|
|
Post by mbabeav on Jul 1, 2019 16:27:07 GMT -8
I'm surprised no one has suggested underground parking like a fan from the other school down the road did for Autzen years ago. I don't think anyone wants to start digging down at that end of the complex - after finding all those camels and mammoth bones in remodeling and expanding the Football Center, the big fear is that they might find bones of the original First Nation settlers and that would really throw a monkey wrench into any efforts. Better leave well enough alone. |
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Jul 1, 2019 19:43:38 GMT -8
My comment strangely didn't appear when posted. I agree with what you're saying on the men's vs. women's game in general, but my comment was specific to OSU. Thirty years of incompetent leadership at OSU has led to the disparity in attendance today. OSU has the fewest wins in MBB over that time period among the Power 5 schools. A question was asked last season about where have all of the men's basketball fans gone? The chart suggests that they're now watching the women's game. And with some wins, some of them will likely come back to the men's game but I believe that as long as Scott can continue building a power house, women's attendance will stay strong.
My thought is that fans of the men's game are so beat down that we're not talking about the program, we're relegated to talking about lipstick on the pig, or in this case, arguing about the trees and concrete on the outside.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that same "incompetent leadership" be responsible for OSU having one of the best women's program's in the country, with the highest attendance (year-in, year-out) in the Pac-12? Or is management only responsible for failures, not successes like baseball, WBB, gymnastics, men's soccer, etc. (despite what many believe, Pat Casey did not build that baseball program all by himself. He had ample institutional support).
The bigger point is that good athletic department leadership does not plan to build great low revenue/no revenue programs such as wonen's basketball and baseball when the two primary revenue generators for the department have been chronically underfunded for decades and have under performed as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jul 2, 2019 0:03:14 GMT -8
I would say that between 1999 and 2013, our football program overperformed more than any in the Pac-10/12.
|
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Jul 2, 2019 7:51:32 GMT -8
I would say that between 1999 and 2013, our football program overperformed more than any in the Pac-10/12. Football certainly over performed for that time period in relation to the resources that they were provided by the athletic department administration, especially in the latter part. But that is the key consideration here - the funding for football was systematically reduced in relation to the size of the amount of total financial resources available in the athletic department from the start to the end of that period. This was a strategy by the leadership.
The graphic below shows football expenses expressed as a percentage of the total athletic department expenditures and winning percentage by the OSU program (click to enlarge). There has been a systematic dis-investment in football by the OSU athletic department over the time period, and this has had consequences for the competitiveness of the program. OSU is dead last in Power 5 spending on football and near that mark in men's basketball, but we are not at the bottom of the Power 5 in total departmental financial resources. OSU is dead last in number of combined wins in football and men's basketball over the last 3 decades in the Power 5. OSU sports needs better leadership to break out of this deep hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 2, 2019 12:22:41 GMT -8
I would say that between 1999 and 2013, our football program overperformed more than any in the Pac-10/12. Football certainly over performed for that time period in relation to the resources that they were provided by the athletic department administration, especially in the latter part. But that is the key consideration here - the funding for football was systematically reduced in relation to the size of the amount of total financial resources available in the athletic department from the start to the end of that period. This was a strategy by the leadership.
The graphic below shows football expenses expressed as a percentage of the total athletic department expenditures and winning percentage by the OSU program (click to enlarge). There has been a systematic dis-investment in football by the OSU athletic department over the time period, and this has had consequences for the competitiveness of the program. OSU is dead last in Power 5 spending on football and near that mark in men's basketball, but we are not at the bottom of the Power 5 in total departmental financial resources. OSU is dead last in number of combined wins in football and men's basketball over the last 3 decades in the Power 5. OSU sports needs better leadership to break out of this deep hole. Prof, you have a ton of information and behind-the-scenes insight, which is great on these boards. I disagree with your conclusions to a certain extent. I think that a point that you made in another thread is a better one. (At least, I think it was you.) And that is that the real problem is that Oregon State is top-heavy, spending way too much on administrators and oversight, when that money would go a lot further, if it went to coaching staffs, capital improvements and upgrades, recruiting, advertising, etc. As far as inter-sport funding, the thing of it is that you get a lot of bang for your buck in baseball or women's basketball than you do in football or basketball. You see a lot more success in those sports, as a result of strategic funding. Plus, funding to women's basketball is also, to a certain extent, funding to men's basketball. Basketball funding is not necessarily a binary situation. Even if we basically de-funded all other programs and threw all of the money that we could at football, it is not going to move the needle all-that-much. You have a better argument with basketball, because slight changes in funding make more of an impact in the sport. However, no matter how you slice it, $1,000,000.00 in funding to baseball goes a lot further than a $1,000,000.00 in funding to men's basketball. ($250,000.00 in funding to baseball probably goes a lot further than $1,000,000.00 in funding to men's basketball.) Oregon State has to be in a Moneyball mindset. The Beavers must invest in sports, where that money does the most good. You win the battles that you can win. I am 100% behind having a consistently elite baseball and women's basketball programs. Hopefully, cuts to overhead can be funneled back into football and basketball to make them both consistently competitive. And hopefully, the spoiled fan-base realizes that guys like Smitty (and Riley before him) and Tinkle are doing what they can with the budgets that they have, doing their best to fight tanks with pitchforks. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 2, 2019 12:37:00 GMT -8
Football certainly over performed for that time period in relation to the resources that they were provided by the athletic department administration, especially in the latter part. But that is the key consideration here - the funding for football was systematically reduced in relation to the size of the amount of total financial resources available in the athletic department from the start to the end of that period. This was a strategy by the leadership.
