|
Post by OverAndUnder on Apr 17, 2009 8:20:00 GMT -5
I'd like to see Quinnipiac's women's basketball budget. Most small to mid D-1 schools are paying so much to wbball that they could fire an assistant coach and keep the volleyball program a float. The fact that Basketball/Football coaches make so much more and do the same job as volleyball coaches is what really throws athletic budgets out of wack. I say that they start a coaches union (that is not the AVCA) and do like teachers do. Start with a base coaching salary for all sports, with raises coming from wins and years of service (instead of credits and degrees earned). Imagine how that would change sports as we see it now!! Amen to that. The major BCS schools routinely pay their head football coaches seven figure base salary plus incentives, and within ten years we may even see an EIGHT-figure football salary from a program like Texas, Oklahoma, USC, tOSU, Florida. For this self-described National Collegiate Athletic Association, just imagine how many deserving students could -- and I know this will sound crazy but bear with me -- actually attend college with that same 2-5 million dollars per school.
|
|
|
Post by postitagain2 on Apr 17, 2009 9:12:24 GMT -5
Funny we were just talking about this at dinner last night. It does come down to dollars. Any program that is generating $ will stay in tack -- but you might see an assistant position eliminated to keep other sports.
Other sports - both men and women's - are at risk. I would hope before eliminating entire programs, a school would cut schedules. For most schools, football and men's basketball pay the bills. Then you have select schools that have acquired revenue-generating status for some other programs. For example Nebraksa, Penn State, maybe Texas Women's Volleyball. Iowa and Iowa State Wrestling, probably UConn and TN women's basketball, ect. For any revenue-generating program, you might even see an INCREASE in games to generate more $.
All other programs I think you'll see cuts in the number of games and possibly an assistant position cut. Most volleyball programs have 2 assistants and either a grad asst or a volunteer asst. Xavier goes with 1 asst coach. I could see more schools doing the same for volleyball and other programs that don't generate enough revenues.
Finally, if that doesn't weather the economic climate, you will see entire programs cut. And to remain in compliance with Title IX -- schools will have to cut proportionally to gender enrollment.
The good news, I think volleyball is on the up-swing and it doesn't require a lot of capital investment. Other sports require schools to buy individual equipment for players (ie tennis, golf, lacrosse). And these sports usually don't sell tickets at all. They are 100% expense. Whereas volleyball does generate some revenues.
But it's certainly a new world order. So if you're a fan of collegiate volleyball -- do us all a big favor and financially SUPPORT THE PROGRAM. Don't just go to a match --- recruit people to go with you. The fans of women's volleyball can control it's future -- even in tough economic times. It all comes down to ticket sales and support. Do your part. I've already volunteered to do corporate ticket sales solicitations for the school I support. Even before the recent economic downturn, I felt it was important to GROW the volleyball program and increase attendance and corporate sponsorship. It's even more critical now.
|
|
|
Post by qc on Apr 17, 2009 9:21:46 GMT -5
The unfortunatel reality is that volleyball is not important...it does not generate enough revenue to support itself (usually). I am curious about this. At what point does a program generate sufficient revenue from ticket sales that it supports itself? Of course I don't know the ticket prices for all schools; I understand that Hawaii and Nebraska have higher ticket prices than do most schools and this helps them. Do schools require a contribution to an "athletic scholarship organization" in order to get volleyball season tickets? I don't know. Since there is much that I don't know, I'll look at attendance figures; in particular those for the Top 10 total attendance and Top 10 average attendance programs in 2008 and speculate about each of them. web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/w_volleyball_RB/2009/VBAtt08.pdfTotal Attendance: 1. Hawaii 136,7142. Nebraska 71,5393. Minnesota 63,2594. Wisconsin 56,5395. Penn State 54,4506. Wichita State 44,4787. Texas 42,6578. Washington 40,9829. Purdue 37,27710. Stanford 33,886Average Attendance: 1. Hawaii 5944 (23 home matches) 2. Nebraska 4769 (15 home matches) 3. Wisconsin 4349 (13 home matches) 4. Minnesota 3329 (19 home matches) 5. Wichita State 3177 (14 home matches) 6. Penn State 2723 (20 home matches) 7. Purdue 2485 (15 home matches) 8. Stanford 2420 (14 home matches) 9. Colorado State 2388 (14 home matches) 10. Texas 2370 (18 home matches) It seems likely that Hawaii makes money on women's volleyball. At $10 per ticket, Hawaii would make $1,367,140 and at $5 per ticket, it would make $683,570. If volleyball costs $2,000,000 per year, even Hawaii is losing money. This www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show?school_id=127 indicates Hawaii lost over $2,000,000 in athletics in ?? (I can't find the year). How much does volleyball cost? 12 scholarships? $250,000 - $600,000 ? (Much of this goes back to the university as tuition & fees, room & board.) Coaches? $0 - $2,000,000 (Cook? Rose?) Travel? This is harder than I thought. Maybe nobody makes money on volleyball? According to the link above, each university's athletic department make (or lost) Hawaii $-2,157,665Nebraska $76,849Minnesota $-595,248Wisconsin $95,510Penn State ??Wichita State $376,785Texas $7,250,853Washington $-2,225,382Purdue $-174,663Stanford ??
