Llnked is an article from the Washington Post about the skyrocketing revenues, and expenses, of big time college athletics. While the point of the article is that despite increasing revenues, most programs are still spending more than they take in, the article includes a lot of data that I think highlights the challenges facing ISU"s athletic department going forward.
To me, the most interesting chart is the one that includes total revenues for all the major programs, by current conference, for 2004 and 2014. The chart only includes public universities, so no Baylor or TCU. For both years, our revenues are last amongst Big12 schools - this is the ultimate reality that faces our AD when we want him to "just spend more on FB". Still, the gap between our revenues and those of our conference peers is narrowing. In 2004, our revenues were 60% of the 5th place school(KSU), 50% of the 4th place school(Okie St), and 47% of Iowa's revenue. By 2014, while still last in revenues, our revenues were 90% of the 5th place school(WVU), 70% of the 4th place school(KU), and 62% of Iowa's revenue. Still, for us to move from last in revenues to 7th in the Big12, we need about $6 million more -- just think what we could do if we took all of this and spent it on FB.
Even though the article points out that we ran a deficit in 2014, the extent of that deficit, compared to other schools, is quite small. Still, I agree with the mantra, you get what you pay for, especially as it relates to FB. As such, if we are to jump start our FB program, I think we need to seriously consider how much debt we might tolerate in order to increase the FB budget to the midpoint of the conference (as Paul suggested) - I don't think there is any other way to shuffle existing revenues to provide this increase outside of finding our own "T Bone Cyclone". This, of course, would, and should, be a President Leath decision and, while it goes against my usually frugal perspective, I think he should seriously consider it. - IMO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sp...e-top-stories_ncaamoney-1150am:homepage/story
To me, the most interesting chart is the one that includes total revenues for all the major programs, by current conference, for 2004 and 2014. The chart only includes public universities, so no Baylor or TCU. For both years, our revenues are last amongst Big12 schools - this is the ultimate reality that faces our AD when we want him to "just spend more on FB". Still, the gap between our revenues and those of our conference peers is narrowing. In 2004, our revenues were 60% of the 5th place school(KSU), 50% of the 4th place school(Okie St), and 47% of Iowa's revenue. By 2014, while still last in revenues, our revenues were 90% of the 5th place school(WVU), 70% of the 4th place school(KU), and 62% of Iowa's revenue. Still, for us to move from last in revenues to 7th in the Big12, we need about $6 million more -- just think what we could do if we took all of this and spent it on FB.
Even though the article points out that we ran a deficit in 2014, the extent of that deficit, compared to other schools, is quite small. Still, I agree with the mantra, you get what you pay for, especially as it relates to FB. As such, if we are to jump start our FB program, I think we need to seriously consider how much debt we might tolerate in order to increase the FB budget to the midpoint of the conference (as Paul suggested) - I don't think there is any other way to shuffle existing revenues to provide this increase outside of finding our own "T Bone Cyclone". This, of course, would, and should, be a President Leath decision and, while it goes against my usually frugal perspective, I think he should seriously consider it. - IMO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sp...e-top-stories_ncaamoney-1150am:homepage/story
