MVC Men's Basketball budgets

[ISU86]

Was Wichita State’s Valley exit still worth it?

We love the Valley. And we miss the Shockers. But the answer is pretty clear.

www.midmajormadness.com

Interesting opinion piece regarding the Wichita State move to the AAC and whether it looks as good now that Central Florida, Cincinnati and Houston are B12-bound (with Connecticut leaving prior and Memphis and South Florida expecting (hoping) to) and the lack of cache' in their replacements (Alabama-Birmingham, Florida Atlantic, North Carolina-Charlotte, North Texas, Rice, Texas-San Antonio).

Within it there is also a graph of AAC vs MVC institutional spending on MBB from 2018-19. The 'birds were eighth out of ten:

1.) Loyola-Chicago, $4.35m
2.) Bradley, $3.78m
3.) Northern Iowa, $3.55m
4.) Missouri State, $2.81m
5.) Drake, $2.65m
6.) Evansville, $2.57m
7.) Southern Illinois, $2.48m
8.) Illinois State, $2.44m
9.) Valparaiso, $2.42m
10.) Indiana State, $2.13m

Another perspective if you do/not think ISU is/not spending what the could/should.

 

[CB2K]

I have seen the dollar differentials through the years amongst conferences but I always wonder what the dollars are spent on especially amongst mid-majors. I am not sure if that info is available but it would be interesting to see where institutional spending is directed. Could be mostly staff. Surprised by Bradley being number 2 -- maybe they're still paying off the Les lawsuit

 

[Birdswin]

Wow - the budget differences are large. ISU is #182 in the country - that is not good.

 

[ISUBird]

We should be able to outspend Northern Iowa. We are in better financial shape then they are.

 

[cubird]

You have to look at total sports that the athletic budget is supporting for a fair comparison.

 

[Redbird222]

Now that Moser left and Valentine is the head coach, I am sure the Loyola number is a lot less

 

[Metamoron]

I assume a lot of Bradley’s budget is for renting the hockey rink. Not sure if ISU has a budget item for the “cost” of renting RBA.

 

[Birdfriend72]

What makes no sense to me is a discussion to sell the naming rights of Redbird Arena to Possibly assist to pay for the bubble? Why not sell the naming rights and use that money to upgrade Redbird Arena or have a surplus in the basketball budget to make moves as you see fit?

 

[TBS_20]

What makes no sense to me is a discussion to sell the naming rights of Redbird Arena to Possibly assist to pay for the bubble? Why not sell the naming rights and use that money to upgrade Redbird Arena or have a surplus in the basketball budget to make moves as you see fit?

to make 20,000 seats at Hancock. that's what they need to spend the money on

 

[isuquinndog]

So a couple things, all the Valley teams are spending within roughly 1.6 m of each other, if you take out Loyola who is way out in front. That really isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things and like someone said, probably should look at overall budgets. ISU has more than one sport, including football which takes a large chunk of the budget.

As far as naming rights, AD has said that it could be used to push the IPF over the finish line. The way it works is ISU has allocated the funds IF the AD can raise 70% of the cost through fundraising. (Illinois State AD: Selling naming rights to Redbird Arena could provide financial boost). He says in this article that naming rights could be used for that. Or, they could finish the fundraising without it and then use the naming rights for other things. So if people donate, then as @Birdfriend72 said, it can be used for something else.

 

[Birdfriend72]

to make 20,000 seats at Hancock. that's what they need to spend the money on

Then use the naming rights of Hancock. It's that simple. This is why the basketball program budget has not been able to compete with UNI or other successful programs. We desperately want to spend on football at the expense of any other program.

 

[Birdfriend72]

So a couple things, all the Valley teams are spending within roughly 1.6 m of each other, if you take out Loyola who is way out in front. That really isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things and like someone said, probably should look at overall budgets. ISU has more than one sport, including football which takes a large chunk of the budget.

As far as naming rights, AD has said that it could be used to push the IPF over the finish line. The way it works is ISU has allocated the funds IF the AD can raise 70% of the cost through fundraising. (Illinois State AD: Selling naming rights to Redbird Arena could provide financial boost). He says in this article that naming rights could be used for that. Or, they could finish the fundraising without it and then use the naming rights for other things. So if people donate, then as @Birdfriend72 said, it can be used for something else.

Don't you find it odd football breaks even? I have a hard time believing all sports programs at ISU are breaking even. If you are averaging 5000 fans in a 13,000 seat Hancock for a five-game home schedule- you aren't breaking even. The same can be said for basketball. However, we arent using 23 million to renovate Redbird Arena and 13 million for a basketball practice facility. If we did- at least I could justify it with recruiting to get to the dance and make real money.