The graphic below shows football expenses expressed as a percentage of the total athletic department expenditures and winning percentage by the OSU program (click to enlarge). There has been a systematic dis-investment in football by the OSU athletic department over the time period, and this has had consequences for the competitiveness of the program. OSU is dead last in Power 5 spending on football and near that mark in men's basketball, but we are not at the bottom of the Power 5 in total departmental financial resources. OSU is dead last in number of combined wins in football and men's basketball over the last 3 decades in the Power 5. OSU sports needs better leadership to break out of this deep hole. Prof, you have a ton of information and behind-the-scenes insight, which is great on these boards. I disagree with your conclusions to a certain extent. I think that a point that you made in another thread is a better one. (At least, I think it was you.) And that is that the real problem is that Oregon State is top-heavy, spending way too much on administrators and oversight, when that money would go a lot further, if it went to coaching staffs, capital improvements and upgrades, recruiting, advertising, etc. As far as inter-sport funding, the thing of it is that you get a lot of bang for your buck in baseball or women's basketball than you do in football or basketball. You see a lot more success in those sports, as a result of strategic funding. Plus, funding to women's basketball is also, to a certain extent, funding to men's basketball. Basketball funding is not necessarily a binary situation. Even if we basically de-funded all other programs and threw all of the money that we could at football, it is not going to move the needle all-that-much. You have a better argument with basketball, because slight changes in funding make more of an impact in the sport. However, no matter how you slice it, $1,000,000.00 in funding to baseball goes a lot further than a $1,000,000.00 in funding to men's basketball. ($250,000.00 in funding to baseball probably goes a lot further than $1,000,000.00 in funding to men's basketball.) Oregon State has to be in a Moneyball mindset. The Beavers must invest in sports, where that money does the most good. You win the battles that you can win. I am 100% behind having a consistently elite baseball and women's basketball programs. Hopefully, cuts to overhead can be funneled back into football and basketball to make them both consistently competitive. And hopefully, the spoiled fan-base realizes that guys like Smitty (and Riley before him) and Tinkle are doing what they can with the budgets that they have, doing their best to fight tanks with pitchforks. It is not a "moneyball" mindset to invest in the sports that are not going to make you any money. That is a money-pit mindset. Yes, it's great that we have successful teams in baseball and WBB, but those are not going to provide more money to the overall athletic budget. And investing in Women's basketball has absolutely nothing to do with the Men's program. The only area that you could make any argument for that is with the practice facility and that was driven by the Men's program. Our athletic department is going to continue to struggle more and more if we don't do something about the two programs that carry the athletic department in terms of revenue. Spending less than 20% of the budget on Football, which is your primary revenue source, is just plain stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 2, 2019 12:52:13 GMT -8
Prof, you have a ton of information and behind-the-scenes insight, which is great on these boards. I disagree with your conclusions to a certain extent. I think that a point that you made in another thread is a better one. (At least, I think it was you.) And that is that the real problem is that Oregon State is top-heavy, spending way too much on administrators and oversight, when that money would go a lot further, if it went to coaching staffs, capital improvements and upgrades, recruiting, advertising, etc. As far as inter-sport funding, the thing of it is that you get a lot of bang for your buck in baseball or women's basketball than you do in football or basketball. You see a lot more success in those sports, as a result of strategic funding. Plus, funding to women's basketball is also, to a certain extent, funding to men's basketball. Basketball funding is not necessarily a binary situation. Even if we basically de-funded all other programs and threw all of the money that we could at football, it is not going to move the needle all-that-much. You have a better argument with basketball, because slight changes in funding make more of an impact in the sport. However, no matter how you slice it, $1,000,000.00 in funding to baseball goes a lot further than a $1,000,000.00 in funding to men's basketball. ($250,000.00 in funding to baseball probably goes a lot further than $1,000,000.00 in funding to men's basketball.) Oregon State has to be in a Moneyball mindset. The Beavers must invest in sports, where that money does the most good. You win the battles that you can win. I am 100% behind having a consistently elite baseball and women's basketball programs. Hopefully, cuts to overhead can be funneled back into football and basketball to make them both consistently competitive. And hopefully, the spoiled fan-base realizes that guys like Smitty (and Riley before him) and Tinkle are doing what they can with the budgets that they have, doing their best to fight tanks with pitchforks. It is not a "moneyball" mindset to invest in the sports that are not going to make