(02-25-2017 02:03 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:48 PM)panama Wrote:  You do get that any athletics budget at any university is a subset of the universities operating budget, right?

They are taking funds that could be used on a new research park and instead investing it into FBS football.

UMass has spent over $2 Billion on new academic buildings in the last 10 years. There is no shortage of money for academic buildings because of the football team.

(02-26-2017 09:02 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 06:50 PM)panama Wrote:  1) who gets to make that decIsion for UMass? You?

2) it's on the phrasing isn't it? Your argument is that universities should not be subsidizing athletic departmemts right? Well if they are subsidizing where is the money coming from? Whether it's student fees or tuition or check from the general fund or even not charging the AD for scholarships it's a hit on the annual revenue. The only way it is not is if the university has a foundation that is fundraising for the university and athletics and the money is coming from there. The $20M that you keep pointing to for UMass is coming from somewhere. And that somewhere is from the university budget somewhere. The problem is that you're talking in absolutes and have arrived at a decision prior to investigating. Alll ADs should be self supporting. With that edict there would be maybe 50 schools in Division I. The other thing is that generally it's Olympic Sports that provide a drag on your AD budget. Football generally pays for everything else. So UMass could drop football and would still have to subsidize their athletic department.

This isn't about me so stop with the predictable response.

My argument is that schools like UMAss with limited fan support and finances really don't see much if any benefit to playing up in FBS so unless there is some benefit it really makes no sense to put that burden on a school and alumni base who doesn't support the sport.

I don't think all AD's need to be self supporting but 80% subsidy is probably not a great spot for a stage flagship playing FBS football as an INDY. Where do you draw the line 90%, 95%?

Conversely it could be argued that people who are paid a hefty penny to lead UMass and to manage these budgets see some benefit or else they would not be spending the money. And again, if they dropped football tomorrow they would still have to subsidize their AD because they would have even less AD revenue coming in.

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

What I'm saying is correct. Most schools do not take money out of there general funds to pay for their athletics....maybe some start ups from SB/CUSA/Liberty.
If sports are paid by the schools general budgets, then why do they even have such a thing as an Athletic Department???

Cheers!

Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

I thought we had already identified where that 4.5 million came from looking at the budgets.

UMAss is just an extreme case as far as budgets and receiving money from the school, but they have no choice as the fans are simply not providing much income to the AD.

Looking at the budgets UMAss is right there with the most subsidized AD's in FBS.

I think Panama's claims that it was no big deal to just take a little more from the academic side or from students becasue the budget is so big that it won't matter is the thought that is absolutely incorrect. There is a reason that other FBS flagships in the country do not do this. Most have large budgets and could simply move over 100m from academics and put it in the AD, but they don't, becasue that' not how FBS schools fund thier AD's.

That's where this got off track when Panama decided that a 3.2 billion $ budget was big enough to throw millions at the AD each year to increase the AD budget to compete at the FBS level becasue the fans aren't doing so.

That is absolutely wrong. It's a predictable fallback for people when faced with athletic issues to to refer to things like overall budget or endowment.

AT the end of the day it's about the fans. If the fans will support it them by all means move forward. Unfortunately UMAss has fan support issues and likely belongs with the other heavily subsidized New England flagship AD's in FCS. I see no benefit to UMAss and like I said earlier if you asked a random person in most of the country what level of football UMass plays they wouldn't know. Donations have not increased, ticket sales have not increased. I just dont' see the benefit.

(02-27-2017 08:58 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 02:03 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:48 PM)panama Wrote:  You do get that any athletics budget at any university is a subset of the universities operating budget, right?

They are taking funds that could be used on a new research park and instead investing it into FBS football.

UMass has spent over $2 Billion on new academic buildings in the last 10 years. There is not shortage of money for academic buildings because of the football team.

Thanks for the -10 rep. You must have been really butthurt about what I said becasue you know I'm right. Try to hide it better next time. LOL.

What benefits do you see to the school for playing FBS?

DO you think the fan support suggest the students and fans are into being in FBS?

