Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since: 07/27/11

Maverick

Lead

Feb 6 13 4:10 PM

Tags : :

'83's link to the SBC message Board provided this thread, http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=616526, and one of the pages contained the budgets for every school in the SBC. I was surprised by some of it and not by others.

Overall
W. Kent 25,770,262
Tx St 25,583,442
Geo St 22,759,437
USA 17,705,844
Troy 16,736,726
La-La 15,350,797
Ark St 13,276,502
La-Mo 9,417,622
UTA 9,256,424
Ark-LR 8,651,739

Non-football
Tx St 21,182,536
W. Kent 19,886,873
Troy 17,773,668
Geo St 17,528,942
USA 10,803,555
La-La 9,457,928
UTA 9,256,924
Ark St 8,934,876
Ark-LR 8,651,739
La-Mo 5,828,658

Football
USA 6,902,289
La-La 5,892,869
W. Kent 5,883,389
Geo St 5,230,495
Tx St 4,400,906
Ark St 4,341,626
Troy 3,963,058
La-Mo 3,588,964

Men's Basketball
W. Kent 2,708,422
Geo St 1,917,037
Ark-LR 1,639,069
La-La 1,616,934
USA 1,543,872
Tx St 1,091,082
Ark St 1,089,763
UTA 1,019,377
Troy 963,610
La-Mo 714,746

Women's Basketball
Geo St 1,593,777
W. Kent 1,485,500
Ark-LR 1,261,785
USA 1,126,623
Tx St 937,382
UTA 932,623
La-La 917,950
Troy 866,067
Ark St 851,857
La-Mo 626,623

A lot of interesting numbers here that I will dissect later.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#1 [url]

Feb 6 13 8:02 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

Wow. Those are interesting numbers! Another interesting number that appeared today in the paper was that UTA's enrollment for the Spring increased to 33,806. It appears we have may vaulted past UNT. More importantly to the current conversation, a higher enrollment means more revenue from an athletics fee.
[quote]A $2 fee with 33,000 students, would come to $1,650,000. If the rate went up to $5 per hour, the total would be $4,125,000. If the average student enrolled for 20 hours per year instead of the very conservative 12.5 in the Nienas report, this would go up to $6,600,000. And so on.
I had to do a small edit.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

UTAMavalum83

Senior

Posts: 142 Member Since:07/13/11 Senior

#2 [url]

Feb 6 13 8:54 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

Duck wrote:
Wow. Those are interesting numbers! Another interesting number that appeared today in the paper was that UTA's enrollment for the Spring increased to 33,806. It appears we have may vaulted past UNT. More importantly to the current conversation, a higher enrollment means more revenue from an athletics fee.


Man I like the way you think, Duck . . . .

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#3 [url]

Feb 7 13 2:43 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

Here's some random observations I had.

1) I forgot just how much Texas State outspent everyone in the Southland. If you follow the link, you can see other schools from the SLC, Lamar (13,223,750 total athletic budget) and Sam Houston (11,260,127). So four of last's years SLC schools are included and it is no contest. I now remember how this was the case when I was an undergrad and thought then it was just a matter of time.

It also raises the question of why they weren't as competitive overall. Unlike us, who failed to sponsor 3 of the SLC-sponsored sports, they only missed out on men's tennis, yet didn't have the athletic success they should have based on budgets.

It also shows just how competitive we were in funding our programs. Subtracting football, Lamar spent 10,113,659 and Sam spent 8,558,070. We know we outspent SELa and Nicholls and likely CArk and TAMU-CC as well, so we were a really well funded athletic program in the SLC. We are already ahead of three schools in the SBC and my hope is we give our programs the funds they need to stay competitive in whatever conference they are in.

2) What the hell is going on in Monroe? 9,417,622 total athletic budget? This is exactly the route I want to avoid if football comes into the equation. By far and away, UL-M has the lowest non-football budget, 2.8 million lower than Arkansas-Little Rock. No wonder their men's basketball team has three wins this year and is on pace for their third consecutive last place finish and haven't had a winning season since '06-'07. Same for most every sport they offer. Their attempt to be compete at the higher level just isn't there. This would be a middle of the pack SLC budget. Just another case study proving the addition of football doesn't increase the fundraising of the department. Their football team had their first winning season since the move up from 1-AA. That happened in 1993.

