Interesting article on the state of college athletics... This link below is a article that talks about athletic depts hemorrhaging money on athletics. Hint, EMU is on the list.

It's becoming harder and harder for the "have-nots" to compete in division 1 athletics.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...epartments

I don't think one can make one logic argument for keeping football at EMU.

(11-25-2014 06:18 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  I don't think one can make one logic argument for keeping football at EMU.

Games against Florida, Penn State, Michigan State, LSU next year brings in a lot of money to help the athletic department.

(11-26-2014 09:55 AM)NewEagle Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 06:18 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  I don't think one can make one logic argument for keeping football at EMU.

Games against Florida, Penn State, Michigan State, LSU next year brings in a lot of money to help the athletic department.

Please tell me you're joking that we scheduled all those teams in the same season. It can't possibly be right. Nobody is that nuts.

I think he meant those games over the past few years, with LSU next year. Our OOC opponents next season are Army, @Wyoming, ODU, @LSU. Honestly, three potential winnable games, despite no FCS opponent. Wyoming and ODU lose senior QBs, and Army is Army, so who knows...

(11-26-2014 09:55 AM)NewEagle Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 06:18 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  I don't think one can make one logic argument for keeping football at EMU.

Games against Florida, Penn State, Michigan State, LSU next year brings in a lot of money to help the athletic department.

I am very curious on how that works, I see that thrown out there all the time, but if that brings in money lets say a 500,000 a game then how is that helping out the department if they are losing 22 million overall ?

Am I not getting something here ?

(11-26-2014 11:10 AM)realistEagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 09:55 AM)NewEagle Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 06:18 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  I don't think one can make one logic argument for keeping football at EMU.

Games against Florida, Penn State, Michigan State, LSU next year brings in a lot of money to help the athletic department.

I am very curious on how that works, I see that thrown out there all the time, but if that brings in money lets say a 500,000 a game then how is that helping out the department if they are losing 22 million overall ?

Am I not getting something here ?

That 22M number has to be bogus.

Doesn't EMU spend (in hard cash, like 'checks written') about 10M a year for athletics? (that doesn't count Okoloji's tuition as what 20K?)

We have what almost 500 scholarship athletes getting a year's worth of tuition, undergrad mostly, either in or out of state. Say 500 x 15K (don't know if that is a good number) = 7.5M in tuition which could be expensed, but isn't hard dollars.

Some schools, I believe expense the tuition; others do not. (BTW, I'm out of my league on this stuff).

(11-26-2014 11:10 AM)realistEagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 09:55 AM)NewEagle Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 06:18 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  I don't think one can make one logic argument for keeping football at EMU.

Games against Florida, Penn State, Michigan State, LSU next year brings in a lot of money to help the athletic department.

I am very curious on how that works, I see that thrown out there all the time, but if that brings in money lets say a 500,000 a game then how is that helping out the department if they are losing 22 million overall ?

Am I not getting something here ?

$500K is very conservative. A FCS team can easily get $1,000,000 to go take a loss to a major SEC/ACC team. A FBS G5 bad team can easily get $1,500,000 to go take a loss. The costs are so high now that even major P5 programs are going 2 for 1 games to keep costs down. Georgia Tech just did a 2 for 1 with Tulane.

If you want to find the REAL sources of massive revenue bleed from an athletic department ... look for the sports categorized, appropriately, as non-revenue sports. Football is easy to be profitable. Basketball is easy to be only lightly difficult to be profitable. Baseball is difficult to be profitable, but possible. Women's basketball, hockey, and lacrosse is nearly impossible to be profitable, but getting easier. Beyond that it is a money pit. In particular the Title IX sports. It usually looks MUCH worse without the revenue sports to mask their real cost.

(11-28-2014 12:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 11:10 AM)realistEagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 09:55 AM)NewEagle Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 06:18 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  I don't think one can make one logic argument for keeping football at EMU.

Games against Florida, Penn State, Michigan State, LSU next year brings in a lot of money to help the athletic department.

I am very curious on how that works, I see that thrown out there all the time, but if that brings in money lets say a 500,000 a game then how is that helping out the department if they are losing 22 million overall ?

Am I not getting something here ?

$500K is very conservative. A FCS team can easily get $1,000,000 to go take a loss to a major SEC/ACC team. A FBS G5 bad team can easily get $1,500,000 to go take a loss. The costs are so high now that even major P5 programs are going 2 for 1 games to keep costs down. Georgia Tech just did a 2 for 1 with Tulane.

If you want to find the REAL sources of massive revenue bleed from an athletic department ... look for the sports categorized, appropriately, as non-revenue sports. Football is easy to be profitable. Basketball is easy to be only lightly difficult to be profitable. Baseball is difficult to be profitable, but possible. Women's basketball, hockey, and lacrosse is nearly impossible to be profitable, but getting easier. Beyond that it is a money pit. In particular the Title IX sports. It usually looks MUCH worse without the revenue sports to mask their real cost.

