This was published today in the Chattanooga paper. It beats all... Chattanooga is making money with football!



With its resurgent football program as the "driver" of new revenue, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga athletic department will avoid any major repercussions from the latest round of budget cuts.

Athletic director Rick Hart said Monday that of the $186,000 in cuts UTC had to make from its projected 2010-11 fiscal year budget of about $9 million, it was able to "conservatively" project that football revenues "would help to mitigate $150,000 of that $186,000, so then there was $36,000 left."

The football program, which went 6-5 under first-year coach Russ Huesman in 2009, had a budget of $540,000 last year and realized revenues of "a little over $677,000," said Matt Pope, UTC's associate athletic director for internal operations, finance and marketing.

That's $137,000 on the plus side and UTC is expecting similar numbers this year. A record 2,527 season tickets were sold last season, more than double the amount (1,271) sold in 2008. The Mocs have sold 1,800 for the 2010 season, well ahead of last year's pace.

"We were able to come in to the (2010-11) budget and increase our base revenue expectations for ticket sales, sponsorships and other donations resulting from football, based on performance, not on a projection or a hope -- on actual data from last year," Hart said. "Every sport benefited from football's success, and that's what we've said all along: If we can get football operating at high level, then it will make the entire department stronger."

Of the remaining $36,000 in cuts, Hart said UTC was able to "tweak" some advertising and administrative strategies to cover the cuts so that none of UTC's 17 sports would have to have their budgets cut as they did last year.

In the 2009-10 budget, all of UTC's men's and women's sports had their recruiting and travel budgets cut by 10 percent. Numerous budget cuts in recent years have forced the Mocs to eliminate virtually everything non-vital.

Hart said UTC needed the football revenue increase, as well as increased sponsorship money, revenue from Mocs Sports Properties and donations, because there isn't much left in the budget to cut.

"We knew that we couldn't continue to cut into our budget," he said, "because if you're going to operate a Division I athletics program with 17 sports, at some point there's a threshold in terms of a minimum amount of resources that are needed to do that.

"We felt like we had reached that threshold and we were going to have to generate more revenues to offset or at least largely offset the cuts that were coming our way."

The 2009-10 fiscal year ends today and UTC is very optimistic that it will end the year with a balanced budget despite cuts of more than $480,000 and a rollover deficit of $229,673.89 from the 2008-09 fiscal year.

Pope said the final numbers will be in around mid July and "we have every reason to believe we will balance."

To do so in this economic climate, Hart said, "I think that's a tremendous thing to be able to say."

Possible time change

Hart said UTC has been contacted by SportSouth about televising the Sept. 4 football season opener against Appalachian State at Finley Stadium. The game is scheduled for 6 p.m. but would be moved up to 3 for television.

If only we had leaders who would look for ways football would work instead of giving reasons it won't. Way to go UTC.

Lies, all lies. Don't you know its impossible????

Shouldn't UTC have cut their football program by now?

I'm curious as to what they include in the budget for football. In salaries alone in 2009, the football program cost $539,000. (http://data.tennessean.com/DB/dbc/statesalaries09.php - search by department, Men- Football). That's pretty much what they stated the entire budget for football is.

Definitely not including scholarships in that figure, looks to be pure operating expenses for the sport. They have experienced an upswing in restricted giving and in-kind donations aimed at reducing reliance on the department's budget, which also helps. I would think some of the savings came from getting a new staff on board and the administrative lag times that you'd see with getting people on and off payrolls.

Doesn't matter, what does matter is that THEY have football, THEY are reporting more self-sufficiency due to increase in Fannies in the seats and game guarentees. Things are moving forward for a team that the ETSU officials predicted would be eliminated.

GOOD FOR THEM.

Great job UTC. Again, proof that it can be done and be done in a financially positive manner that our people say cannot be done. It just cannot be done in ONE school.

(07-02-2010 08:13 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  Great job UTC. Again, proof that it can be done and be done in a financially positive manner that our people say cannot be done. It just cannot be done in ONE school.

This simply isn't factual. As I mentioned they spent $540,000 on coaches salaries alone. The scholarship limit for FCS football is 63. In state room, board, and tuition at UT Chatt is roughly $14,000 a year. Multiplied times 63 that is $882,000. That is $1,422,000 combined. Add to that the cost of travel, equipment, recruiting, etc. and you can see that the expenses for their football program far exceeds the $677,000 in revenue they claim. Its simply a PR thing to say they made a profit off of football.

It is still very, very, very, very strange that ETSU is the ONLY state school that cannot "afford" 1AA football. Also embarrassing..

Really? Hmmm, more private giving, more butts in the seats, a couple of money games last season to cover costs, yet I'm sure the UT-C athletic dept. is cooking the books to make themselves look good.
Fact is a few private schools in the northeast have dropped football since we did, yet how many state supported regional institutions in the southeast have ADDED it since then? Those are numbers that don't lie, pure and simple. Ga. State, ODU, Coastal Carolina, South Alabama, just to name a few.... We won't even discuss little sister Kennesaw or Gulf Coast and their aspirations that are going to happen...
Great job Mocs for getting it done. Improve off the 6-5, find 8-3 and so year three puts you in the playoffs.

