Re: UAB to the MVC?
Posted: May 6th, 2015, 4:21 pmNot a basketball fan I guess?
That's the report. Done in 2009, released in 2010. Keep in mind there has been some large shifting, and growth of money since that point. Numbers projecting to this year are 6 years old at this point.
Some bullet points if you don't want to read the whole thing...
From the keep FCS as is section
The percentage amount of institutional subsidy (the combination of GEF Support and
the Student Athletic Fee) will remain constant at approximately 50.5% of the athletics
budget over the next five fiscal years. The current institutional subsidy of $5,841,818
will grow to $6,969,575 from FY 2010 through FY 2015.
The ability of the UNI Department of Athletics to generate approximately half of its
budget from external sources in FY 2010 through FY 2015 is among the best for
institutions at the FCS level and is to be commended; however, it also indicates that
the ability to generate additional external funds is extremely limited.
Playing FCS scholarship football is a middle ground approach that permits significant
overall revenue generation while reasonably limiting expenses. The result is that the
institutional subsidy or net expenditure for this option is less than the subsidy
required to play FCS non-scholarship football ($6,969,575 vs. $7,401,374) and
significantly less than the institutional subsidy or net expenditure required to play at
the FBS level ($6,969,575 vs. $10,416,025). It is also not much more than the
institutional subsidy required if the football program was discontinued ($6,969,575
vs. $6,133,533). The table below illustrates the institutional subsidy required for each
option:
Football Option Subsidy Required
FB FCS with Scholarships $6,969,575
FB FCS Non-Scholarships $7,401,374
FB FBS $10,416,025
FB Dropped $6,133,533
From the non-scholarship option section
Revenue opportunities at the FCS non-scholarship level are virtually non-existent. Ticket
sales and corporate sponsorships at this level are limited. Ticket sales in the Pioneer
League range from $50,000-$250,000. For the purposes of this option ticket sales have
been projected to drop 70% in year one and then grow by 5% per year thereafter.
Fundraising and corporate sponsorship revenue sources have been estimated to decline
significantly as well over the next five years.
The financial projections for this option lead to the following conclusions:
The percentage amount of institutional subsidy (the combination of GEF Support and
the Student Athletic Fee) will grow from approximately 50.5% of the athletics budget
in FY 2010 to approximately 64% in FY 2015. The current institutional subsidy of
$5,841,818 will grow to $7,401,374 from FY 2010 through FY 2015.
The ability of the UNI Department of Athletics to generate approximately half of its
budget from external sources in FY 2010 will decrease to 37% by FY 2015.
The total athletics budget will only grow to $11,605,523 in FY 2015, rather than
$13,803,697 under the current FCS scholarship option, but the institutional subsidy
will grow.
The expense savings realized by playing non-scholarship football will not offset the
loss in external revenue sources, which will result in a net institutional subsidy
increase of $431,799 in FY 2015 when compared against the FCS scholarship option.
Although FCS non-scholarship football is an economically comparable alternative it will
actually increase the institutional subsidy. The continuation of the football program,
although in a non-scholarship format, would allow the institution to continue utilizing its
excellent football facility, while reducing the size of the overall athletic budget.
This move, however, is not without other problems as well. By moving to this level game
guarantee revenue would drop significantly. Ticket sales and fan interest would
significantly decline. Sponsorship revenue would significantly decline because it is
largely driven by FCS scholarship football and its historical competitive success
nationally. As a large state institution, UNI may find it difficult to locate an appropriate
football conference at this level.
So as it would turn out, going non scholarship would actually cost UNI money and would lead to more money needing to be put into football. Meaning, less money for other sports...like basketball...turns out the pouring money into other programs simply wouldn't happen.
Dropping football would cause our budget to fall below 10 million and it's debatable that the savings would offeset the lost revenue.
Since that study things are MUCH better for UNI, and the state of Iowa, financially. If this study was done today it would be interesting to see what the results would be. Dropping football isn't an option. The study talks about Northeastern and Hofstra dropping football to save money, however, it fails to note the difference in alumni base and regional support for college football - which is almost non-existent in New England.
Basically, football isn't going anywhere at UNI. UNI has done a great job of balancing football with other sports. Most football schools can't/don't do that.
This is why I asked, which started this whole thing, what if UAB wanted to bring FCS football back. Would that scare others away from them in this league?