At what point is to much subsidy for FBS? 80%, 85%, 90%

A few things I want to add to this discussion.

1. University support for the football program by percentage has actually decreased since the FCS days. Yes, University support (real dollars) of FBS has increased but so have the revenue sources. The revenue has increased from basically "0" to about $14 million (This does not count donations, gifts, or corporate support -- only tickets and guarantees).
(EDIT: Correcting my number to include 2015 & 2016. Left that out by accident. Should have said roughly $14 Million since moving to FBS).

2. The football budget increases since moving up to FBS include union and COL mandated increases for coaching and staff salaries. So the reported budget increases don't tell you what the comparable costs would be if we remained at the FCS level. Basically subsidy level and travel cost were continued to increase or remain high and travel to CAA teams mostly in the South would increase.

3. Our attendance numbers aren't great but they are in line with comparable state universities like Buffalo, Ohio, and others. Also, as we build the program the attendance will increase as we start to win more games. Takes time.

4. UMass understands that this move is a difficult process but one that is necessary to stay competitive with peer institutions. UMass is striving to compete at the highest level in all facets, including academics, athletics, student life, research, etc, etc. One of the biggest goals UMass has is becoming a member of the AAU (Association of American Universities). Competing at the highest level academically and athletically (including football) is an important step in becoming a member. UMass needs to be dedicated to always compete at the highest level in everything we do. Out of the 31 public universities who are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities and sponsor a football program, 29 have FBS programs. These schools understand the importance of athletics just as much as they understand the importance of academics. It takes a little bit of everything to make a university complete.



Those of us who support the move to FBS football want the best for the ENTIRE university, not just the athletic department. I want the anthropology department to flourish just as much as I want the football program to flourish. It would be very easy for me to say that I thought the university should cut the anthropology department and funnel the funds into the football program, but I do not want that at all. It would be very easy for me to say that I thought that using university money to send professors to countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa to study anthropology is a waste and could be used in other departments, like the business school, for more useful endeavors. But I understand that to have a successful flagship state research university we need our professors doing this important research so that they can educate the future anthropologists of the world. To have a successful university UMass needs to support all of its programs, including FBS football.

There are intangible benefits that major college athletics bring to a university, such as increased national exposure, more admission applications, better quality students and increased alumni donations.


I could get into this in more detail but I really need to get back to work. FBS Football is important to the future of UMass as a whole. Luckily for us we have administrators who understand this and support the move to FBS and the long process.

(02-27-2017 09:55 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  A few things I want to add to this discussion.

1. University support for the football program by percentage has actually decreased since the FCS days. Yes, University support (real dollars) of FBS has increased but so have the revenue sources. The revenue has increased from basically "0" to about $7.5 million (This does not count donations, gifts, or corporate support -- only tickets and guarantees).

LOL. You guys are doing the same thing over and over and it makes it look like you can't read simple financial numbers. First you make ridiculous claims about benefits of being in FBS. Then get called out with actual budget numbers.

The numbers do not support your claims at all. The revenue has not increased? Have you even looked at these?

What revenue sources have increased due to FBS? The only thing that has increased is school funds. Not attendance. Not donations. Not licensing. Student fees slightly up but not a lot.


Massachusetts
CONFERENCE: A-10

YEAR TICKET SALES CONTRIBUTIONS RIGHTS / LICENSING STUDENT FEES SCHOOL FUNDS OTHER TOTAL REVENUES
2015 $1,643,397 $1,371,144 $2,566,830 $8,151,071 $20,530,698 $2,249,297 $36,512,437
2014 $1,695,134 $1,579,380 $1,711,809 $8,081,072 $18,344,057 $2,464,466 $33,875,918
2013 $1,413,936 $841,873 $1,729,462 $8,004,252 $16,350,175 $1,720,937 $30,060,635
2012 $1,160,807 $1,174,767 $1,787,962 $7,986,581 $16,389,092 $1,263,008 $29,762,217
2011 $1,290,143 $656,374 $2,071,154 $7,858,242 $14,185,734 $1,186,630 $27,248,277
2010 $1,246,446 $615,212 $2,028,721 $7,655,562 $12,519,657 $1,092,374 $25,157,972
2009 $1,543,216 $728,547 $1,958,969 $7,523,706 $12,458,449 $1,035,586 $25,248,473
2008 $1,477,290 $917,399 $2,067,241 $7,247,226 $12,407,669 $1,103,813 $25,220,638
2007 $1,400,854 $1,030,645 $2,051,253 $7,110,508 $8,798,995 $761,606 $21,153,861
2006 $1,084,246 $719,429 $1,973,277 $6,910,727 $8,448,848 $745,163 $19,881,690
2005 $1,032,637 $705,500 $1,625,442 $6,844,792 $8,391,074 $745,146 $19,344,591