(07-02-2010 09:16 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 08:13 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  Great job UTC. Again, proof that it can be done and be done in a financially positive manner that our people say cannot be done. It just cannot be done in ONE school.

This simply isn't factual. As I mentioned they spent $540,000 on coaches salaries alone. The scholarship limit for FCS football is 63. In state room, board, and tuition at UT Chatt is roughly $14,000 a year. Multiplied times 63 that is $882,000. That is $1,422,000 combined. Add to that the cost of travel, equipment, recruiting, etc. and you can see that the expenses for their football program far exceeds the $677,000 in revenue they claim. Its simply a PR thing to say they made a profit off of football.

It's interesting that ETSU's innovation laboratory in all of it's entreprenuial endevours hasn't made a proposal on reinstating football. I'm pretty sure that their goal is to better the economical climate of the Tri-cities area. Then again, I guess that football doesn't bring in any money to the local businesses. After all fanatics 101 probably isn't making any money on their football shirts.

(07-02-2010 11:53 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Really? Hmmm, more private giving, more butts in the seats, a couple of money games last season to cover costs, yet I'm sure the UT-C athletic dept. is cooking the books to make themselves look good.
Fact is a few private schools in the northeast have dropped football since we did, yet how many state supported regional institutions in the southeast have ADDED it since then? Those are numbers that don't lie, pure and simple. Ga. State, ODU, Coastal Carolina, South Alabama, just to name a few.... We won't even discuss little sister Kennesaw or Gulf Coast and their aspirations that are going to happen...
Great job Mocs for getting it done. Improve off the 6-5, find 8-3 and so year three puts you in the playoffs.

(07-02-2010 09:16 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 08:13 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  Great job UTC. Again, proof that it can be done and be done in a financially positive manner that our people say cannot be done. It just cannot be done in ONE school.

This simply isn't factual. As I mentioned they spent $540,000 on coaches salaries alone. The scholarship limit for FCS football is 63. In state room, board, and tuition at UT Chatt is roughly $14,000 a year. Multiplied times 63 that is $882,000. That is $1,422,000 combined. Add to that the cost of travel, equipment, recruiting, etc. and you can see that the expenses for their football program far exceeds the $677,000 in revenue they claim. Its simply a PR thing to say they made a profit off of football.

You are amusing, or simply ignorant. So, the men's basketball program at UTC has a budget of $1.4 million dollars, yet you believe that $540,000 covers all aspects of the football program? That is just naive. The figure quoted in the article is probably the operating budget for football, not the total cost (as suggested by straightfromthehorsesmouth). They're not cooking the books per se, but I would say they are separating one aspect of the cost of the sport and not talking about the total cost to the university.

(07-02-2010 05:18 PM)Basketball then Homework Wrote:  It's interesting that ETSU's innovation laboratory in all of it's entreprenuial endevours hasn't made a proposal on reinstating football. I'm pretty sure that their goal is to better the economical climate of the Tri-cities area. Then again, I guess that football doesn't bring in any money to the local businesses. After all fanatics 101 probably isn't making any money on their football shirts.

The impact of a football team at ETSU would have a negligible impact on the Tri-Cities area. There is much research in the area of economic impacts of sport franchises and the average NFL team for example, has the same impact on a city as a coin operated laundry. It is not as much as it would seem.

The impact of a football team at a state university is uncalculable as it brings benefits and publicity that simply cannot be bought with money. That is exactly why EVERY state university in the state of Tennessee has a fooball team. They cannot afford NOT to have one. I meant EVERY state university except one.

(07-02-2010 11:34 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  The impact of a football team at a state university is uncalculable as it brings benefits and publicity that simply cannot be bought with money. That is exactly why EVERY state university in the state of Tennessee has a fooball team. They cannot afford NOT to have one. I meant EVERY state university except one.

No, football at the FCS level really brings negligible publicity. There is very little TV exposure and people rarely pay attention unless they already have a direct tie to the university.

At the FBS level, I agree, football brings publicity. At the FCS level though, not so much.

(07-02-2010 07:26 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 05:18 PM)Basketball then Homework Wrote:  It's interesting that ETSU's innovation laboratory in all of it's entreprenuial endevours hasn't made a proposal on reinstating football. I'm pretty sure that their goal is to better the economical climate of the Tri-cities area. Then again, I guess that football doesn't bring in any money to the local businesses. After all fanatics 101 probably isn't making any money on their football shirts.

The impact of a football team at ETSU would have a negligible impact on the Tri-Cities area. There is much research in the area of economic impacts of sport franchises and the average NFL team for example, has the same impact on a city as a coin operated laundry. It is not as much as it would seem.

I would be interested to see the research that concluded that an average NFL team has the same economic impact on a city as a coin operated laundry.

