(06-06-2014 10:30 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yeah, we could argue here all day about what percentage of "subsidy" in the budget is dangerously high for an athletic department. We wouldn't all agree on the exact number. But there's no doubt that when revenue only comprises 19% of a $30 million budget, that's unsustainable.

I think that's the right way to look at data like this. It may be fun to quibble about relatively small differences among schools, and how that affects where they are "ranked" for trash talk purposes, but there are some numbers that just slap you in the face.

What would disturb me even more about UMass' situation is their miniscule revenue from ticket sales. Their attendance numbers are already marginal by NCAA minimum standards for D-I (in fact, they are below the threshold). But with only $1.4 million in ticket revenue, including a modestly successful D-I basketball program, it appears that what seats are filled are taken by folks who are either paying nothing to attend or very little. That is to say, they probably can't even generate additional fan interest by literally giving tickets away.

Looks like they have some hard choices to make, and soon.

Yeah, UMass has a solid hoops program but they are not filling a large arena and it's unlikely they can charge premium prices for tickets. They averaged 5,255 per home game in 2012-13, which is ok but just outside the top 100 in D-I home attendance, and also slightly below the A-10 average for home attendance. (source)

Can they really have only $1.4 million in ticket revenue for the entire athletic department? Just for men's basketball, if they sell 5000 tickets x $20/ticket x 14 home games = $1.4 million.

I'm guessing that a lot of those seats are free to students, and free or reduced price for faculty. A season ticket for football games is only $100 for all six games, and that includes free parking. And there are discounted season tickets available as well.

Basketball tickets that aren't free go for $12, but you can get premium club seating for as high as $20. So, yeah, it's possible even though it sounds improbable.

The student tickets are paid for with an entertainment fee that every student pays.

UMass students probably pay higher athletic fees than any school in the country. They account for more than $8 million of the athletic department's revenue. Each student pays more each year than the combined cost of a season ticket for both football and basketball ($250 - $100 for football and $150 for basketball).

One reason their football gate receipts are so low is that the split the gate at Gillette games with the Kraft family (which also gets 100% of the concessions and parking). So they are pretty much limited to about $150K per game. Since they usually have to pay more than that to get a home game OOC (the Indiana game will cost them $225K) they are losing money on all OOC home games. If they have to play as an independent while waiting for a conference to take them in, they are going to lose their shirts.

^ Free parking at Gillette, which is nice.

(06-06-2014 08:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:37 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  ....... And it helps explains why the AAC didn't pull any MAC schools. ....

Do you think that taking schools in the low 30s over schools in the high 20s is really a game changer?

33 vs. 25 is 33%.
And those are the choices they made. If you look at on the field performance, Southern Miss should have gotten an AAC invite and ULL and Arkansas St. should have gotten CUSA invites. If you were looking at "markets," then NIU would have been invited. But that's not what happened.

Tulane- $29,441,104
Miami- $28, 955, 007
Buffalo- $28,661,287
UMass- $28,659,514

The difference between Tulane and 3 difference MAC schools is not 33%, its less than 2%.

My point is that it wasn't as simple as saying that total athletic revenue was the deciding factor.

(06-07-2014 07:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:37 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  ....... And it helps explains why the AAC didn't pull any MAC schools. ....

Do you think that taking schools in the low 30s over schools in the high 20s is really a game changer?

33 vs. 25 is 33%.
And those are the choices they made. If you look at on the field performance, Southern Miss should have gotten an AAC invite and ULL and Arkansas St. should have gotten CUSA invites. If you were looking at "markets," then NIU would have been invited. But that's not what happened.

Tulane- $29,441,104
Miami- $28, 955, 007
Buffalo- $28,661,287
UMass- $28,659,514

The difference between Tulane and 3 difference MAC schools is not 33%, its less than 2%.

My point is that it wasn't as simple as saying that total athletic revenue was the deciding factor.

Tulane has one huge difference: Their push for a new stadium and teir financial commitment to it.

In the next few years they will go up in budget faster due to not having to rent their facility and having a better correlation of
Supply/demand to their fanbase as well as premium seats in Yulman stadium. They projected 6mm more with the new stadium as the rental fee doesn't eat up that revenue anymore.