3) The average cost for a football program in the SBC is 5,025,550. For the 1-AA's on their prospective candidate's list, the average is 4,229,682 (high of 8,424,492 from Liberty and a low of 2,364,352 from Missouri State).

4) UTA's Men's basketball team was funded pretty low compared to the SBC peers, 8th overall, but has been performing well on the court. The women's team is funded 6th overall, and almost on the same level as the men, yet have been doing poorly. Proof money doesn't guarantee wins.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#4 [url]

Feb 7 13 10:24 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

[quote]...money doesn't guarantee wins. True. Having football should not mean the other sports will be starved (unless you're at some feckless Louisiana school). I know our ancient history has caused some to fear that UTA would rob other sports to pay for football, but that was then. Remember, we had no dedicated athletics fee, no home stadium, a campus very divided over the school mascot theme, a sharp reduction of internal funding from the "student activities fee," and then the addition of several title IX sports (as Runamuck recently mentioned). Not only did we lose football, but we also lost two other men's sports in which UTA had been a national power: Swimming and Rifle. (In both of those sports, UTA athletes had gone to the olympics and won gold medals.)

Anyway, enough of that "back in the day" thinking. The hard work and careful stewardship of Pete Carlon and our other leaders during the last 27 years have brought us to a place where we can see a "tier one" athletics program on the horizon. Building CPC and going to the SBC are good steps in that direction. The next steps are becoming obvious.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#5 [url]

May 14 13 3:21 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

I'm getting excited and optimistic. July first, we will be in the SBC and will have our new President in the saddle.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#6 [url]

Feb 22 14 7:30 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

FoUTASportscaster wrote:
Here's some random observations I had.

1) I forgot just how much Texas State outspent everyone in the Southland. If you follow the link, you can see other schools from the SLC, Lamar (13,223,750 total athletic budget) and Sam Houston (11,260,127). So four of last's years SLC schools are included and it is no contest. I now remember how this was the case when I was an undergrad and thought then it was just a matter of time.

It also raises the question of why they weren't as competitive overall. Unlike us, who failed to sponsor 3 of the SLC-sponsored sports, they only missed out on men's tennis, yet didn't have the athletic success they should have based on budgets.

It also shows just how competitive we were in funding our programs. Subtracting football, Lamar spent 10,113,659 and Sam spent 8,558,070. We know we outspent SELa and Nicholls and likely CArk and TAMU-CC as well, so we were a really well funded athletic program in the SLC. We are already ahead of three schools in the SBC and my hope is we give our programs the funds they need to stay competitive in whatever conference they are in.

2) What the hell is going on in Monroe? 9,417,622 total athletic budget? This is exactly the route I want to avoid if football comes into the equation. By far and away, UL-M has the lowest non-football budget, 2.8 million lower than Arkansas-Little Rock. No wonder their men's basketball team has three wins this year and is on pace for their third consecutive last place finish and haven't had a winning season since '06-'07. Same for most every sport they offer. Their attempt to be compete at the higher level just isn't there. This would be a middle of the pack SLC budget. Just another case study proving the addition of football doesn't increase the fundraising of the department. Their football team had their first winning season since the move up from 1-AA. That happened in 1993.

3) The average cost for a football program in the SBC is 5,025,550. For the 1-AA's on their prospective candidate's list, the average is 4,229,682 (high of 8,424,492 from Liberty and a low of 2,364,352 from Missouri State).

4) UTA's Men's basketball team was funded pretty low compared to the SBC peers, 8th overall, but has been performing well on the court. The women's team is funded 6th overall, and almost on the same level as the men, yet have been doing poorly. Proof money doesn't guarantee wins.

Wow. Those are interesting numbers! Another interesting number that appeared today in the paper was that UTA's enrollment for the Spring increased to 34,249, 500 less than UNT. More importantly to the current conversation, a higher enrollment means more revenue from an athletics fee. We could easily cover a $5-6 million increase if the students would again vote to bump the athletics fee up, this time by say, $5 per hour. That would be nowhere near as much as UNT extracts from their students.