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Apr 17, 2009 9:37:49 GMT -5
Yeah, but our football team sucks these days. We used to make money by the truck load. Hawai'i has very large travel costs. While other teams like the "vacation" of playing at Hawai'i, so they have more home games than most, those times they do go on the road (half the conference games) it is very expensive for them.
|
|
|
Post by copiap on Apr 17, 2009 9:43:32 GMT -5
postitagain2 - I don't agree with you saying that tennis are golf are 100% expense. A lot of programs require golfers to have their own clubs and same for tennis. Can you elaborate on what expenses you are referring too? I agree that there may not be ticket sales to these events but so many volleyball programs change a minimal amount that it wouldn't even cover officials fees...
|
|
|
Post by postitagain2 on Apr 17, 2009 10:11:42 GMT -5
Sorry for the mis-communication. Obviously every school is different and being a golfer I realize most players have their own clubs, etc. I only intended for those to be EXAMPLES of what a school would look at if they got to the point they needed to cut programs.
Equipment costs would be a consideration because it factors into the total expense of a program. Just like the number of athletes in a program vs Title IX requirements would factor into a decision. I think "national ranking" could also factor in. For example, several years ago SMU was ranked 1 or 2 in men's soccer. (Sorry, they still might be there, I'm not in TX anymore and so haven't kept up.) Anyway, if SMU didn't charge for men's soccer, maybe they start charging to help with revenues, and to retain a program vs cut it.
My point was sports like football have a huge budget for equipment. Volleyball would be at the lower end of the list for equipment. A program like cross country is even lower on that list because you would have only shoes and uniforms and they usually get to use a local golf course for free to run meets. That will help them if it comes down to a school having to make a decision on what program(s) will be cut.
Hope this clears up my intended meaning above. I certainly didn't mean to demean those programs. I love golf and I have a niece who is looking to go to college on a tennis scholarship in a couple years, so I'm pulling for those prgrams too.
You also make a good point about official costs. Programs like cross country and track usually have volunteers vs paid officials. It's another expense area I hadn't considered.
The main point is if you want your university to keep volleyball -- help grow it's revenues and it won't be in danger of being cut.
|
|
|
Post by qc on Apr 17, 2009 10:28:44 GMT -5
I'm kind of depressed. Suppose a school like George Mason wanted to increase volleyball attendance to the point where it paid (or almost paid) for itself. If Hawaii can't do it or if only Hawaii, Nebraska and a couple others can break even, what hope is there for the vast majority of programs. Does a "basketball school" like Wichita State with strong volleyball attendance break even in volleyball? Texas doesn't care; money is no object for UT or TAMU. What about Colorado State? Illinois State? Ohio?
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Apr 17, 2009 10:46:03 GMT -5
Can anyone answer this question with facts? Does any women's (or men's) NCAA volleyball program operate in the black? If so, how many and which ones?
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 17, 2009 11:01:05 GMT -5
Donnyg, the coach, several players and even some of the recruits at Quinnipiac are involved in the suit. Ah, shades of days gone past when legal action was the only way to get men to react. Go get 'em girls !
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 17, 2009 11:02:28 GMT -5
I'm kind of depressed. Suppose a school like George Mason wanted to increase volleyball attendance to the point where it paid (or almost paid) for itself. If Hawaii can't do it or if only Hawaii, Nebraska and a couple others can break even, what hope is there for the vast majority of programs. Does a "basketball school" like Wichita State with strong volleyball attendance break even in volleyball? Texas doesn't care; money is no object for UT or TAMU. What about Colorado State? Illinois State? Ohio? One thing to take into account is the economics of football and basketball. Even though everyone assumes that DI football and basketball make money and fund other sports, that is not gnereally true. A large football and basketball program sucks up money in order to survive in the competitive environs in which it exists. Most DI footbnall programs are happy to break even given the amount of money they spend. The numbers that they show the public does not include a lot of infrastructural cost that are shared by all the teams. For example, and it is a little silly, doing laundry ofr a team of over 100 football players is very different from doing laundry for a 15 men basketball team. Those costs are built into the overhead costs of running an athletic program and the various burdens on each team is not accounted for by the teams but are evenly split amongst all teams. Who does make money on football? The usual big name teams of course, but specifially the BCS schools. By virtue of the exclusivity of being a BCS school, they share in the revenues of the whole BCS system, which is quite lucrative. What this means is that a team that aren't part of the BCS, aren't eligible for that kind of payday. This is why there will never be a football playoffs, too many large conference schools have entrenched interests in keeping themselves paid. OK, so why the soapbox speech? As i read people's comments about the variosu programs, one fact stand out: those volleyball programs that are in the BCS won't ever be in trouble of being cancelled or have to earn their keep by generating their own revenue mainly because of the BCS payoff. Those that aren't in the BCS are not so lucky. The reality of the situation is that most volleyball programs fund raise like crazy, to pay for the little extras that aren't built into the budget, for recruiting budgets, and for road trips. Taking a cross country swing to play good out of conference competition are usually paid for by funding that comes from out side of the regular budget. Those that don't fundraise will usually stay at home a lot and be very selective about where they recruit.
|
|
|
Post by gobears on Apr 17, 2009 11:05:49 GMT -5
' most schools football and men's bball income pay for other sports"? I don't think so. I don't think more than 6-10 football programs or mbball programs make money at the end of the season...