(06-07-2014 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:30 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think that's the right way to look at data like this. It may be fun to quibble about relatively small differences among schools, and how that affects where they are "ranked" for trash talk purposes, but there are some numbers that just slap you in the face.

What would disturb me even more about UMass' situation is their miniscule revenue from ticket sales. Their attendance numbers are already marginal by NCAA minimum standards for D-I (in fact, they are below the threshold). But with only $1.4 million in ticket revenue, including a modestly successful D-I basketball program, it appears that what seats are filled are taken by folks who are either paying nothing to attend or very little. That is to say, they probably can't even generate additional fan interest by literally giving tickets away.

Looks like they have some hard choices to make, and soon.

Yeah, UMass has a solid hoops program but they are not filling a large arena and it's unlikely they can charge premium prices for tickets. They averaged 5,255 per home game in 2012-13, which is ok but just outside the top 100 in D-I home attendance, and also slightly below the A-10 average for home attendance. (source)

Can they really have only $1.4 million in ticket revenue for the entire athletic department? Just for men's basketball, if they sell 5000 tickets x $20/ticket x 14 home games = $1.4 million.

I'm guessing that a lot of those seats are free to students, and free or reduced price for faculty. A season ticket for football games is only $100 for all six games, and that includes free parking. And there are discounted season tickets available as well.

Basketball tickets that aren't free go for $12, but you can get premium club seating for as high as $20. So, yeah, it's possible even though it sounds improbable.

The student tickets are paid for with an entertainment fee that every student pays.

UMass students probably pay higher athletic fees than any school in the country. They account for more than $8 million of the athletic department's revenue. Each student pays more each year than the combined cost of a season ticket for both football and basketball ($250 - $100 for football and $150 for basketball).

One reason their football gate receipts are so low is that the split the gate at Gillette games with the Kraft family (which also gets 100% of the concessions and parking). So they are pretty much limited to about $150K per game. Since they usually have to pay more than that to get a home game OOC (the Indiana game will cost them $225K) they are losing money on all OOC home games. If they have to play as an independent while waiting for a conference to take them in, they are going to lose their shirts.

Ken_d what kind of bull $hit are you selling. UMass athletic fees are $205 a semester compared to Virginia schools paying upward of $1,500. You are capable of simple math with over 20k undergraduates.

The athletic fees are the same as when we were FCS Football and have not gone up an a long time. Naturally students have free admissions to all sporting events. There are a lot of club sports including Women's Hockey.

(06-07-2014 07:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:37 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  ....... And it helps explains why the AAC didn't pull any MAC schools. ....

Do you think that taking schools in the low 30s over schools in the high 20s is really a game changer?

33 vs. 25 is 33%.
And those are the choices they made. If you look at on the field performance, Southern Miss should have gotten an AAC invite and ULL and Arkansas St. should have gotten CUSA invites. If you were looking at "markets," then NIU would have been invited. But that's not what happened.

Tulane- $29,441,104
Miami- $28, 955, 007
Buffalo- $28,661,287
UMass- $28,659,514

The difference between Tulane and 3 difference MAC schools is not 33%, its less than 2%.

My point is that it wasn't as simple as saying that total athletic revenue was the deciding factor.

And ECU is 35 and Tulsa 33. The other CUSA schools they added were 35-43.

There's more than one factor. Relationships is an important, underrated factor. But it seems clear that athletic budget gets a very strong weight.

The other thing to keep in mind this is from 2013. Take a look at those same universities in a few years when the June 2015 comes out. Those other teams have been play FBS a long time. We're just getting started in Fall 2012 as a transition team.

(06-08-2014 12:24 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:30 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yeah, UMass has a solid hoops program but they are not filling a large arena and it's unlikely they can charge premium prices for tickets. They averaged 5,255 per home game in 2012-13, which is ok but just outside the top 100 in D-I home attendance, and also slightly below the A-10 average for home attendance. (source)

Can they really have only $1.4 million in ticket revenue for the entire athletic department? Just for men's basketball, if they sell 5000 tickets x $20/ticket x 14 home games = $1.4 million.

I'm guessing that a lot of those seats are free to students, and free or reduced price for faculty. A season ticket for football games is only $100 for all six games, and that includes free parking. And there are discounted season tickets available as well.

