|
Post by rockybeav on Dec 22, 2017 15:29:21 GMT -8
Those are the values that I've been able to pull out of the US Department of Education data on equity in sports. In fiscal year 2001, OSU allocated 30% of its total athletic department expenses to football. The athletic director was Mitch Barnhardt. After Mitch left, the funding allocated to football under DeCarolis did not rise as fast as for other sports and the AD's administrative budget. This was continued under Stansbury. By fiscal year 2016, the funds allocated to football dropped to 20% of the total expenses. Our conference competitors allocate an average 28% of total expenses to football. Football expenses only rose by 75% while the overall athletic department expenses rose by 160% over the 15 years. Administrative costs rose by 200% and the department created a new track program as well as increasing funding of several sports by over 200%. OSU's financial commitment to sports is number 1 in the Pac-12 among public institutions. The OSU athletic department's financial commitment to football is dead last in the Pac-12 and second to last in the Power 5. The problem has been in the AD office not in the president's office. There's a reason why there have been 3 athletic directors and an interim AD in the past 3 years. Thanks as always prof. Any idea on how Barnes is allocating funds to the football program? I’ve emailed him and Dr. Ray about this issue, but not sure what’s being done to invest in the football program.
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Dec 22, 2017 16:02:02 GMT -8
Those are the values that I've been able to pull out of the US Department of Education data on equity in sports. In fiscal year 2001, OSU allocated 30% of its total athletic department expenses to football. The athletic director was Mitch Barnhardt. After Mitch left, the funding allocated to football under DeCarolis did not rise as fast as for other sports and the AD's administrative budget. This was continued under Stansbury. By fiscal year 2016, the funds allocated to football dropped to 20% of the total expenses. Our conference competitors allocate an average 28% of total expenses to football. Football expenses only rose by 75% while the overall athletic department expenses rose by 160% over the 15 years. Administrative costs rose by 200% and the department created a new track program as well as increasing funding of several sports by over 200%. OSU's financial commitment to sports is number 1 in the Pac-12 among public institutions. The OSU athletic department's financial commitment to football is dead last in the Pac-12 and second to last in the Power 5. The problem has been in the AD office not in the president's office. There's a reason why there have been 3 athletic directors and an interim AD in the past 3 years. Thanks as always prof. Any idea on how Barnes is allocating funds to the football program? I’ve emailed him and Dr. Ray about this issue, but not sure what’s being done to invest in the football program. The latest values available to the public are those for FY 2016. That data covers the July 1 2015 to June 30 2016 period. The FY 2017 data should be posted soon. That data would cover up to June 2017. Barnes started on the job in February 2017. We need to wait a year to see the full effect of any changes that Barnes has made in spending reflected in the budget report. I'm hoping to see changes on the field before then.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Dec 22, 2017 16:48:08 GMT -8
So which sports get budget cuts? The baseball net is actually far better than most schools even with more expenditures. Women's basketball has a respectable net loss. Men's basketball is a train wreck, but the big budget coach salary is already less than most P5 schools. The minor men's sports are bare budget.
That leaves the minor women's sports, and Vydra has way too much influence to cut those budgets. Prof, where are you cutting to push more money to footbalk?
|
|
|
Post by rockybeav on Dec 22, 2017 16:53:40 GMT -8
If I’m reading prof’s information correctly, I’d start with a hard look at who/what is making up the administrative costs and trim a lot of fat from there. Every hundred grand you save should go to to the assistant salary pool or football facility improvements.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Dec 22, 2017 17:05:37 GMT -8
If I’m reading prof’s information correctly, I’d start with a hard look at who/what is making up the administrative costs and trim a lot of fat from there. Every hundred grand you save should go to to the assistant salary pool or football facility improvements. Very good points. As soon as BobbyD took over, he started adding overhead. Some of Mitch's cost cutting was immediately eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Dec 22, 2017 17:31:00 GMT -8
I seem to remember some largish infusion of cash about the time of the CU game. We heard it from a seat mate at the game. Then "I think" there was an announcement the following week. WAG 25 million from the General Fund, but I could be wrong about both the amount & source of funds
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Dec 22, 2017 18:24:41 GMT -8
I don’t know this, but I would guess other schools are able to allocate more of the budget to football because their football and basketball programs bring in more revenue. We just aren’t making enough money to cover the other sports adequately. We can’t pull money from other programs that don’t have any.
