SAC ST Sports Budget DEFICIT

Talk about Volleyball, Softball, Gymnastics, and other Hornet sports
Post Reply
User avatar
GreenArmySwarm
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:39 am

I think none of this is really news to most of us who've been following our beloved programs closely. I must admit I am a little taken back by the $2.6 MIL number. At the same time, that's the cost of doing business at the Division 1 level. This is why being in the Big Sky (travel cost is tremendous) doesn't make sense for the University when it comes to the Olympic Sports...

A couple of ideas (nothing new)
A) Get the sweetheart deal like Davis & CalPoly and move all of our Olympic sports to the Big West. this will save travel cost tremendously! The level of competition and exposure level is pretty comparable between the two conferences

B) Drop a sport for both Men and Women (to maintain Title IX compliance)...obviously this is always a touchy subject but sacrifices must be made for good of the majority
1. How to determine? A combination of --> most players (not FB/BB obviously/doesn't generate revenue/and hasn't won)


https://statehornet.com/2019/11/sports- ... breakdown/
Super Hornet
Admin
Posts: 2548
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:48 pm

I'm thinking that my idea of resurrecting the PCAA by splitting the Big Sky and talking San Jose State into pulling an Idalol and UOP into resurrecting the program (not to mention pulling Colorado School of Mines, currently having a monster season in football, into the eastern portion of the Big Sky) would do the trick. Trips to San Jose on a regular basis would be a sight cheaper than going to Bozo all the time....
User avatar
Green Cookie Monster
Moderator
Posts: 2276
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:08 am
Location: 867-5309

Just gotta generate more $$$.

Cutting a minor sport will only save $500K at most, maybe two sports for that amount.

Gotta get a basketball facility that can seat 5,000 paying customers. Having 550 at the nest isn't going to cut it. More fans dont show up to the nest because it is so small, it might sell out any night, so why make the trip to find out you cant get in?

Finally winning at football, if we can increase average attendance in the 12-15,000 range, that will do wonders.

This is where the students need to step up and approve a tax like the UCD students did to fund facilities and pay for athletics.

Have you been to Colorado School of Mines? I have, my cousin went there, it is not an athletics powerhouse in size or student body. They have a great coach.
User avatar
Green Cookie Monster
Moderator
Posts: 2276
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:08 am
Location: 867-5309

At least $200K was made Saturday during the Causeway. Not sure of net, but gross was at least $200K.

That is a good start.
just a sac state fan
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Super Hornet wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:12 pm
I'm thinking that my idea of resurrecting the PCAA by splitting the Big Sky and talking San Jose State into pulling an Idalol and UOP into resurrecting the program (not to mention pulling Colorado School of Mines, currently having a monster season in football, into the eastern portion of the Big Sky) would do the trick. Trips to San Jose on a regular basis would be a sight cheaper than going to Bozo all the time....

I just called San Jose State. They like the idea of them fixing our problem.
User avatar
GreenArmySwarm
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:39 am

Green Cookie Monster wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:54 am
At least $200K was made Saturday during the Causeway. Not sure of net, but gross was at least $200K.

That is a good start.
Following up on GCM

14,200 fans (Not including Students who's entrance fee are free (estimate) / prices not staggered for different ticket prices for different seating)

14,200
$15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00
$213,000.00 $284,000.00 $355,000.00 $426,000.00


The football program probably gross somewhere between $220K - $320K for Causeway is ticket sales. :twocents: :mrgreen:

Now, the playoffs game will probably be packed for the home side, but either Furman/Austin Peay side will probably be pretty empty. Hoping for 500-700 fans from that side give or take. Maybe AP fans will travel if they win since it's their first time in the Playoffs also but both schools are really far from Sacramento, so we're asking for a lot.

On home side might be kinda rough also. Because December 7th is literally the week before Finals and Holiday break for the students, and for any schools, that's a big ask for student's to show up in full force on the last Saturday before semester ends. Budgeting reasons concerns, that's a wash because Students get in for free as mentioned above.

13,000
$15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00
$195,000.00 $260,000.00 $325,000.00 $390,000.00


8-)
User avatar
GreenArmySwarm
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:39 am

GreenArmySwarm wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:46 am
Green Cookie Monster wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:54 am
At least $200K was made Saturday during the Causeway. Not sure of net, but gross was at least $200K.

That is a good start.
Following up on GCM

14,200 fans (Not including Students who's entrance fee are free (estimate) / prices not staggered for different ticket prices for different seating)

14,200
$15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00
$213,000.00 $284,000.00 $355,000.00 $426,000.00


The football program probably gross somewhere between $220K - $320K for Causeway is ticket sales. :twocents: :mrgreen:

Now, the playoffs game will probably be packed for the home side, but either Furman/Austin Peay side will probably be pretty empty. Hoping for 500-700 fans from that side give or take. Maybe AP fans will travel if they win since it's their first time in the Playoffs also but both schools are really far from Sacramento, so we're asking for a lot.