Basically universities pay for the athletic programs.
Donors and corporate sponsorships are going to have to increase. Endowments need to be worked on. Some football programs endow each position. No reason that couldn't be done in vb. Alums of the program can be solicited to donate specifically to endowments for the setter position, or the MB spots, etc.
It is still amazing to me how schools mostly only communicate with their donors the next time they want money...and then only by an email or a letter...cultivation of fans and donors cannot be ignored...and there are all kinds of ways to do it.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerUp! on Apr 17, 2009 11:08:25 GMT -5
At Purdue, all athletic scholarships are paid for by the John Purdue Club.
So, no money comes from the school or from the state of Indiana to support athletics.
So, does being "in the black" include teams that have funded scholarships and don't need ticket sales for that portion of the budget?
|
|
|
Post by dbvbfan on Apr 17, 2009 12:05:41 GMT -5
as quoted from www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ABOUT THE DATABASE This is the most detailed, publicly available database of college athletic department financial information ever assembled. It came from forms required by the NCAA for the 2004-05 school year. While the NCAA reports such information only in aggregate, the data is presented here by individual school --- with the ability for users to sort by category and conference, and to compare two schools.The Star obtained the forms through freedom of information requests to the 215 public schools that compete in Division I. There were 164 responses, 76 percent. (Requests also were sent to Division I's 112 private schools, which had no obligation to release the information. None did. In addition, state law in Pennsylvania and Delaware does not require its public schools to comply.) The numbers are presented here as they were reported to the NCAA. No attempt was made to change or research anomalies. The NCAA does that. Despite improvements in accounting procedures, schools still differ in how they report certain information. For example, some placed all contributions in the "non-program specific" category, while others broke them down by football, men's basketball, etc.
|
|
|
Post by brunie on Apr 17, 2009 16:13:29 GMT -5
At Purdue, all athletic scholarships are paid for by the John Purdue Club. So, no money comes from the school or from the state of Indiana to support athletics. Sorry but I don't understand that logic. Scholarships are only a part of the money needed to support athletics. Does the John Purdue Club also pay the salaries of the coaches, the travel costs to away matches and for recruiting trips, the costs to maintain the playing facility, the locker rooms, the weight rooms, the training table, the athletic trainers, etc etc. If not, then more than likely money from the school and/or state is spent to support athletics.
|
|
diffractionspikes
Sophomore
We are all star-stuff contemplating the stars.
Posts: 209
|
Post by diffractionspikes on Apr 17, 2009 16:19:24 GMT -5
I'd like to see Quinnipiac's women's basketball budget. Most small to mid D-1 schools are paying so much to wbball that they could fire an assistant coach and keep the volleyball program a float. The fact that Basketball/Football coaches make so much more and do the same job as volleyball coaches is what really throws athletic budgets out of wack. I say that they start a coaches union (that is not the AVCA) and do like teachers do. Start with a base coaching salary for all sports, with raises coming from wins and years of service (instead of credits and degrees earned). Imagine how that would change sports as we see it now!! Amen to that. The major BCS schools routinely pay their head football coaches seven figure base salary plus incentives, and within ten years we may even see an EIGHT-figure football salary from a program like Texas, Oklahoma, USC, tOSU, Florida. For this self-described National Collegiate Athletic Association, just imagine how many deserving students could -- and I know this will sound crazy but bear with me -- actually attend college with that same 2-5 million dollars per school. Penn State often gets lumped into the same category as many of the other schools you mentioned, but it is interesting to see how different the attitude is here about coaches salaries. A PA newspaper fought and fought to get at Joe Paterno's salary, and after it was made public it turns out he makes between $500k and $600k. He isn't even in the same ballpark as coaches with 250 less wins than he has. There was an article in today's paper about PSU interviewing Iowa State's wrestling coach -- www.centredaily.com/sports/story/1233915.html -- and it said that because he makes over $130k in base salary, this would be a tall order for PSU. Shockingly, it now looks like PSU has lured him away from ISU. This is far from the norm here. Most of the time you hear quotes about how our administration feels that coaching salaries are getting out of hand, and there is a pretty common feeling among fans that when luminaries like JoePa and Russ Rose retire, that the University is not willing to pay market value for coaches to replace them. I don't know what to think. On the one hand, I agree that some of the football and basketball salaries are getting out of hand, but when I see Beaver Stadium packed with 110,000 fans and see the overall economic impact that 6 - 8 home games have on the local economy, I can see the value in having a big name coach that goes beyond considering the revenue of just the athletic department. Another aspect of the argument that you also hear frequently is that after PSU went 11-1 and beat FSU in the Orange Bowl a few years ago, applications to the University surged. So there are benefits to the academic side of the University for hiring (and paying for) high profile coaches that are hard to quantify.
|
|