Interesting article by Bloomberg featuring ETSU and Dr. Sander's comments regarding the financial difficulties of athletic funding.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/...dding-them

It seems to me if the football program cost $4 million and the student fee covers 2.8 million, the football team revenue would be able to cover the other $1.2 million. WJHL interviewed Sander tonight for comments around this article. I do wish that he hadn't agreed to be featured by this article, as I think it gives ammo to the local football critics.

I appreciate Sander's honesty in this piece. In being genuine to the revenue picture (sorry, but more likely than not, ETSU football will suffer years in the red versus profitability), his comments on culture, experience, and branding come across with authenticity. Economic impact studies are notorious in overstating financial benefits of sports programs. I would argue that misrepresenting, or covering up, financial reality to shield a program is unethical and unbecoming of a university and its academic mission. You beat naysayers with an experience, increased market penetration/awareness, and some form of a defensible total budget. Allocation will always be criticized.

it should be no surprise that fb is not generating a great deal of revenue. most folks almost always overestimate ticket revenue. gurantee game revenue is generally in the $300,00 - $400,000 range and you really do not want to be playing more than one of those games. there is not tv revenue or any of ther kind of revenue share tied to conference membership. challenge ii suppose is tying donations directly to an individual sport. however, even if the sport does not break even or make much money does not mean it does not bring great value to the university, the student body, the students participating, and the community.

(01-11-2017 07:24 PM)shampoo Wrote:  I appreciate Sander's honesty in this piece. In being genuine to the revenue picture (sorry, but more likely than not, ETSU football will suffer years in the red versus profitability), his comments on culture, experience, and branding come across with authenticity. Economic impact studies are notorious in overstating financial benefits of sports programs. I would argue that misrepresenting, or covering up, financial reality to shield a program is unethical and unbecoming of a university and its academic mission. You beat naysayers with an experience, increased market penetration/awareness, and some form of a defensible total budget. Allocation will always be criticized.

See new article by Tony Casey I posted in the "Stadium Construction" thread.....

On-target comments by both Sander and Noland.

Feel free, of course, to re-post here if anyone thinks appropriate.

Tony Casey needs to stick to writing about how he cant control his bowels when he jogs and leave the writing of football to Joe and Jeff.

This article misses at least one key point. I would agree that basketball has been the preeminent sport at ETSU and has the higher potential for national success and notoriety. The average sports fan can't name the FCS football champion but knows who Butler is.

The missing link is, the lack of football hurt basketball and athletics/fan support in general. The lack of football relegated ETSU to the A-Sun and/or the Ohio Valley (which ETSU passed on) which has consistent ranked below the SOCON in conference RPI the last 4-5 years. Football and basketball go hand in hand and support each other. From football official visits which typically center around basketball games in the home stretch December - February, to basketball visits for football games in the fall.

It may not be the case for other schools, but for ETSU, basketball does not excel without the presence of football.

Both articles are just old re-hashes of things we know are wrong. FCS schools like Austin Peay, Tennessee State, Tennessee Tech and ETSU do not play football to "make" money. Very few if any such schools make money at athletics. The benefits far outweigh the costs and when we figure in the benefits of a marching band to a University the benefits grow even more. That it why it is important for such schools to play football now and we all will continue to play football in the future.

(01-19-2017 12:43 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  Both articles are just old re-hashes of things we know are wrong. FCS schools like Austin Peay, Tennessee State, Tennessee Tech and ETSU do not play football to "make" money. Very few if any such schools make money at athletics. The benefits far outweigh the costs and when we figure in the benefits of a marching band to a University the benefits grow even more. That it why it is important for such schools to play football now and we all will continue to play football in the future.

Old news: After ETSU dropped football "due to dire financial circumstances", the university continued INCREASING its athletic budget each year thereafter. Again, increasing, NOT decreasing. The old worn out spin that "football was losing over $1 million a year" never showed up in the books after it was dropped as athletic department spending continued to climb. It seemed to take a long time for a number of knuckle heads to catch on to this. As we all know too well, it was nothing but a ploy to shift athletic spending to the invisible sports (Mullins' sports), several of which generated little or no revenue and still don't. Without access to the current books, my guess is that ETSU will "lose" less money on athletics going forward with football because football actually generates revenue for the athletic department. Hasn't Dr Sander already TIERED athletic department spending, something "Momma Bear" and many others on here pleaded for in years past? Plus, all FCS schools and many FBS schools see athletic department spending as a marketing strategy, a marketing necessity in the highly competitive world of American higher education.

I realize this might be the impossible dream. However, I am wondering what kind of attendance and fundraising it would take for the football program to break even.

(03-05-2017 10:52 PM)Creek Boy Wrote:  I realize this might be the impossible dream. However, I am wondering what kind of attendance and fundraising it would take for the football program to break even.

On the balance sheet it will show that it breaks even. Football won't operate with a deficit, however to get what I think you're meaning which is for it to be self sustaining without student fees and other subsidies, about 35,000 fans a game and a move to FBS.

(03-06-2017 04:17 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  

(03-05-2017 10:52 PM)Creek Boy Wrote:  I realize this might be the impossible dream. However, I am wondering what kind of attendance and fundraising it would take for the football program to break even.

On the balance sheet it will show that it breaks even. Football won't operate with a deficit, however to get what I think you're meaning which is for it to be self sustaining without student fees and other subsidies, about 35,000 fans a game and a move to FBS.

Plus some serious TV money. With the Power Five schools controlling larger and larger shares of that, it would take a radical reform for the other five conferences schools to benefit more from TV than they are now.

(03-06-2017 06:58 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 04:17 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  

(03-05-2017 10:52 PM)Creek Boy Wrote:  I realize this might be the impossible dream. However, I am wondering what kind of attendance and fundraising it would take for the football program to break even.

On the balance sheet it will show that it breaks even. Football won't operate with a deficit, however to get what I think you're meaning which is for it to be self sustaining without student fees and other subsidies, about 35,000 fans a game and a move to FBS.

Plus some serious TV money. With the Power Five schools controlling larger and larger shares of that, it would take a radical reform for the other five conferences schools to benefit more from TV than they are now.

The TV money will be gone in five years. ESPN is cutting ANOTHER 100 million dollars out of its' budget for 2017, which means on air layoffs this time around. They've got these over inflated contracts with the NFL, college football, and the NBA to try and keep the inventory away from FS1 and others, and they're dying. People are cutting the cord, and with that ESPN is losing their subscribers to the tune of 15,000 per DAY according to Nielsen Media Research. That's nearly 5.5 million people a year dropping cable or satellite, or roughly the size of Atlanta and five times that of Rhode Island and only a million or so less than the entire state of Tennessee.
They could move up right now with the money they have, what they don't have is enough butts in the seats to guarantee a waiver, which winning at a high level would fix.