You better give me some neg rep lol.

(02-27-2017 09:55 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  A few things I want to add to this discussion.

1. University support for the football program by percentage has actually decreased since the FCS days. Yes, University support (real dollars) of FBS has increased but so have the revenue sources. The revenue has increased from basically "0" to about $7.5 million (This does not count donations, gifts, or corporate support -- only tickets and guarantees).

2. The football budget increases since moving up to FBS include union and COL mandated increases for coaching and staff salaries. So the reported budget increases don't tell you what the comparable costs would be if we remained at the FCS level. Basically subsidy level and travel cost were continued to increase or remain high and travel to CAA teams mostly in the South would increase.

3. Our attendance numbers aren't great but they are in line with comparable state universities like Buffalo, Ohio, and others. Also, as we build the program the attendance will increase as we start to win more games. Takes time.

4. UMass understands that this move is a difficult process but one that is necessary to stay competitive with peer institutions. UMass is striving to compete at the highest level in all facets, including academics, athletics, student life, research, etc, etc. One of the biggest goals UMass has is becoming a member of the AAU (Association of American Universities). Competing at the highest level academically and athletically (including football) is an important step in becoming a member. UMass needs to be dedicated to always compete at the highest level in everything we do. Out of the 31 public universities who are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities and sponsor a football program, 29 have FBS programs. These schools understand the importance of athletics just as much as they understand the importance of academics. It takes a little bit of everything to make a university complete.



Those of us who support the move to FBS football want the best for the ENTIRE university, not just the athletic department. I want the anthropology department to flourish just as much as I want the football program to flourish. It would be very easy for me to say that I thought the university should cut the anthropology department and funnel the funds into the football program, but I do not want that at all. It would be very easy for me to say that I thought that using university money to send professors to countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa to study anthropology is a waste and could be used in other departments, like the business school, for more useful endeavors. But I understand that to have a successful flagship state research university we need our professors doing this important research so that they can educate the future anthropologists of the world. To have a successful university UMass needs to support all of its programs, including FBS football.

There are intangible benefits that major college athletics bring to a university, such as increased national exposure, more admission applications, better quality students and increased alumni donations.


I could get into this in more detail but I really need to get back to work. FBS Football is important to the future of UMass as a whole. Luckily for us we have administrators who understand this and support the move to FBS and the long process.

Fin

I'm only talking about the football program and my numbers are correct.

(02-27-2017 10:23 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I'm only talking about the football program and my numbers are correct.

Awesome. Do you have a link? TIA


LOL

(02-27-2017 09:50 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:30 PM)panama Wrote:  That did not answer mturn's question...

Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

What I'm saying is correct. Most schools do not take money out of there general funds to pay for their athletics....maybe some start ups from SB/CUSA/Liberty.
If sports are paid by the schools general budgets, then why do they even have such a thing as an Athletic Department???

Cheers!

Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

I thought we had already identified where that 4.5 million came from looking at the budgets.

UMAss is just an extreme case as far as budgets and receiving money from the school, but they have no choice as the fans are simply not providing much income to the AD.

Looking at the budgets UMAss is right there with the most subsidized AD's in FBS.

I think Panama's claims that it was no big deal to just take a little more from the academic side or from students becasue the budget is so big that it won't matter is the thought that is absolutely incorrect. There is a reason that other FBS flagships in the country do not do this. Most have large budgets and could simply move over 100m from academics and put it in the AD, but they don't, becasue that' not how FBS schools fund thier AD's.