My other opinion is that any additional money given to football should not go to the head coach or assistant coach salaries. What’d we boost the football budget when we hired Gary and his merry band of mates from Logan? I’ve got no problem giving them raises if and when they earn them, but just throwing extra money at coaches doesn’t do a lot for me. Invest in recruiting, facilities, marketing....things that will be there no matter who the coaches are.
|
|
|
Post by maximumbeaver on Dec 22, 2017 18:31:55 GMT -8
Those are the values that I've been able to pull out of the US Department of Education data on equity in sports. In fiscal year 2001, OSU allocated 30% of its total athletic department expenses to football. The athletic director was Mitch Barnhardt. After Mitch left, the funding allocated to football under DeCarolis did not rise as fast as for other sports and the AD's administrative budget. This was continued under Stansbury. By fiscal year 2016, the funds allocated to football dropped to 20% of the total expenses. Our conference competitors allocate an average 28% of total expenses to football. Football expenses only rose by 75% while the overall athletic department expenses rose by 160% over the 15 years. Administrative costs rose by 200% and the department created a new track program as well as increasing funding of several sports by over 200%. OSU's financial commitment to sports is number 1 in the Pac-12 among public institutions. The OSU athletic department's financial commitment to football is dead last in the Pac-12 and second to last in the Power 5. The problem has been in the AD office not in the president's office. There's a reason why there have been 3 athletic directors and an interim AD in the past 3 years. That’s good stuff OSUProf! The obvious question is if Football is the engine room for the entire athletic department why are we continuing with this budgetary spending model? Title 9? Is the athletic department considering eliminating a couple of sports? I hate suggesting that but given our situation?
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Dec 22, 2017 20:17:47 GMT -8
I don’t know this, but I would guess other schools are able to allocate more of the budget to football because their football and basketball programs bring in more revenue. We just aren’t making enough money to cover the other sports adequately. We can’t pull money from other programs that don’t have any. My other opinion is that any additional money given to football should not go to the head coach or assistant coach salaries. What’d we boost the football budget when we hired Gary and his merry band of mates from Logan? I’ve got no problem giving them raises if and when they earn them, but just throwing extra money at coaches doesn’t do a lot for me. Invest in recruiting, facilities, marketing....things that will be there no matter who the coaches are. Programs that have smaller total athletic expenses than OSU are able to allocate more to football than OSU. I've listed some examples below. They have smaller football and men's basketball revenues and have smaller overall expenses than OSU but they understand that football is the golden goose and allocated the amount needed. Only Kansas spends less on football than OSU in the Power 5, when you spend that little you get incompetent coaches like Andersen and his staff. There are no excuses for the fiscal incompetence of BobbyD and the crap he left us with. School, Total AD expenses in millions, Football expenses in millions, percentage allocated to football OSU 78 15.7 20.1 Pitt 75 23.1 30.8 Colorado 75 18.4 24.5 WSU 71 18.4 25.9 Utah 65 22.0 33.8 Georgia Tech 62 17.4 28.1
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Dec 22, 2017 20:48:58 GMT -8
I don’t know this, but I would guess other schools are able to allocate more of the budget to football because their football and basketball programs bring in more revenue. We just aren’t making enough money to cover the other sports adequately. We can’t pull money from other programs that don’t have any. My other opinion is that any additional money given to football should not go to the head coach or assistant coach salaries. What’d we boost the football budget when we hired Gary and his merry band of mates from Logan? I’ve got no problem giving them raises if and when they earn them, but just throwing extra money at coaches doesn’t do a lot for me. Invest in recruiting, facilities, marketing....things that will be there no matter who the coaches are. I agree and think you can do both if done smartly. Having a HC who thinks like a partner in the athletic department instead of a hired gun is critical. Most coaches want to win as much as they want to get paid. Investing money in things that continue on for the good of the program is wise compared to just throwing money at salaries. Helping a coach be more competitive and therefore the program more competitive can be done through investing in recruiting, facilities, marketing, all of which are interrelated. Bump salaries up based on attendance/revenue. For example; give HC $1,000 for every thousand fans over 35k at home games. If there's 45k in the stadium on a Saturday the HC would get $10,000 for that day at end of season to divvy out any way he sees fit to his staff. Help the coach win by investing in things that produces wins. More wins, more fans, more money to go around. Incentives and rewards versus blank checks which are not tied to production and incoming revenue.