you any money. That is a money-pit mindset. Yes, it's great that we have successful teams in baseball and WBB, but those are not going to provide more money to the overall athletic budget. And investing in Women's basketball has absolutely nothing to do with the Men's program. The only area that you could make any argument for that is with the practice facility and that was driven by the Men's program. Our athletic department is going to continue to struggle more and more if we don't do something about the two programs that carry the athletic department in terms of revenue. Spending less than 20% of the budget on Football, which is your primary revenue source, is just plain stupid. But you are making money, at least on baseball. I can't find numbers that separate out men's and women's basketball, but with those attendance numbers, it is hard for me to believe that Oregon State is not making money on women's basketball, as well, because there is not that much overhead on women's basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 2, 2019 13:00:58 GMT -8
It is not a "moneyball" mindset to invest in the sports that are not going to make you any money. That is a money-pit mindset. Yes, it's great that we have successful teams in baseball and WBB, but those are not going to provide more money to the overall athletic budget. And investing in Women's basketball has absolutely nothing to do with the Men's program. The only area that you could make any argument for that is with the practice facility and that was driven by the Men's program. Our athletic department is going to continue to struggle more and more if we don't do something about the two programs that carry the athletic department in terms of revenue. Spending less than 20% of the budget on Football, which is your primary revenue source, is just plain stupid. But you are making money, at least on baseball. I can't find numbers that separate out men's and women's basketball, but with those attendance numbers, it is hard for me to believe that Oregon State is not making money on women's basketball, as well, because there is not that much overhead on women's basketball. The amount of money made on baseball is negligible. It is not enough to have any bearing on the athletic department as a whole. Is should not be too hard to believe that we are not making money on WBB. They have very similar overhead to the Men's program (other than coaches salaries where Wayne makes about $500K more than Scott.) yet the ticket prices are substantially lower. The men's team can also generate more revenue by getting paid more for non-conference away games than the women do. Also, the women can carry 2 more scholarship players than the men's team. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jul 2, 2019 13:10:44 GMT -8
I can't find numbers that separate out men's and women's basketball, but with those attendance numbers, it is hard for me to believe that Oregon State is not making money on women's basketball, as well, because there is not that much overhead on women's basketball.
Overhead is virtually identical in both programs. Travel costs are virtually the same. Scholarships cost the same. Training table, etc., cost the same. The only measurable difference may be salaries, but not significantly, since we have one of the highest-paid WBB coaches, and one of the lowest-paid MBB coaches, in the Pac-12. WBB tickets cost significantly less, and there isn't a BASF donation tied to season tickets.
MBB makes money because of TV rights fees. WBB TV revenue is negligible.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 2, 2019 13:10:49 GMT -8
But you are making money, at least on baseball. I can't find numbers that separate out men's and women's basketball, but with those attendance numbers, it is hard for me to believe that Oregon State is not making money on women's basketball, as well, because there is not that much overhead on women's basketball. The amount of money made on baseball is negligible. It is not enough to have any bearing on the athletic department as a whole. Is should not be too hard to believe that we are not making money on WBB. They have very similar overhead to the Men's program (other than coaches salaries) yet the ticket prices are substantially lower. The men's team can also generate more revenue by getting paid more for non-conference away games than the women do. Also, the women can carry 2 more scholarship players than the men's team. But you're talking about a self-sustaining program in baseball. You spend money, you get more back. Why would you take money away from baseball? You are overstating your position. Netting several hundred thousand dollars almost funds another program. Football "makes" money, but it costs a lot of money to "make" that money. Same with basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 2, 2019 13:27:23 GMT -8
The amount of money made on baseball is negligible. It is not enough to have any bearing on the athletic department as a whole. Is should not be too hard to believe that we are not making money on WBB. They have very similar overhead to the Men's program (other than coaches salaries) yet the ticket prices are substantially lower. The men's team can also generate more revenue by getting paid more for non-conference away games than the women do. Also, the women can carry 2 more scholarship players than the men's team. But you're talking about a self-sustaining program in baseball. You spend money, you get more back. Why would you take money away from baseball? You are overstating your position. Netting several hundred thousand dollars almost funds another program.