That's where this got off track when Panama decided that a 3.2 billion $ budget was big enough to throw millions at the AD each year to increase the AD budget to compete at the FBS level becasue the fans aren't doing so.

That is absolutely wrong. It's a predictable fallback for people when faced with athletic issues to to refer to things like overall budget or endowment.

AT the end of the day it's about the fans. If the fans will support it them by all means move forward. Unfortunately UMAss has fan support issues and likely belongs with the other heavily subsidized New England flagship AD's in FCS. I see no benefit to UMAss and like I said earlier if you asked a random person in most of the country what level of football UMass plays they wouldn't know. Donations have not increased, ticket sales have not increased. I just dont' see the benefit.

You get that the Operating Budget for a university is not just "the academic side", right? Its everything! Its sweeping the floors and cafeteria lunches and the fees for the school paper. Someone on here has already mentioned that in recent years UMass has spent $2B on new academic buildings i.e., they are not exactly hurting the academic side by having FBS football. You armed with your numbers have decided that UMass should not have FBS football when that decision resides with the president and trustees. You say there is no benefit as if you're embedded in Lowell and know all the particulars of their situation.

How many schools have started football in the last 25 years and/or moved up to FBS? How many have moved down? That in itself might indicate that there is a value beyond your balance sheet.


Also its pretty disingenuous for a P5 fan to be combing through the balance sheets of a mid major when for decades before the TV Revenue era power conference schools were gorging themselves on state money to go from 15k stadiums to 75k and 80k seat stadiums.

UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

(02-27-2017 10:32 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 09:50 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:45 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 08:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 03:53 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Yeah, completely missed the point. Nobody would argue that ECU isn't well supported by their fans but they do receive support from the academic side. And the 4.5 million is just what makes it on the AD books. There's probably much more ancillary functions costed out to academics. Virginia requires probably the strictest (that I know of) reporting of all these costs so that we have to use student fees 100% and nothing can come from the general budget. That's not the case for most schools so what billybobby was saying earlier isn't correct.

What I'm saying is correct. Most schools do not take money out of there general funds to pay for their athletics....maybe some start ups from SB/CUSA/Liberty.
If sports are paid by the schools general budgets, then why do they even have such a thing as an Athletic Department???

Cheers!

Then how do you explain the 4.5 million ECU donated to their athletic budget?

I thought we had already identified where that 4.5 million came from looking at the budgets.

UMAss is just an extreme case as far as budgets and receiving money from the school, but they have no choice as the fans are simply not providing much income to the AD.

Looking at the budgets UMAss is right there with the most subsidized AD's in FBS.

I think Panama's claims that it was no big deal to just take a little more from the academic side or from students becasue the budget is so big that it won't matter is the thought that is absolutely incorrect. There is a reason that other FBS flagships in the country do not do this. Most have large budgets and could simply move over 100m from academics and put it in the AD, but they don't, becasue that' not how FBS schools fund thier AD's.

That's where this got off track when Panama decided that a 3.2 billion $ budget was big enough to throw millions at the AD each year to increase the AD budget to compete at the FBS level becasue the fans aren't doing so.

That is absolutely wrong. It's a predictable fallback for people when faced with athletic issues to to refer to things like overall budget or endowment.

AT the end of the day it's about the fans. If the fans will support it them by all means move forward. Unfortunately UMAss has fan support issues and likely belongs with the other heavily subsidized New England flagship AD's in FCS. I see no benefit to UMAss and like I said earlier if you asked a random person in most of the country what level of football UMass plays they wouldn't know. Donations have not increased, ticket sales have not increased. I just dont' see the benefit.

You get that the Operating Budget for a university is not just "the academic side", right? Its everything! Its sweeping the floors and cafeteria lunches and the fees for the school paper. Someone on here has already mentioned that in recent years UMass has spent $2B on new academic buildings i.e., they are not exactly hurting the academic side by having FBS football. You armed with your numbers have decided that UMass should not have FBS football when that decision resides with the president and trustees. You say there is no benefit as if you're embedded in Lowell and know all the particulars of their situation.