Basketball tickets that aren't free go for $12, but you can get premium club seating for as high as $20. So, yeah, it's possible even though it sounds improbable.

The student tickets are paid for with an entertainment fee that every student pays.

UMass students probably pay higher athletic fees than any school in the country. They account for more than $8 million of the athletic department's revenue. Each student pays more each year than the combined cost of a season ticket for both football and basketball ($250 - $100 for football and $150 for basketball).

One reason their football gate receipts are so low is that the split the gate at Gillette games with the Kraft family (which also gets 100% of the concessions and parking). So they are pretty much limited to about $150K per game. Since they usually have to pay more than that to get a home game OOC (the Indiana game will cost them $225K) they are losing money on all OOC home games. If they have to play as an independent while waiting for a conference to take them in, they are going to lose their shirts.

Ken_d what kind of bull $hit are you selling. UMass athletic fees are $205 a semester compared to Virginia schools paying upward of $1,500. You are capable of simple math with over 20k undergraduates.

The athletic fees are the same as when we were FCS Football and have not gone up an a long time. Naturally students have free admissions to all sporting events. There are a lot of club sports including Women's Hockey.

Good for you. You found a school that charges more. Maybe more than one - the state of Virginia has several state schools, and they don't allow the use of general university funds for athletic purposes. While Va tech's fees are about $270, UVa is considerably higher, a function of their lower attendance at football games.

My point, though, was to contrast UMass' fees, which provide "free" admission to students, with the cost of those admissions at regular season ticket prices. Every student, even the many who don't attend the games at all, pays more for his seat than the general public. So if you think that's bull$hit, I'm not the one who's selling it. UMass is.

(06-08-2014 01:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 12:24 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:30 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 02:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm guessing that a lot of those seats are free to students, and free or reduced price for faculty. A season ticket for football games is only $100 for all six games, and that includes free parking. And there are discounted season tickets available as well.

Basketball tickets that aren't free go for $12, but you can get premium club seating for as high as $20. So, yeah, it's possible even though it sounds improbable.

The student tickets are paid for with an entertainment fee that every student pays.

UMass students probably pay higher athletic fees than any school in the country. They account for more than $8 million of the athletic department's revenue. Each student pays more each year than the combined cost of a season ticket for both football and basketball ($250 - $100 for football and $150 for basketball).

One reason their football gate receipts are so low is that the split the gate at Gillette games with the Kraft family (which also gets 100% of the concessions and parking). So they are pretty much limited to about $150K per game. Since they usually have to pay more than that to get a home game OOC (the Indiana game will cost them $225K) they are losing money on all OOC home games. If they have to play as an independent while waiting for a conference to take them in, they are going to lose their shirts.

Ken_d what kind of bull $hit are you selling. UMass athletic fees are $205 a semester compared to Virginia schools paying upward of $1,500. You are capable of simple math with over 20k undergraduates.

The athletic fees are the same as when we were FCS Football and have not gone up an a long time. Naturally students have free admissions to all sporting events. There are a lot of club sports including Women's Hockey.

Good for you. You found a school that charges more. Maybe more than one - the state of Virginia has several state schools, and they don't allow the use of general university funds for athletic purposes. While Va tech's fees are about $270, UVa is considerably higher, a function of their lower attendance at football games.

My point, though, was to contrast UMass' fees, which provide "free" admission to students, with the cost of those admissions at regular season ticket prices. Every student, even the many who don't attend the games at all, pays more for his seat than the general public. So if you think that's bull$hit, I'm not the one who's selling it. UMass is.

First you left off it pays for many club sports and it's no different
than any other major university. The fact is UMass is low compared to almost all FBS university, including 31.7% cheaper than Viriginia Tech.

So instead of saying we are the highest, why don't you prove it with naming 30 FBS schools with their athletic fees that are lower than $205. That is less than 25% of all FBS universities and believe you will be left pounding sand. (UMass must have the highest athletic fees.) That my friend is bull.

(06-08-2014 01:00 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The other thing to keep in mind this is from 2013. Take a look at those same universities in a few years when the June 2015 comes out. Those other teams have been play FBS a long time. We're just getting started in Fall 2012 as a transition team.

this is total athletic dept rev, not football rev, doubt if there will be a noticeable difference.

