Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WSU athletic budget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I've been interested in this stuff as it relates to Valley schools since the Indy Star published the data back in 2004. Some things that stood out:

    - WSU kicks the other public MVC school's butts in ticket revenue, even without football.
    - Ditto for licensing and royalties.
    - Schools with higher student fees are also the ones with football. It's why I've always said, if football is to return, the students will have to pay the year-to-year subsidies.

    Whether we dominate the MVC in basketball isn't the point. The revenue difference for a school that doesn't sell tickets to football games is significant enough that it puts WSU head-and-shoulders above the rest of the conference (with CU being a possible exception) and that we should be an attractive basketball-only addition to a better conference (like the MWC) with football being a future consideration.

    Moving to a conference like the MWC should result in a nice revenue bump (from $21mil to $25mil+, perhaps?). Non-basketball sports would already be competitive, so that extra revenue could be used to retail coaches and prepare the way for a return of football.

    For the record, I'm not in favor of football at WSU, but understand how it changes the discussion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ta town View Post
      Here are basketball expenses for the Valley in 2011.

      WSU spent 3.8 mil which is 2nd in Valley to CU at 4.8 mil. Just remember though CU rents their arena (not knocking it) and that is surely to add a big number to expenses. So really I bet they are very similar in Basketball expenses.

      http://www.bbstate.com/info/schools-...udget&c=VALLEY
      I suspect tuition costs are probably the largest reason for the expense differential.

      As to the arena rental, that is kind of a loaded number. Creighton does pay rent for use of the building, but receives a rebate based on concessions. Most years the "rebate" is equal to, or almost equal to the rent, although I suspect the rebate shows up as "revenue" rather than a reduction in "expenses." In other words, renting the arena is basically a wash for CU. The downside to renting is the loss of concession money, but the city does pick up all of the costs of any maintenance associated with the arena.

      Most importantly, I wouldn't put much stock in the figures from that site. How schools choose to allocate revenues and expenses varies from institution to institution and rarely has much direct correlation to the actual expenses and revenues.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DoubleJayAlum View Post
        I suspect tuition costs are probably the largest reason for the expense differential.

        As to the arena rental, that is kind of a loaded number. Creighton does pay rent for use of the building, but receives a rebate based on concessions. Most years the "rebate" is equal to, or almost equal to the rent, although I suspect the rebate shows up as "revenue" rather than a reduction in "expenses." In other words, renting the arena is basically a wash for CU. The downside to renting is the loss of concession money, but the city does pick up all of the costs of any maintenance associated with the arena.

        Most importantly, I wouldn't put much stock in the figures from that site. How schools choose to allocate revenues and expenses varies from institution to institution and rarely has much direct correlation to the actual expenses and revenues.
        I was not knocking the rental of quest I was simply pointing out that large expense and that relatively speaking (coach and staff salaries, charters, etc) WSU and CU are probably much closer than that number indicates.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ta town View Post
          I was not knocking the rental of quest I was simply pointing out that large expense and that relatively speaking (coach and staff salaries, charters, etc) WSU and CU are probably much closer than that number indicates.
          No offense taken! Just thought I'd bring up the tuition cost issue and take the opportunity to explain how the arena contract works.

          Comment


          • #20
            Ta Town -

            For the record, even though I'm not fond of Marshal, I don't really have any problems with WSU. You guys are willing to invest in your program to create a winning product, just like Creighton is willing to do. I appreciate that.

            My frustration comes with the poor sisters in our conference that routinely hold it back.

            Comment


            • #21
              So I think what all this shows is what was already common knowledge.

              Outside of CU, WSU, and to a slightly lessor extent Bradley the Valley doesn't have the funds to invest heavily in basketball.

              I think ISUr and MSU are two examples of what happens to coaches when you are flat azz broke, they can't leave fast enough. Where as Altman stayed forever before I think both parties involved were ready to split, and Marshall has passed on some mediocre BCS schools.

              Our location sucks... I always try to come up with non football schools to pair with Bradley, Creighton, Wichita and they just are not there. Eventually though you would think having 5 schools with football and 5 without would cause some sort of issue.

              Comment


              • #22
                Creighton's Quiet Center rent being a "wash" is debatable, however WSU's Koch Arena being massively profitable is not. Most of Creighton's "revenue" is smokescreen. Wichita State is the cash cow of the MVC and it isn't even close.


                T


                ...:cool:

                Comment


                • #23
                  Only absent a "Joan of Arc" reference kept that post from reaching all the warm fuzzies.
                  Last edited by WuDrWu; May 17, 2012, 10:54 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by C0|dB|00ded View Post
                    Most of Creighton's "revenue" is smokescreen.
                    Yup, ticket revenues from the nation's sixth highest attendance throw off a lot of smoke all right!

                    I don't care if we are first or second in revenues in the MVC. I know we're doing just fine in that department. It is the other teams in the conference I'm worried about.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DoubleJayAlum View Post
                      Yup, ticket revenues from the nation's sixth highest attendance throw off a lot of smoke all right!

                      I don't care if we are first or second in revenues in the MVC. I know we're doing just fine in that department. It is the other teams in the conference I'm worried about.
                      Bingo! When it comes to money, CU isn't an issue. It's the rest of this crap conference
                      Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
                      RIP Guy Always A Shocker
                      Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
                      ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
                      Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
                      Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by SubGod22 View Post
                        Bingo! When it comes to money, CU isn't an issue. It's the rest of this crap conference
                        I don't know, I heard SWOMO athletic dept is a cash cow... or maybe it was cash from a cow. :D

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X