How many schools have started football in the last 25 years and/or moved up to FBS? How many have moved down? That in itself might indicate that there is a value beyond your balance sheet.


Also its pretty disingenuous for a P5 fan to be combing through the balance sheets of a mid major when for decades before the TV Revenue era power conference schools were gorging themselves on state money to go from 15k stadiums to 75k and 80k seat stadiums.

So now we are back to talking about academics and academic building construction.

Pretty safe to say you have not presented much of a case for UMAss in FBS. All you do is talk overall school budget and academics when faced with actual numbers. But at least you aren't' just making them up like Zack is. He thinks FBS football made 7.5 million for the AD when they took in less than that for ticket sales, licensing, and donations for the entire AD so there is literally no way that the FB is worth 7.5 million. More bogus claims.

For one reason or another you guys just struggle with numbers it seems.

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

What else is there to compete with in Wyoming? For UMass, I remember their 9k basketball arena being sold out throughout the 90's and they probably could have brought in more. Their football team won a title too, I can't find the info anywhere, but wouldn't you assume they had fans showing up?

Also, Wyoming has been 1-A/FBS since 1940! Think that has something to do with it?

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

Thanks esayem, completely agree we have a winning problem and for P23570 let me give you a basketabll example from last night. The team has been playing poorly in A10 play and in the 84-71 win over LaSalle, there were 2811 tickets sold.

http://www.umassathletics.com/news/2017/...ath=mbball

Three years earlier when the team was good in A10 play, The Mullins was sold out, 9483, for our 80-75 win over VCU. So P23570, feel free to crunch those number 9483 - 2811 = 6672 and then multiply that by the number of our home games and average ticket price of $20. Then tell me the Football revenue is flat because the numbers.

Quote:When Smart sat down for his postgame press conference following the Massachusetts men's basketball team's 80-75 win over his Rams, though, the first thing he addressed wasn't about his own team's struggles. It wasn't about the heroics of Chaz Williams and the Minutemen either. It was about the Mullins Center crowd.

"First of all, terrific crowd," Smart said. "I thought the fans and the folks that organized them and ran the game -- it's a first-class basketball environment. I think it says a lot of about the job that coach [Derek] Kellogg and his staff and his players have done to build this program. Obviously, it's the type of environment that you love to play in as a college basketball player and it's a challenge to go on the road to places like this because the crowd creates a tremendous energy for the home team."

http://www.masslive.com/umassbasketball/...cart_river

(02-27-2017 11:20 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

Thanks esayem, completely agree we have a winning problem and for P23570 let me give you a basketabll example from last night. The team has been playing poorly in A10 play and in the 84-71 win over LaSalle, there were 2811 tickets sold.

http://www.umassathletics.com/news/2017/...ath=mbball

Three years earlier when the team was good in A10 play, The Mullins was sold out, 9483, for our 80-75 win over VCU. So P23570, feel free to crunch those number 9483 - 2811 = 6672 and then multiply that by the number of our home games and average ticket price of $20. Then tell me the Football revenue is flat because the numbers.

Quote:When Smart sat down for his postgame press conference following the Massachusetts men's basketball team's 80-75 win over his Rams, though, the first thing he addressed wasn't about his own team's struggles. It wasn't about the heroics of Chaz Williams and the Minutemen either. It was about the Mullins Center crowd.

"First of all, terrific crowd," Smart said. "I thought the fans and the folks that organized them and ran the game -- it's a first-class basketball environment. I think it says a lot of about the job that coach [Derek] Kellogg and his staff and his players have done to build this program. Obviously, it's the type of environment that you love to play in as a college basketball player and it's a challenge to go on the road to places like this because the crowd creates a tremendous energy for the home team."

http://www.masslive.com/umassbasketball/...cart_river

Uh, this is about Football. But thanks for proving my point for me. Basketball attendance would likely drop if the move was made to the MAC from the A-10. Yet another reason to keep all sports in the A-10 and find a FCS FB home somewhere closeby.