On home side might be kinda rough also. Because December 7th is literally the week before Finals and Holiday break for the students, and for any schools, that's a big ask for student's to show up in full force on the last Saturday before semester ends. Budgeting reasons concerns, that's a wash because Students get in for free as mentioned above.

I'm expecting around 13,000 paying* fans. Sitting between Montana and Weber :thumb: (Obvs, I'm hoping for something closer to Causeway)

13,000
$15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00
$195,000.00 $260,000.00 $325,000.00 $390,000.00


8-)
Home Attendance -
Week 1 - 8,843 (Southern Oregon)
Week 3 - 6,753 (No. Colorado)
Week 6 - 9,640 (Eastern Wash)
Week 8 - 15,140 (Montana)
Week 10 - 11,253 (Weber)
Week 13 - 19,882 (Causeway vs UCD)
BuckeyeHornetFan
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:26 pm

GreenArmySwarm wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:55 am

Home Attendance -
Week 1 - 8,843 (Southern Oregon)
Week 3 - 6,753 (No. Colorado)
Week 6 - 9,640 (Eastern Wash)
Week 8 - 15,140 (Montana)
Week 10 - 11,253 (Weber)
Week 13 - 19,882 (Causeway vs UCD)
Average of 11,919 for all 6 home games.

The playoff game(s) might get that number over 12K and closer to 13K.

I’m thinking weather and finals are gonna be big factors though.
josephpoint
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:03 pm

Fantastic attendance for Sac State football this year.

Just shy of 12,000 average for the 6 home games.

Perhaps the best attendance in school history.

Remember it being around 11K per game 20 years ago
User avatar
Kadeezy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:00 am

josephpoint wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:39 pm
Fantastic attendance for Sac State football this year.

Just shy of 12,000 average for the 6 home games.

Perhaps the best attendance in school history.

Remember it being around 11K per game 20 years ago
It looks like we're making a habit of two FBS games in the coming seasons, which will help close that gap. Obviously winning is making a dent in that number. If the upward trend in attendance continues, with money games against SDSU and UW next season, Football alone could close that gap.

I agree that we 100% need a new sports and entertainment facility. The students need to chip in and donors need to step up. I'm ready to kick in my $1,000 as soon as they announce the official plans to build the arena. And if my broke @ss is willing to kick in - won't the rest of the community? I voted to increase my own tuition in 2004 for the [email protected] thing, and got the watered down WELL.

The quickest and easiest way to close this gap is to support your moneymaking programs, basketball and football...
Image
User avatar
Green Cookie Monster
Moderator
Posts: 2276
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:08 am
Location: 867-5309

What i dont understand is why are all the deep pockets bringing professional tittly-winks to the city? For it's size, Sacramento has more useless professional teams than any city I know.

Why dont the city/county leaders invest in Sac State, they arent going anywhere?

I still say the school ought to change its name to University of Sacramento. The state funding level is almost laughable.
User avatar
Green Cookie Monster
Moderator
Posts: 2276
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:08 am
Location: 867-5309

https://goaztecs.com/news/2019/12/5/gen ... adium.aspx

Why cant Sac ever secure this type of funding/donation?
EventCenterNow
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:02 am

This is Sacramento. They chose to hitch their wagon on being a professional sports destination a long time ago. Honestly, I'm at a loss for words on why Sac State has never been able to bring in "heavy hitter" donations like other universities get. :thumbdown: I've said this before, but Sac State doesn't have anyone to help galvanize the forces into a common goal, which is to help elevate the Sacramento State sports program, or even the university in general. To put it another way, the movement that helped keep the Kings in Sacramento and build the Golden 1 Center just isn't there for Sac State. :evil: I really think Sacramento's indifference toward its university has been a major problem and I don't have any easy answers. :tothehand: We live in a pro sports market and I don't know what can be done for Sacramento to develop an appetite for its college sports teams.
BuckeyeHornetFan
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:26 pm

Green Cookie Monster wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:50 am
https://goaztecs.com/news/2019/12/5/gen ... adium.aspx

Why cant Sac ever secure this type of funding/donation?
They have. They just got it for a science building instead of a sports facility.
Super Hornet
Admin
Posts: 2548
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:48 pm

BuckeyeHornetFan wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:49 am
Green Cookie Monster wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:50 am
https://goaztecs.com/news/2019/12/5/gen ... adium.aspx