(06-08-2014 02:34 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 12:24 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-07-2014 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 10:30 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  The student tickets are paid for with an entertainment fee that every student pays.

UMass students probably pay higher athletic fees than any school in the country. They account for more than $8 million of the athletic department's revenue. Each student pays more each year than the combined cost of a season ticket for both football and basketball ($250 - $100 for football and $150 for basketball).

One reason their football gate receipts are so low is that the split the gate at Gillette games with the Kraft family (which also gets 100% of the concessions and parking). So they are pretty much limited to about $150K per game. Since they usually have to pay more than that to get a home game OOC (the Indiana game will cost them $225K) they are losing money on all OOC home games. If they have to play as an independent while waiting for a conference to take them in, they are going to lose their shirts.

Ken_d what kind of bull $hit are you selling. UMass athletic fees are $205 a semester compared to Virginia schools paying upward of $1,500. You are capable of simple math with over 20k undergraduates.

The athletic fees are the same as when we were FCS Football and have not gone up an a long time. Naturally students have free admissions to all sporting events. There are a lot of club sports including Women's Hockey.

Good for you. You found a school that charges more. Maybe more than one - the state of Virginia has several state schools, and they don't allow the use of general university funds for athletic purposes. While Va tech's fees are about $270, UVa is considerably higher, a function of their lower attendance at football games.

My point, though, was to contrast UMass' fees, which provide "free" admission to students, with the cost of those admissions at regular season ticket prices. Every student, even the many who don't attend the games at all, pays more for his seat than the general public. So if you think that's bull$hit, I'm not the one who's selling it. UMass is.

First you left off it pays for many club sports and it's no different
than any other major university. The fact is UMass is low compared to almost all FBS university, including 31.7% cheaper than Viriginia Tech.

So instead of saying we are the highest, why don't you prove it with naming 30 FBS schools with their athletic fees that are lower than $205. That is less than 25% of all FBS universities and believe you will be left pounding sand. (UMass must have the highest athletic fees.) That my friend is bull.

I have no intention of getting into a pissing contest about athletic fees. I made a gross estimate of UMass' fees, guessing them to be about $400. Turns out, thanks to a UMass partisan here, I find I was wrong. It's actually $410. I don't know how you guys do math in Massachusetts, but around here, $410 is more than $270, not 31.7% cheaper.

But none of this changes the fact that among FBS schools, UMass' revenues, which is one measure of the support of students, alumni and other friends of the school, lags far behind those of its peers. Perhaps time will demonstrate that the "if you build it, they will come" strategy is sound. Perhaps it won't. A lot of the school's faculty believe it won't, and that the decision to move up in class was a mistake.

I'm not attacking UMass, or trying to tear them down. I have no dog in that fight. I simply commented that they are facing a huge uphill climb to successfully compete at the highest level of intercollegiate athletics. You are free to disagree with that assessment.

By the way, if you are unable to prove your claim that "UMass [annual athletic fee] is low compared to almost all FBS university", I won't expect you to "pound sand". That would be rude.

(06-08-2014 03:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:00 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The other thing to keep in mind this is from 2013. Take a look at those same universities in a few years when the June 2015 comes out. Those other teams have been play FBS a long time. We're just getting started in Fall 2012 as a transition team.

this is total athletic dept rev, not football rev, doubt if there will be a noticeable difference.

Wrong, This year closing will be roughly 31.5 Million or a 10% increase.

(06-08-2014 03:56 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:00 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The other thing to keep in mind this is from 2013. Take a look at those same universities in a few years when the June 2015 comes out. Those other teams have been play FBS a long time. We're just getting started in Fall 2012 as a transition team.

this is total athletic dept rev, not football rev, doubt if there will be a noticeable difference.

Wrong, This year closing will be roughly 31.5 Million or a 10% increase.

and you can show that the increase is not from increased payouts from the NCAA men's bball tournament?

(06-08-2014 05:08 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:56 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:00 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The other thing to keep in mind this is from 2013. Take a look at those same universities in a few years when the June 2015 comes out. Those other teams have been play FBS a long time. We're just getting started in Fall 2012 as a transition team.

this is total athletic dept rev, not football rev, doubt if there will be a noticeable difference.

Wrong, This year closing will be roughly 31.5 Million or a 10% increase.

and you can show that the increase is not from increased payouts from the NCAA men's bball tournament?