(07-02-2010 07:25 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 11:53 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Really? Hmmm, more private giving, more butts in the seats, a couple of money games last season to cover costs, yet I'm sure the UT-C athletic dept. is cooking the books to make themselves look good.
Fact is a few private schools in the northeast have dropped football since we did, yet how many state supported regional institutions in the southeast have ADDED it since then? Those are numbers that don't lie, pure and simple. Ga. State, ODU, Coastal Carolina, South Alabama, just to name a few.... We won't even discuss little sister Kennesaw or Gulf Coast and their aspirations that are going to happen...
Great job Mocs for getting it done. Improve off the 6-5, find 8-3 and so year three puts you in the playoffs.

(07-02-2010 09:16 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 08:13 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  Great job UTC. Again, proof that it can be done and be done in a financially positive manner that our people say cannot be done. It just cannot be done in ONE school.

This simply isn't factual. As I mentioned they spent $540,000 on coaches salaries alone. The scholarship limit for FCS football is 63. In state room, board, and tuition at UT Chatt is roughly $14,000 a year. Multiplied times 63 that is $882,000. That is $1,422,000 combined. Add to that the cost of travel, equipment, recruiting, etc. and you can see that the expenses for their football program far exceeds the $677,000 in revenue they claim. Its simply a PR thing to say they made a profit off of football.

You are amusing, or simply ignorant. So, the men's basketball program at UTC has a budget of $1.4 million dollars, yet you believe that $540,000 covers all aspects of the football program? That is just naive. The figure quoted in the article is probably the operating budget for football, not the total cost (as suggested by straightfromthehorsesmouth). They're not cooking the books per se, but I would say they are separating one aspect of the cost of the sport and not talking about the total cost to the university.

I'm not a university accountant, but why would they account for basketball and football differently if they are, presumably, rolling up into the consolidated figures for the athletic department and UTC and the UT system? Presumably the state auditors would have something to say about that.

Of course, if you're saying they're saying 1 thing for PR (i.e., only talking about operating P/L) vs. another for financial reporting, I would also think that someone in the UT system would frown upon that; I don't know legally how what you say in the newspaper gets tied in to what you say in your financials, but at the very least, that would seem misleading to your "shareholders" wouldn't it? And if they're omitting the costs of scholarships from the reported expense figure, then wouldn't it make sense if they were omitting scholarship "revenue" from that as well?

I'm not even sure what the point would be of claiming a sound fiscal situation for football if it's actually bleeding money; what would be the PR angle there?

Not an expert, not trying to get in a pissing match, maybe I'm naive, etc. - all the appropriate disclaimers - but while I agree a reported basketball budget of roughly 3x the reported football budget doesn't make sense, I just don't get why this would be a story at all if something good weren't actually happening with the financial situation of football at UTC.

(07-02-2010 07:26 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(07-02-2010 05:18 PM)Basketball then Homework Wrote:  It's interesting that ETSU's innovation laboratory in all of it's entreprenuial endevours hasn't made a proposal on reinstating football. I'm pretty sure that their goal is to better the economical climate of the Tri-cities area. Then again, I guess that football doesn't bring in any money to the local businesses. After all fanatics 101 probably isn't making any money on their football shirts.

The impact of a football team at ETSU would have a negligible impact on the Tri-Cities area. There is much research in the area of economic impacts of sport franchises and the average NFL team for example, has the same impact on a city as a coin operated laundry. It is not as much as it would seem.

"Negligible impact on the Tri-Cities area"

Laughable, and quite sad to say the least. But keep towing the company line, I`m sure it makes everyone in the administration building feel better to keep telling themselves that.

This is why GoBucs won't be the public misinformation minister when the changes do come.... or am I confusing the negative nellies?

(07-02-2010 07:26 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  The impact of a football team at ETSU would have a negligible impact on the Tri-Cities area. There is much research in the area of economic impacts of sport franchises and the average NFL team for example, has the same impact on a city as a coin operated laundry. It is not as much as it would seem.

Hmm, normally we see mostly eye-to-eye on most topics here, but I can't agree with you on this one. NFL franchises are huge for cities. Money comes from both direct-impact revenues from fans...growth in the tax base (additional sales tax from tickets and merchandise and hotel/restaurant taxes)...and from revenues generated by overall city growth from the perceived "big league" status granted by having a professional sports team. Nashville, especially downtown Nashville, is a prime example of this growth. The city has flourished since the Titans arrived a little over 10 years ago.

While it would be a far stretch for one to argue "big league" business growth from ETSU Football, the potential for direct-impact revenue growth in the city is certainly possible. Gameday traffic and fans would potentially patronize businesses around campus and downtown, which could be a key factor in growing the proposed development/partnership/connection between downtown and the university.

I also think re-starting the program would be a significant publicity boost for ETSU and the Athletic Deparment, both locally and in the collegiate athletics community -- primarily because of the controversy involved in the program's shut down in '03, the media LOVES controversy. It would also provide a great "wow-factor", not only to local fans, but also the various pundits around college athletics, who would notice ETSU doing something different, re-starting an extinct program, and trying to grow.

The key to the program's success would be the department's ability to use that initial publicity boost to jump-start fan interest and market the program to keep those fans interested/involved going forward.