Shocker Fans: Are you ready for some football?

[Maggie]

Having said that, the two things I "bashed" were not opinions, they are facts.

Back up the bus.

If you really said something to the effect of "a new arena for the basketball team to lose in", and are calling it a fact, I have to question your objectivity and credibility.

Not to pile on but if you stand behind those statements why did you delete them from your post (if this was done by the powers that be – ignore me)?

[vbird53]

Ooooohhhhhh!!!!


I love these threads.

[ShockBand]

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have football back if it could be done without being a financial drain, but lets also recall that Shocker football wasn't exactly a juggernaut of wins.

Meanwhile, the basketball and baseball teams seem to have had some measure of success in postseason play. Shocker football played only in the Sun Bowl once and Raisin Bowl once, I heard through the grapevine.

Follow Cold's suggestion - find the funding and football could be back. Without it, not likely.

[Veritas]

Can anyone verify whether state money helps fund KU and KSU football? Another thread mentions that indeed it does, while state money did not help support WSU football when we had a program.

Football is important to a vibrant college atmosphere and everything possible should be done to bring it back.

Marshall fought their way through a tragedy, while WSU threw in the towel 15 years later. That lack of spirit and determination exhibited by then WSU AD Lew Perkins is absolutely shameful.

1. Get us into the new Valley Football Conf
2. Build a new "fan friendly" stadium that holds about 20K with a bowl at one end with a design to add upper levels when expansion is needed (get the fans closer to the field)
3. Set our sights on joining a bigger conference

If we don't bring back football, WSU will turn into nothing more than a commuter school. A strong WSU is good for Wichita AND for Kansas. It's a competitive environment when recruiting students to a university. Football does matter when attracting students.

[SpanglerFan316]

http://www.bradleyfans.com/ BradleyFans.com Forums > Sports Forums > Basketball Fan talk > Do Athletic Departments Lose Money?

We've heard occasionally that some athletic departments are self sufficient.
Especially the schools who play football...some claim they never put a drain on taxpayer revenues and student fees.

Of course, it is not true......almost every school's athletic departments lose money,lots of money.
Only a handful of the largest football programs generate extra money, and almost no other sport even comes close to breaking even.
I have heard many people claim that athletic departments generate so much revenue that they are self sufficient, and don't put any drain whatsoever on the overall school's budget and don't draw from student revenues or taxpayer revenues.

But the facts say otherwise..........

Here are some facts that seem to get very little acknowledgment as the schools don't want taxpayers to know this.
--The average "BCS school" (now called FBS - Football Bowl Subdivision) in 2006, had to use 25% of its operating budget by taking student fees and other non-athletic revenue.
--Among FCS schools (Football Championship Subdivision, the old 1-AA, like ISU), 75% of the revenue comes from non-athletic sources....75%! Nowhere even close to breaking even!
--D-I schools without football took 80% of the funds needed from non-athletic sources!
--only 19 (of 119) BCS football programs generated revenues above expenses, or in other words...made any money.
--The median athletic department loss among the BCS's was over $7 million!
--among schools without football.........."none reported an entire athletics budget in the black."
--not one of the 1-AA (the FCS) made money!
--among non-BCS schools, only 8% of men's basketball programs generated any profits and "those were minimal."
--it was clear that a substantial amount of money from these sources is helping to bail out money losing athletic programs across the nation!
*Student fees directly allocated to athletics - a form of tax upon student above and beyond their tuition, to fund athletics
*Direct institutional support (financial transfers directly from the general fund to athletics)
*Indirect institutional support (such as the state or other school departments' payment of utilities, maintenance and support salaries by the institution on behalf of athletics)
*Direct governmental support (the receipt of funds from state and local government agencies that are designated for athletics).

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...ws+And+Updates

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/ap/...w&id=D91OIOF00

Note---- the NCAA does not have fully accurate figures for private schools like Bradley, as those schools are not required to release such financial data, but,
since Bradley cannot just pass the costs on to the taxpayers, then it is likely that Bradley and other private institutions have to be more fiscally responsible.
In the end, schools like Bradley are at a distinct disadvantage because BU doesn't have the fall-back of grabbing tax dollars to help them recruit and compete. Private schools have to do it on their own self-sufficient budget..........



************************************************** ***



Finally some sense is being made public of this..........

The Parade Magazine also discloses some facts, that the athletic departments at most schools lose money big time......

"a recent report by the NCAA suggests that college sports are, in fact,
money-losing propositions. Among the 119 schools with top Division I football
teams, only 19 had athletic departments that generated a profit in 2006.

...many schools’ athletic programs have gotten out of hand.
Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, says,
“Some colleges seem more focused on beer and spectacle than on teaching
and learning. The public, students, and tuition payers have a right to know
how their money is being spent.” (instead of being lied to)

http://www.parade.com/articles/editi...ligence_Report

Note how the people in those Athletic Departments contend (like many uninformed message board posters)
that the athletic departments are "self supporting".