Dude, you have issues. Football had a 45% increase in attendance. Basketball had an increase in attendance. NCAA payouts are not in this year, but in July. You will see another nice increase Football attendance next year and is why I said compare those team in June 2015.

(06-08-2014 08:34 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 05:08 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:56 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:00 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The other thing to keep in mind this is from 2013. Take a look at those same universities in a few years when the June 2015 comes out. Those other teams have been play FBS a long time. We're just getting started in Fall 2012 as a transition team.

this is total athletic dept rev, not football rev, doubt if there will be a noticeable difference.

Wrong, This year closing will be roughly 31.5 Million or a 10% increase.

and you can show that the increase is not from increased payouts from the NCAA men's bball tournament?

Dude, you have issues. Football had a 45% increase in attendance. Basketball had an increase in attendance. NCAA payouts are not not in this year, but in July. You will see another nice increase next year and is why I said compare those team in June 2015.

you're pointing at total revenue for an athletic dept and saying that its increase is because of football, I'm simply asking to see the actual football impact as other factors can affect it too.

(06-07-2014 07:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 08:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 05:37 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  ....... And it helps explains why the AAC didn't pull any MAC schools. ....

Do you think that taking schools in the low 30s over schools in the high 20s is really a game changer?

33 vs. 25 is 33%.
And those are the choices they made. If you look at on the field performance, Southern Miss should have gotten an AAC invite and ULL and Arkansas St. should have gotten CUSA invites. If you were looking at "markets," then NIU would have been invited. But that's not what happened.

Tulane- $29,441,104
Miami- $28, 955, 007
Buffalo- $28,661,287
UMass- $28,659,514

The difference between Tulane and 3 difference MAC schools is not 33%, its less than 2%.

My point is that it wasn't as simple as saying that total athletic revenue was the deciding factor.

No, my point is that will are in the top 3 Universities in the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA as a transition football team and will be moving up the ladder. We have a 10% increase this year and had a 45% increase in Football attendance. Yes we receive revenue in other sports, but Football is a major contributor to that increase.

A major reason why UMass' athletic expenditures are as high as they are is that the school fields more teams than many of its peers. That is something you should be proud of. But this is a conference realignment board, and UMass is currently between conferences and hoping to remedy that.

And what we have seen clearly in the past several years is that football largely drives the realignment bus. Unfortunately, UMass' main attraction is its basketball program, not football. And despite having a good program in a good conference, even that program doesn't enjoy the kind of support from alumni that you would expect.

It's a good thing that the university contributes heavily to athletics. But that support doesn't matter to the conferences UMass would like to join. Those conferences don't care about total revenues so much as they care about the revenues that come attached to eyeballs. In this regard, UMass isn't among the leaders in the MAC, Sunbelt or Conference USA. They are near the bottom of a group of schools that many would argue don't belong in the FBS. These include, along with their non-institutional revenue (in $millions):

Texas State 9
Cent Michigan 9
West Michigan 8
Middle Tenn 8
Akron 7
UMass 6
Fla Intl 6
East Michigan 6
Georgia St 4

I have no problem with these schools wanting to play in the FBS, even though that decision costs them money, as long as they aren't able to block decisions about football and basketball by the bigger schools. Realistically, though, all of these schools have one thing in common. They are not attractive to any athletic conference for any reason other than geographic convenience. And as a geographic outlier, UMass has little of value to add to any football conference at the FBS level.

That may change over time. The school seems to be betting that it will. But it's likely to take many years, and cost taxpayers a lot of money. Time will tell if the taxpayers have that much patience. If the school had made their move ten years ago, they would have had a much better chance. But, IMO, their timing was awful. I hope it works out for them, but I think the deck is stacked against them.

UMass does have value as a basketball add. But they don't want to give up the A10.

(06-09-2014 09:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  UMass does have value as a basketball add. But they don't want to give up the A10.

They would add value to the AAC in basketball, but aren't likely to get invited. I'm not sure how much they would add to the MAC, Sunbelt or C-USA, unless those conferences become more than one-bid leagues. If they don't, all that would happen is that a good UMass team would replace a different team as champion, but the overall units earned are the same.

Patience, our second non transitional season starts in 80 days.