The numbers you provide are the whole Athletic budget, revenue etc, which includes all 3 revenue sports at UMass, Basketball, Football, and Hockey. Your a funny guy.

(02-27-2017 11:27 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:20 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

Thanks esayem, completely agree we have a winning problem and for P23570 let me give you a basketabll example from last night. The team has been playing poorly in A10 play and in the 84-71 win over LaSalle, there were 2811 tickets sold.

http://www.umassathletics.com/news/2017/...ath=mbball

Three years earlier when the team was good in A10 play, The Mullins was sold out, 9483, for our 80-75 win over VCU. So P23570, feel free to crunch those number 9483 - 2811 = 6672 and then multiply that by the number of our home games and average ticket price of $20. Then tell me the Football revenue is flat because the numbers.

Quote:When Smart sat down for his postgame press conference following the Massachusetts men's basketball team's 80-75 win over his Rams, though, the first thing he addressed wasn't about his own team's struggles. It wasn't about the heroics of Chaz Williams and the Minutemen either. It was about the Mullins Center crowd.

"First of all, terrific crowd," Smart said. "I thought the fans and the folks that organized them and ran the game -- it's a first-class basketball environment. I think it says a lot of about the job that coach [Derek] Kellogg and his staff and his players have done to build this program. Obviously, it's the type of environment that you love to play in as a college basketball player and it's a challenge to go on the road to places like this because the crowd creates a tremendous energy for the home team."

http://www.masslive.com/umassbasketball/...cart_river

Uh, this is about Football. But thanks for proving my point for me. Basketball attendance would likely drop if the move was made to the MAC from the A-10. Yet another reason to keep all sports in the A-10 and find a FCS FB home somewhere closeby.

Why don't the Sooners move down. Likely would result in less crime in the community.

(02-27-2017 11:34 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:27 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:20 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

Thanks esayem, completely agree we have a winning problem and for P23570 let me give you a basketabll example from last night. The team has been playing poorly in A10 play and in the 84-71 win over LaSalle, there were 2811 tickets sold.

http://www.umassathletics.com/news/2017/...ath=mbball

Three years earlier when the team was good in A10 play, The Mullins was sold out, 9483, for our 80-75 win over VCU. So P23570, feel free to crunch those number 9483 - 2811 = 6672 and then multiply that by the number of our home games and average ticket price of $20. Then tell me the Football revenue is flat because the numbers.

Quote:When Smart sat down for his postgame press conference following the Massachusetts men's basketball team's 80-75 win over his Rams, though, the first thing he addressed wasn't about his own team's struggles. It wasn't about the heroics of Chaz Williams and the Minutemen either. It was about the Mullins Center crowd.

"First of all, terrific crowd," Smart said. "I thought the fans and the folks that organized them and ran the game -- it's a first-class basketball environment. I think it says a lot of about the job that coach [Derek] Kellogg and his staff and his players have done to build this program. Obviously, it's the type of environment that you love to play in as a college basketball player and it's a challenge to go on the road to places like this because the crowd creates a tremendous energy for the home team."

http://www.masslive.com/umassbasketball/...cart_river

Uh, this is about Football. But thanks for proving my point for me. Basketball attendance would likely drop if the move was made to the MAC from the A-10. Yet another reason to keep all sports in the A-10 and find a FCS FB home somewhere closeby.

Why don't the Sooners move down. Likely would result in less crime in the community.

This has nothing to do with OU. YOu are just mad becasue you have been proven wrong and are now trolling.

So predictable, like talking about endowment during conversations about an AD.

Do you think there would be a drop in BB interest playing in the MAC versus the a-10?

(02-27-2017 11:29 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The numbers you provide are the whole Athletic budget, revenue etc, which includes all 3 revenue sports at UMass, Basketball, Football, and Hockey. Your a funny guy.

All of us know that AD budget includes all sports, not just those 3. LOL

Thanks Capt


IF the goal is the MAC do you think the BB interest will drop off playing in the MAC vs A-10?

I think that would need to be taken into account as the MAC is certainly not going to bring any fans for FB or BB games