Football "makes" money, but it costs a lot of money to "make" that money. Same with basketball. Baseball does not make several hundred thousand dollars.... You spend more on football and basketball because of the return on investment. We have an elite baseball team and it barely makes money. If we could elevate our football and basketball programs to even a mediocre level, it would generate millions more in revenue. The primary revenue for athletics is rights & licensing. Companies due not pay millions and millions for WBB and baseball rights because they do not have the exposure and fan base that football and men's basketball have. uo spend tons on baseball and it resulted in them losing $40K per game they played in 2017. They were in a much better position to absorb that with their success in the 2 revenue sports. If we continue to struggle in football and basketball, it will just lead to cuts in the other sports. You can't survive with bad football and basketball teams and not have it affect other sports. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 2, 2019 13:51:54 GMT -8
Did baseball actually moke money last year? I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out it didn't in previous years.
The revenues and donations football brings in pays for the bulk of every shortfall in the athletic department. OSUProf is probably exactly right in his assertion that more investment in improving the money generating sports should carry over into funding everything else once the money generating sports turn around.
It'd be nice to see the same graphs from the other schools in the league. I think if I recall correctly OSU is probably spending among the least on it's football team in Power 5 schools, yet actually performs quite well on football revenues in the overall scheme of Power 5 revenues. Ya gotta spend money to make money, and the non-revenue generating sports will never make the kind of money that can affect the overall sports program here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 2, 2019 13:55:47 GMT -8
The amount of money made on baseball is negligible. It is not enough to have any bearing on the athletic department as a whole. Is should not be too hard to believe that we are not making money on WBB. They have very similar overhead to the Men's program (other than coaches salaries) yet the ticket prices are substantially lower. The men's team can also generate more revenue by getting paid more for non-conference away games than the women do. Also, the women can carry 2 more scholarship players than the men's team. But you're talking about a self-sustaining program in baseball. You spend money, you get more back. Why would you take money away from baseball? You are overstating your position. Netting several hundred thousand dollars almost funds another program. Football "makes" money, but it costs a lot of money to "make" that money. Same with basketball. Baseball is "self-sustaining"? Surprised to hear that. If that were factually true you'd think OSU would be bragging about it - a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Jul 2, 2019 14:02:36 GMT -8
It is not a "moneyball" mindset to invest in the sports that are not going to make you any money. That is a money-pit mindset. Yes, it's great that we have successful teams in baseball and WBB, but those are not going to provide more money to the overall athletic budget. And investing in Women's basketball has absolutely nothing to do with the Men's program. The only area that you could make any argument for that is with the practice facility and that was driven by the Men's program. Our athletic department is going to continue to struggle more and more if we don't do something about the two programs that carry the athletic department in terms of revenue. Spending less than 20% of the budget on Football, which is your primary revenue source, is just plain stupid. But you are making money, at least on baseball. I can't find numbers that separate out men's and women's basketball, but with those attendance numbers, it is hard for me to believe that Oregon State is not making money on women's basketball, as well, because there is not that much overhead on women's basketball. Found this link to Revenue & Expenses: fa.oregonstate.edu/sites/fa.oregonstate.edu/files/budget/budget_convers/budget_conversations-athletics-2.1.2018.pdfLooks like the numbers are from FY 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jul 2, 2019 14:22:18 GMT -8
But you're talking about a self-sustaining program in baseball. You spend money, you get more back. Why would you take money away from baseball? You are overstating your position. Netting several hundred thousand dollars almost funds another program. Football "makes" money, but it costs a lot of money to "make" that money. Same with basketball. Baseball is "self-sustaining"? Surprised to hear that. If that were factually true you'd think OSU would be bragging about it - a lot. Someone needs to find it again, but there was a link on this board that showed that baseball was just above break even last year. I couldn't seem to find it, but again, it's nothing significant enough to matter to the overall budget. |
|