|
|
|
Post by grackle on Dec 23, 2017 9:29:22 GMT -8
Personally, I couldn't care less what Anderson is doing now. File and forget.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Dec 23, 2017 10:43:44 GMT -8
I don’t know this, but I would guess other schools are able to allocate more of the budget to football because their football and basketball programs bring in more revenue. We just aren’t making enough money to cover the other sports adequately. We can’t pull money from other programs that don’t have any. My other opinion is that any additional money given to football should not go to the head coach or assistant coach salaries. What’d we boost the football budget when we hired Gary and his merry band of mates from Logan? I’ve got no problem giving them raises if and when they earn them, but just throwing extra money at coaches doesn’t do a lot for me. Invest in recruiting, facilities, marketing....things that will be there no matter who the coaches are. Programs that have smaller total athletic expenses than OSU are able to allocate more to football than OSU. I've listed some examples below. They have smaller football and men's basketball revenues and have smaller overall expenses than OSU but they understand that football is the golden goose and allocated the amount needed. Only Kansas spends less on football than OSU in the Power 5, when you spend that little you get incompetent coaches like Andersen and his staff. There are no excuses for the fiscal incompetence of BobbyD and the crap he left us with. School, Total AD expenses in millions, Football expenses in millions, percentage allocated to football OSU 78 15.7 20.1 Pitt 75 23.1 30.8 Colorado 75 18.4 24.5 WSU 71 18.4 25.9 Utah 65 22.0 33.8 Georgia Tech 62 17.4 28.1 I don’t know about the Pac12 schools, but GT and Pitt definitely field fewer athletic teams than OSU. The only way we are allocating more to football is if we eliminate sports, and I’m not in favor of that.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Dec 23, 2017 11:34:30 GMT -8
Programs that have smaller total athletic expenses than OSU are able to allocate more to football than OSU. I've listed some examples below. They have smaller football and men's basketball revenues and have smaller overall expenses than OSU but they understand that football is the golden goose and allocated the amount needed. Only Kansas spends less on football than OSU in the Power 5, when you spend that little you get incompetent coaches like Andersen and his staff. There are no excuses for the fiscal incompetence of BobbyD and the crap he left us with. School, Total AD expenses in millions, Football expenses in millions, percentage allocated to football OSU 78 15.7 20.1 Pitt 75 23.1 30.8 Colorado 75 18.4 24.5 WSU 71 18.4 25.9 Utah 65 22.0 33.8 Georgia Tech 62 17.4 28.1 I don’t know about the Pac12 schools, but GT and Pitt definitely field fewer athletic teams than OSU. The only way we are allocating more to football is if we eliminate sports, and I’m not in favor of that. I am totally in favor of eliminating sports that are not supported in part by fan dollars or funded by the general fund. One of the realities (for myself and others) is academia is populated by SOME profs that live in their ivory towers, teaching nonsense that really is not applicable to one's degree or the real world, to make (in their "esteemed" opinion) - a more well rounded individual. I would submit it has also become brainwashing, looking over some of the class offerings at OSU and other institutions - but I digress. If the university and/or the students believe that advanced tiddly-winks is a vital part of a students education, let the university and the students pay for it themselves. Set a bench level of fan support that needs to be achieved for a given sport, to qualify for AD dollars. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut short the major sports to support the minor, maybe even obscure, sports. Allocate dollars where there is the most bang for the buck, so to speak, and let the others fend for themselves, or find other funding. I would even be in favor of eliminating some of the "studies" that are social engineering and PC in nature, allocating those dollars to sports. I believe a little exercise and maybe fresh air (depending on the sport) would be far more beneficial to certain individuals (can anyone say "women's studies"?) than teaching one gender to resent the other. Especially in our increasingly obese society.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 23, 2017 11:42:31 GMT -8
Programs that have smaller total athletic expenses than OSU are able to allocate more to football than OSU. I've listed some examples below. They have smaller football and men's basketball revenues and have smaller overall expenses than OSU but they understand that football is the golden goose and allocated the amount needed. Only Kansas spends less on football than OSU in the Power 5, when you spend that little you get incompetent coaches like Andersen and his staff. There are no excuses for the fiscal incompetence of BobbyD and the crap he left us with. School, Total AD expenses in millions, Football expenses in millions, percentage allocated to football OSU 78 15.7 20.1 Pitt 75 23.1 30.8 Colorado 75 18.4 24.5 WSU 71 18.4 25.9 Utah 65 22.0 33.8 Georgia Tech 62 17.4 28.1 I don’t know about the Pac12 schools, but GT and Pitt definitely field fewer athletic teams than OSU. The only way we are allocating more to football is if we eliminate sports, and I’m not in favor of that. Wikipedia says OSU fields 17 varsity teams while GT and Pitt field 17 and 19 respectively. I haven't looked at the mix of sports, and some sports definitely cost more. Barnes may be a wild card. According to those numbers above, Pitt spent 50% more on football than OSU while having a lower overall budget and Barnes was there to witness it. Unfortunately he really wasn't there long enough to be invested in it. I'm hoping he sees the benefits of investing in football. I'm assuming Title 9 and Pac 12 membership requirements are still a huge issue in regards to eliminating sports. I'm glad I'm not the decision maker in charge of the atletic department here.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Dec 23, 2017 11:49:37 GMT -8
Schools must field teams in at least seven sports for men and seven for women or six for men and eight for women, with at least two team sports for each gender, to be eligible for Division I athletics. There are also Federal Title IX guidelines regarding overall male/female participation numbers that must be met, but I assume you are a big believer in equal opportunity for all so that shouldn't be an issue.
OSU has seven men's sports: FB, BB, baseball, golf, crew, wrestling and soccer. It has 10 women's sports: VB, BB, crew, soccer, swimming, T&F, Indoor T&F, CC, gymnastics and softball. The track & cross country programs count as three sports, but are essentially one program.
What do you advocate cutting? And please remember, the Olympic sports are where the majority of our in-state athletes have an opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics, which should be of importance to one who goes by Native Beav.
As far as redirecting some academic side money from programs you think are not worthwhile to athletics, remember the department already receives a multi-million $$$ annual subsidy from the "academic" side (for lack of a better term) to balance the budget.
And, truth be told, Pat Casey and Scott Rueck are each paid well above the industry norm for their respective sports. I suppose we could simply re-direct several hundred thousand dollars from each of their salaries to football support.
|
|