Here's what a University of Arkansas Chancellor incorrectly asserts...
“It is disappointing that more University resources and taxpayer dollars
will be expended to address rumors and accusations involving the
athletic department, which is a self-supporting entity,”
the statement from UA Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations Tysen Kendig says"

http://www.nwarktimes.com/adg/News/188451/

Likewise, when the Chancellors of Alabama and Tennessee announced a $75 million shortfall,
it is statements like this one that cause folks at other schools to just assume it's true everywhere,
like even at ISU where we have had some of their fans come onto this board and make the same claims!
"The athletic department is a self-supporting entity"

http://chronicle.com/news/article/46...m-and-job-cuts

NOPE-- in the end the truth is that almost all of those state schools ARE losing big bucks
with their athletic departments and bailing them out with taxpayer revenues from taxpayers like you and me.
Private schools like Bradley CAN'T do that, and must be more financially responsible and get the funds from donors.
State schools simply pass the bill on to the ever-gullible taxpayer.

[Veritas]

Thanks for the information Spangler. Though I was not able to pull up most of the data on the links which were attached, am I to assume then that KU and K-State are receiving tax payers' help with their athletic departments while WSU is not receiving the same support?

Rhetorical Question:
Am I supposed to feel a sense of superiority that KU and K-State are perhaps milking the taxpayers while good old WSU is not? Thus, while WSU's enrollment remains stagnant, and more and more students are not of the "traditional" full-time status, I can wave the fiscal responsibility flag in front of KU's and K-State's stadium (before I hand over my ticket and enter to watch college football)? In the mean time, the autumn campus of WSU becomes a stale, tired, empty, dying memory of an energetic campus from long ago. One where students looked forward to Saturdays, and the sounds of football practice and the marching band could be seen and heard throughout the week. Additionally, enrollment at KU and K-State continue to grow---at WSU's expense.

Shame on the Kansas Board of Regents and the local leadership of WSU for dropping football. A strong WSU is good for Wichita AND Kansas.

[BenWSU]

Owner of that site was just on KGSO. He`ll be seeking pledges of money the 3rd week of August.

http://www.bringbackshockerfootball.com.

[rrshock]

I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on WSU football than KU or KSU football. Can I earmark my money for that?

[SB Shock]

Re: Shocker Fans: Are you ready for some football?

Join the movement and help bring back Shocker football. Learn more at www.bringbackshockerfootball.blogspot.com.

And I thought this was really going to be the time.

[BenWSU]

You needed to listen to KGSO the last 2 days. The blogspot site is down because he`s working on a new site:

http://www.bringbackshockerfootball.com

When that site launches the 3rd week of August, you can go there for more information. Mainly he wants fans and alumni to make pledges.

[shocky]

I will be real interested to see what they come up with. I would love to see football back at WSU and see our entire athletic program take another step forward. I do have concerns about where we will find 30+ million dollars to fund this, but maybe these guys have some fresh ideas. If we can make the money thing work out and not take down other programs, I believe you will get the support of the Shocker Nation. I agree with those individuals on this board that believe we need to move towards a more traditional campus with more students living on campus. We can still provide classes for the non-traditional students as well and satellite campuses for student that live at home.

[SpanglerFan316]

shocky: $30,000,000 is not enough to start and maintain Shocker football. $30,000,000 plus $4M per year for ten years might do it.

Look at a successful D1AA football program.
Appalachian State University: Expense to Revenue Difference $-1,243,774


Compare "student expenses" with "coaching expenses"; in most cases, "coaching expenses" are greater than "student expenses."

Boise State University football:
Student Aid $872,199
Salaries $1,594,654
Other Coaches' Comp. $212,000

Calculate the cost of student aid. Then add a large amount for coaches. Plus Guarantees (Boise State: $325,000), Team Travel ($280,809), etc.

[shocky]

Good point Spangler. I would say that IF football could be fully funded upfront (all start up costs), that losses in the future could be covered from donations and student fees. I don't believe that all the cost of a football program will ever be totally covered. Only a few schools will meet all of their expenses or make money. WSU would lose big money at some point and would have to have a good plan to be able to deal with the losses. Even in the 80's, WSU could have sold out Cessna Stadium every game and lose money. WSU would have to have a plan that would give us all confidence that the football program would not bring down our other programs.

[CharlieHog]

Note how the people in those Athletic Departments contend (like many uninformed message board posters)
that the athletic departments are "self supporting".

Here's what a University of Arkansas Chancellor incorrectly asserts...
“It is disappointing that more University resources and taxpayer dollars
will be expended to address rumors and accusations involving the
athletic department, which is a self-supporting entity,”
the statement from UA Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations Tysen Kendig says"

http://www.nwarktimes.com/adg/News/188451/

The University of Arkansas athletic department pretty much is self-supporting. There are no student fees for athletics. The only money that goes from the University to the athletic department is a break in out-of-state tuition for athletes. The athletic department gets no other money from the U of A or from the State of Arkansas.

No facilities are owned by the state or city, they are all owned and paid for by the athletic department.

[tw805]

Good point Spangler. I would say that IF football could be fully funded upfront (all start up costs), that losses in the future could be covered from donations and student fees. I don't believe that all the cost of a football program will ever be totally covered. Only a few schools will meet all of their expenses or make money. WSU would lose big money at some point and would have to have a good plan to be able to deal with the losses. Even in the 80's, WSU could have sold out Cessna Stadium every game and lose money. WSU would have to have a plan that would give us all confidence that the football program would not bring down our other programs.

Financial analysis of any athletics department is always difficult, because it's not quite as simple as a balance sheet. Donations and booster support to all portions of the university come from the increased university visibility that athletics gives you. Look at most major university football games, and count the major boosters sitting in the sky boxes. There's a reason for that.

I highly doubt that over 100 D-1 universities are maintaining football programs that bring them negative overall revenue every year.