Thank you, thank you, thank you...

Folks on these forums 'just don't get it...'

IF EMU FB costs 3M per season to fund, it can bring in 3 - 4M from these big money games, MAC television, and college FB playoffs...

How much revenue is produced by swimming and diving, soccer, softball, etc. etc.

How much does the women's softball team get for a road game????

Doesn't women's softball, women's soccer have costs similar to women's basketball (except for a few games involving distant travel) yet what near zero revenues?

Ditto isn't the costs for men's basketball similar to women's basketball yet at least the men can go on the road and collect a few nice paydays.

In the article below they site a lot of $600k to $850k range payouts. Some a little higher for good mid majors. And I am sure payouts are a lot less against a Purdue than against the more major opponents sited.

I am so curious what the actual ledger for a lower end football program is. I can see even the lowliest of them (EMU) easily pulling in one to two million for the season. But how much do they actually spend?

I assume it is a lot. Scholarships and travel expenses for the largest team in the athletic department. Largest coaching staff and highest salaries in the athletic department. A lot of equipment. Throw in facilities and facility maintenance. But in the end, I have no idea how much more than the revenue this is.

As other posters are pointing out, saying an athletic department has a $20 million dollar deficit does not say anything about how much football contributes to this deficit. Wish some one could provide that info.

http://mobile.sportingnews.com/article/4...gle.com%2F

Thank you for some clarification guys, I was a little confused on that number but now understand that it is the figure for the whole department. I wonder how it would look without the football's contribution and what is actually their +/- for the year when it comes to finances.

EMU football is a huge money pit and I hate to say it, but it's reputation as being woefully inept, hurts the EMU brand SIGNIFICANTLY. I think we are getting dangerously close to...serious evaluation.

(12-02-2014 08:26 PM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  EMU football is a huge money pit and I hate to say it, but it's reputation as being woefully inept, hurts the EMU brand SIGNIFICANTLY. I think we are getting dangerously close to...serious evaluation.

That might have been true 20 or 25 years ago.

Now FBS produces nice revenues even if the stands are empty.

Should BG close down their program? Their revenues are greater but not significantly.

No MAC school gets rich on 10k.non student tixs per game.

That's not where the money is.

BG wins, Toledo wins- their football programs enhance the school's brand. Same thing with CMU and WMU, they can market their universities with the positive college football atmosphere that they provide. Not so with EMU. When you think EMU football, what comes to mind? Losing, failure, apathy, dreary, empty, small stadium, laughingstock. This does not reflect well on the university and it has been going on for decades. It is part of the EMU experience and culture. Obviously, much worse than UAB had to deal with.

Not really. UAB had the same awful attendance issues we do. Google some screen caps of their home games...more empty than lots of ours. They had a crap stadium that the Alabama-Tuscaloosa Board would never approve upgrades on, a history of losing similar to ours (one bowl game in 23 years), and almost complete local apathy. The difference between us and them is we aren't a "satellite" of a larger school like they are.

This does scare me, because it proves that a football program can really shut down, even when college football is at it's all time popularity peak. I think the raging pessimists like Bob will keep posting that the end is nigh, but I can't see it happening for a while. This UAB thing was a few years in the making...we haven't heard a peep about our program shutting down other than blind speculation from fans.

Just know that EMU is last in every measurable category you want to use. We TRULY are the WORST DI football program in the nation. If another football program gets shutdown, it would be EMU and deservably so. Not a pessimist, a realist.

You're not a realist. You're speculating. We've heard nothing suggesting it. While it could very well happen, there hasn't even been a rumor.

(12-03-2014 08:52 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  Just know that EMU is last in every measurable category you want to use. We TRULY are the WORST DI football program in the nation. If another football program gets shutdown, it would be EMU and deservably so. Not a pessimist, a realist.

or the board pessimist.

As Sam has mentioned, UAB got shut down because they are part of the Alabama system and they are essentially an 'outlier' campus for Tuscaloosa.

Hell I think the folks in Tuscaloosa don't even care if UAB as a school exists.

We are not like the UofM system which includes Dearborn, etc.

Truth be told, UAB is the first FBS school to shutter football in 20 years. American industry shutters manufacturing plants every month.

Truth be told(2), more schools are moving UP or starting FBS, then moving down or disbanding.

Sometimes a headline completely obliterates FACTS. The fact is EXPANSION not CONTRACTION in FBS.

Well what we are going to do to improve our attendance figures especially in the "money" sports like football and men's basketball?

Men's basketball has been winning but attendance hasn't improved. Why?

They slightly increased football prices and charged for parking and slightly raised the basketball best seats in the house. I guess that helps revenues a trickle.

Bob, I do agree with you on one thing: our football history is deplorable. I think it's pretty clear that we have the worst FBS program in history, regardless of the metric you decide to use. If our program fell off the face of the earth, few outside of this board would mourn. That's a scary thought as costs continue to escalate and budgets grow tighter and tighter.