Fresno State, 172 mi.
Idaho State, 560 mi.....................................................Nevada, 132 mi.
Weber State, 535 mi................................................San Jose State, 120 mi.
Portland State, 475 mi.
The WAC would probably add at least one other school to at least get to an 9 member conference. If they invite Cal Poly and/or "the farm extension", the travel situation would be very favorable and probably wouldn't have a negative impact with respect to additional travel expenses associated with a move. Note that football will only have to travel to Hawaii every other year, and in that year Sac State will be allowed to schedule an additional home game to help recover costs. The distances were taken from either Google maps driving directions when less that 300 miles (as this would be a bus trip) or Google Earth when farther than 300 miles (flight). When Google Earth was used, a straight line measurement was taken to the city that the school is located in.
Attendance
As stated by Green Laser, the regional conference matchups should draw quite well and have a great chance of selling out. This jump in attendance would probably hold true for all of the big ticket sports as well as football. Another important point to note is that Sac State will now have the potential to schedule some home and home matchups with some Pac-10 and MWC foes for football and basketball. These would serve as a solid revenue stream for the department as the Pac-10/MWC teams will be looking for opponents to fill its schedule. I have to think that the odds of those schools looking for a regional opponent would be quite high. Here are the attendance numbers for SJSU and Fresno State:
.......................2008 avg attn; % Capacity...........2009 avg attn; % Capacity
San Jose State:............20,952; 68.8%......................15,344; 50.4%
Fresno State:..............37,864; 92.3%.......................33,578; 81.8%
Sacramento State:..........8,184; 38.6%........................9,935; 46.9%
Assuming Sac State can accomplish a %75 capacity for all 6 home football games (16,896 @ $20 per ticket), this would generate approximately $0.32M per game for an approximate total of $1.9M for the season. This would be a significant jump from the current ticket revenue and would significantly help the budget. (I went with a conservative capacity to account for non-paying attendance and games that won't draw well coupled with a conservative ticket price that doesn't represent a significant increase of the current ticket prices and faith that the Hornet fans will show up to WAC games.) This does not include revenue generated from concessions and merchandise sales.
Bowl Revenue
This is a myth and playing in a bowl isn't really a revenue stream. Unless Sac State lands a BCS bowl bid (highly unlikely), most bowl payouts are barely enough to allow the participating teams to break even at best. Bowls appearances will bring media attention and exposure to the university and the program, however I really don't think there is a way to associate that with a value. There currently is revenue sharing of the BCS bowl money. The BCS breaks off a little piece and distributes it to the non-BCS conferences. This breaks down to roughly $130k per school if a conference member doesn't receive a BCS bowl berth and $550k with a BCS bowl berth. Sac State won't be eligible to participate in a bowl for the first 2 years in the FBS so I don't know if this can be factored in the startup scenarios. I will also add the point that the potential to lose money by playing in a bowl game also exists so the AD and HC will need to exercise caution and employ sound judgment when deciding on whether to accept a bowl invite. The following link will direct you to a list of the bowl games and their corresponding payouts. Participating schools are obligated to buy a certain amount of tickets from the bowl and sell them to the fans. The school loses money for any unsold tickets. I also threw in a link about some of the big programs taking a loss from playing in a non-BCS bowl.
http://www.groundreport.com/Sports/COLLEGE-FOOTBALL-BOWL-GAMES-THE-MONEY-FACTOR_2/2913351
http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=437:december-13-2009-college-bowl-payouts-dont-add-up&catid=1&Itemid=11
NCAA Tournament Revenue
The revenue associated with the tournament will probably double as the WAC will consistently get at least two conference members to the dance. MWC schools received a payout of $435k last year for having two of its members playing in the tournament the previous year. I don't think this value varies with conference affiliation.
TV/Advertisement Revenue
The bulk of this revenue will come from the TV contract that the WAC has with ESPN. This contract runs through the 2016/17 year and covers football, basketball, and the Olympic sports. I could not find a dollar value associated with contract but it is safe to say it is significantly higher than what they are getting now (if anything). As the regional exposure of Sac State increases, they will have the opportunity to find more corporate sponsors. This potential revenue stream would be maximized by higher attendance and wins. The more Sac State can get its name in the papers and on TV, the likelihood of obtaining higher revenue from advertisements and corporate sponsors would increase.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3569332
Total Revenue
Presented below are the revenues of the other CSU WAC athletic programs. This will give us an approximate idea of what to expect with a move. A description of what went into the revenue vales was not given, so I have to assume that it is TV, advertisement, ticket sales, concessions, and anything else all thrown into one lump sum.
San Jose State's athletic program revenues were $10.6M for the 08/09 fiscal year. The breakdown by sports are as follows:
- • Football: $4.5M
• Basketball (men's & women's): $1.8M
• All other sports (men's & women's): $4.4M
- • Football: $10.4M
• Basketball (men's & women's): $3.3M
• All other sports (men's & women's): $2.6M
- • Football: $2.3M
• Basketball (men's & women's): $1.9M
• All other sports (men's & women's): $3.6M
I think it's safe to say that revenue will increase significantly with a move to the WAC. However whether the revenues will be enough to support the added expenses is the question Gonzo and Wanless will have to justify. Finally I'll close by providing a link to a report that Wyoming did to justify keeping their program at the FBS level. I'm not sure about the validity of it but here it is anyways:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ming+To+Remain+Division+I-A+(FBS)&hl=en&gl=us
PS: I think this is like the 10th WAC thread this off-season. :lol: Mods, feel free to merge this with another WAC thread if you like.