[quote]'83's link to the SBC message Board provided this thread, http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=616526, and one of the pages contained the budgets for every school in the SBC. I was surprised by some of it and not by others.

Overall
W. Kent 25,770,262
Tx St 25,583,442
Geo St 22,759,437
USA 17,705,844
Troy 16,736,726
La-La 15,350,797
Ark St 13,276,502
La-Mo 9,417,622
UTA 9,256,424
Ark-LR 8,651,739

Non-football
Tx St 21,182,536
W. Kent 19,886,873
Troy 17,773,668
Geo St 17,528,942
USA 10,803,555
La-La 9,457,928
UTA 9,256,924
Ark St 8,934,876
Ark-LR 8,651,739
La-Mo 5,828,658

Football
USA 6,902,289
La-La 5,892,869
W. Kent 5,883,389
Geo St 5,230,495
Tx St 4,400,906
Ark St 4,341,626
Troy 3,963,058
La-Mo 3,588,964

Men's Basketball
W. Kent 2,708,422
Geo St 1,917,037
Ark-LR 1,639,069
La-La 1,616,934
USA 1,543,872
Tx St 1,091,082
Ark St 1,089,763
UTA 1,019,377
Troy 963,610
La-Mo 714,746

Women's Basketball
Geo St 1,593,777
W. Kent 1,485,500
Ark-LR 1,261,785
USA 1,126,623
Tx St 937,382
UTA 932,623
La-La 917,950
Troy 866,067
Ark St 851,857
La-Mo 626,623

A lot of interesting numbers here that I will dissect later.

Should we be getting closer? What do you think, Fo?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#7 [url]

Feb 23 14 1:58 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

Getting closer to announcing football? I suppose. The tools are there. I know there are concerns about money. They project needing a $6 million budget for football alone. I think it could be done for $4-5, but I am not on the athletic staff.

I look at revenue potential and see $1 million from the college football payout alone. I'm guessing $5 for student fee could raise another $2 million. Game day throughout the year should raise another $1-2 million. Play one guarantee game would be another $1 million. That leaves $1-2 million needed from sponsorships and donations. While that may not seem like a lot, given the U's recent history there are some reservations. Then there are Title IX concerns. I still don't see ho Us like UTSA and South Alabama could add a DI-A program and not add or drop sports but UTA couldn't, but that is another issue.

The other big concern is the home stadium. They view renovation of Maverick Stadium as a big hurdle and going to Cowboys Stadium is an option. I don't like it. Moving to Turnpike Stadium was a big reason the program ran into troubles to begin with, though obviously this wouldn't be moving into a baseball stadium.

I'm hopeful that the information relayed to me was more a matter of keeping the cards close to the chest, but they do view adding football as a big hurdle. But at least we know the matter is being looked into.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#8 [url]

Feb 23 14 3:53 PM

Re: SBC Athletic Budgets

[quote]I look at revenue potential and see $1 million from the college football payout alone. I'm guessing $5 for student fee could raise another $2 million. Game day throughout the year should raise another $1-2 million. Play one guarantee game would be another $1 million. That leaves $1-2 million needed from sponsorships and donations.
That is a very conservative estimate of what the student fee would raise. I'm thinking a $5 student fee alone could raise over $5 million per year, possibly $6 million. Add another $3-4 million for revenue sharing, game day and an annual guarantee game, as you have outlined, and we should be able to get this thing rolling.
[quote]The other big concern is the home stadium. They view renovation of Maverick Stadium as a big hurdle and going to Cowboys Stadium is an option. I don't like it. Moving to Turnpike Stadium was a big reason the program ran into troubles to begin with, though obviously this wouldn't be moving into a baseball stadium.You're right about that! Other than as an occasional neutral site for huge revenue games, Jerryworld would be a bad place for us to call home.

I'm surprised they think upgrading the Mav would be such a huge challenge, but maybe they are looking at Texas State as our peer, and for us to effectively compete we would need to almost triple our overall budget. That is ironic, given the lack of effectiveness their huge spending has gotten San Marcos. They still lose to the likes of ULM, which, as you have shown, is financially a bottom feeder.

Change of subject:

I wonder what color our basketball team was wearing in Little Rock last night. I suspect it was not orange.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help