 

[Birdfriend72]

to make 20,000 seats at Hancock. that's what they need to spend the money on

I know might be off. But, if you average around 5000 fans at $30 a ticket over a five-game home schedule...you aren't making money. If basketball could average 7000 fans over 16-18 home games they would make more money. And a trip to the dance pays more than a trip to frisco. I'm trying to figure out how they make $4.2 million dollars to break even.

 

[SgtHulka]

Don't you find it odd football breaks even? I have a hard time believing all sports programs at ISU are breaking even. If you are averaging 5000 fans in a 13,000 seat Hancock for a five-game home schedule- you aren't breaking even. The same can be said for basketball. However, we arent using 23 million to renovate Redbird Arena and 13 million for a basketball practice facility. If we did- at least I could justify it with recruiting to get to the dance and make real money.

We offer ourselves as tribute to a program willing to foot the bill for our program almost yearly. Butts in seats aren't our only income. And don't forget all the popcorn sales

 

[ISUBird]

Personally I would rather get naming rights for wherever and save some money along with fundraising to get to our original budget of $25 million and build a real indoor practice facility.

 

[TBS_20]

I know might be off. But, if you average around 5000 fans at $30 a ticket over a five-game home schedule...you aren't making money. If basketball could average 7000 fans over 16-18 home games they would make more money. And a trip to the dance pays more than a trip to frisco. I'm trying to figure out how they make $4.2 million dollars to break even.

In football, 15,000 fans (amount of tickets bought needed to be admitted in to FBS which I assume they would if they went to 20,000 seats) x $25 (price per ticket) = $375,000 x 6 (games) = $2.25-million.

In basketball, there are usually 16 home games. 9,000 (number of fans if they get good again) x $25 (price per ticket) = $200,000 x 16 (games) = $3.6-million.

So, yes, at these numbers basketball wins by about 1.5-million. But, that's assuming Redbirds basketball gets good again. Why cant we assume the same thing for football if you can for basketball. That would move the mark up to $2.7-millions for football decreasing it to a $1-million different. And, a lot more if you're good and move up to the AAC. Short term basketball is the best. Long term it's football. $2.7-million + $3-million (estimated minimum AAC contract since the last one was $7-million) = $5.7-million. to $3.6-million. Let's push football forward. It's best for long term health of the university.

 

[Birdfriend72]

Personally I would rather get naming rights for wherever and save some money along with fundraising to get to our original budget of $25 million and build a real indoor practice facility.

Depends on what the facility is for. Why aren't basketball and football two separate entities? One shouldn't pay for the other unless you are Alabama or Oklahoma and have a solvent football program.

 

[Birdfriend72]

In football, 15,000 fans (amount of tickets bought needed to be admitted in to FBS which I assume they would if they went to 20,000 seats) x $25 (price per ticket) = $375,000 x 6 (games) = $2.25-million.

In basketball, there are usually 16 home games. 9,000 (number of fans if they get good again) x $25 (price per ticket) = $200,000 x 16 (games) = $3.6-million.

So, yes, at these numbers basketball wins by about 1.5-million. But, that's assuming Redbirds basketball gets good again. Why cant we assume the same thing for football if you can for basketball. That would move the mark up to $2.7-millions for football decreasing it to a $1-million different. And, a lot more if you're good and move up to the AAC. Short term basketball is the best. Long term it's football. $2.7-million + $3-million (estimated minimum AAC contract since the last one was $7-million) = $5.7-million. to $3.6-million. Let's push football forward. It's best for long term health of the university.

That's great if that's the goal. But, not many football programs make money or break even. If we are averaging 5000 fans now...how are we going to magically increase that x 3?

 

[jwa123]

In football, 15,000 fans (amount of tickets bought needed to be admitted in to FBS which I assume they would if they went to 20,000 seats) x $25 (price per ticket) = $375,000 x 6 (games) = $2.25-million.

In basketball, there are usually 16 home games. 9,000 (number of fans if they get good again) x $25 (price per ticket) = $200,000 x 16 (games) = $3.6-million.

So, yes, at these numbers basketball wins by about 1.5-million. But, that's assuming Redbirds basketball gets good again. Why cant we assume the same thing for football if you can for basketball. That would move the mark up to $2.7-millions for football decreasing it to a $1-million different. And, a lot more if you're good and move up to the AAC. Short term basketball is the best. Long term it's football. $2.7-million + $3-million (estimated minimum AAC contract since the last one was $7-million) = $5.7-million. to $3.6-million. Let's push football forward. It's best for long term health of the university.

People are not going to pay $25 to sit in the upper bowl. Especially so the further the seats move away from center court.

I could be wrong but I think it’s possible the days of 9,000 to 10,000 showing up for a bball game is a thing of the past.

 

[TBS_20]

That's great if that's the goal. But, not many football programs make money or break even. If we are averaging 5000 fans now...how are we going to magically increase that x 3?

same could be said for basketball