Why cant Sac ever secure this type of funding/donation?
They have. They just got it for a science building instead of a sports facility.
After San Joaquin Delta College dumped their planetarium several years ago (promising to bring it back before ultimately reneging on on that promise, just as they've reneged on their promise to open a campus in Lodi, opting instead for Mountain House, the world capital of the underwater mortgage), the Sac-Joaquin Valley needed a planetarium SOMEWHERE. While I haven't been to Sac's new one yet, I've heard that it's freaking AMAZING. I will gladly support funding academics. Just don't lose sight of the fact that athletics needs funding, too....
User avatar
SDHornet
Moderator
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:49 am

Interesting discussion. I think there are a lot of flaws with Max Connor’s (and his staff’s) analysis. Settle in, this is a long post. Here is the article that links to the podcast:
https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athleti ... t-deficit/

Key points stated in the podcast:
· Based on FY18 numbers, article references USA Today as the data source
· $2.6M deficit is based on report from University Budgeting Advisory Committee (UBAC)
· Consulting firm issued a report to Athletics in October containing recommendations to streamline
revenues and decrease the deficit. That report has yet to be made public.
· Compares Sac State to Big Sky conference and Sac State has the highest deficit.
· 83% of athletic budget comes from allocated funds (not generated by athletics)
· Most Big Sky athletic departments don’t run large deficits
· Concessions at all CSUs are not run by athletics so that revenue does not go towards athletics
revenues
· Ticket sales are low
· Touches on the failure to build the events center when the 2004 referendum passed due to the
recession
· Student engagement should be increased
· Ticket sales in FY18 were ~$330k, 30% increase over FY17.
· 3 other schools in the BSC have lower ticket sales.
· Montukies at roughly $5M and $3M in ticket sales

Here is the actual verbiage from the UBAC FY20 Recommendations Document dated 5/3/19:
Athletics has an on-going deficit, and their revenue and budget are not sustainable based upon their expenses. In order to eliminate the deficit in the foreseeable future, a plan of action needs to be developed and implemented. Current projections for the deficit are at a minimum of $2.6M by June 30th .
· Every year Athletics incurs a deficit, the University’s Central Reserves is reduced to fund that deficit. This leaves less funding for additional courses, emergency or urgent situations, campus contribution requirements by the Chancellor’s Office for infrastructure or capital project funding, and other campus needs.
· Once a plan and timeline is implemented, there needs to be some sort of accountability and reporting measures to ensure progress is made towards eliminating this deficit.
· Since a consultant is currently reviewing the Athletics’ situation and will be providing a recommendation, UBAC is requesting an update around October 31, 2019 from Athletics so the committee members are not surprised with the following year’s Annual Budget Call submission.
· It is also important to keep in mind that Athletics does help to further many of the university’s imperatives such as increasing academic success (overall student-athlete GPA of 3.1 for the third consecutive year), increased NCAA graduation success rate (currently 76% with an average unit load of 14.95), and community engagement through their many events and community partnerships with local high schools.

Here is the FY20 President Budget Decision dated 9/17/19. Athletics received a baseline allocation increase to $4.9M for FY20, up from $3.7M in FY19

My comments:
· Interesting podcast. Kept it straight forward but missing more in-depth research and analysis.

· They completely whiffed on the big picture perspective of this issue. Based on the UBAC website, the projected University budget for FY20 is $356.9M. The $2.6M athletics deficit is 0.73% of the University budget, but approximately 10% of the athletics budget (based on the $25.8M FY18 number from the Federal EADA reports). I’m not belittling $2.6M, but in the grand scheme of things the deficit is not even a drop in the bucket for the University. That said, it does need to be reduced if not completely eliminated.

· A $6M reserve will be carried over into FY20 from FY19 for use in “One-Time Requests”. The bulk of which is going to Academic Affairs. If the athletics deficit was a significant issue, there would have been an allocation made to cover the potential deficit for FY20.

· Student engagement is completely irrelevant wrt the deficit. Athletics gets their money from the students via the student fee whether or not they attend athletic events. While increased student turnout would be great for game day atmosphere and the growth of future fans/donors after graduation, it essentially has zero impact on athletic revenue generation.

· BSC comparisons are not apples to apples. Most of the BSC athletic departments sponsor the minimum level of D1 programs (14: 6 male, 8 female) while Sac State sponsors 21 sports (9 male, 12 female) so a broad comparison of the athletic budgets is not valid. A more accurate and relevant comparison would be on a sport by sport basis using the EADA numbers. This correlation can then determine the “actual” expenditures as a percentage of the total athletics budget at Sac State in relation to other BSC athletic departments.

· I like how the authors point out the lack of an events center on-campus. The events center would serve the campus well, and not just for athletics. Sac State is losing out on revenue generating opportunities (athletic and non-athletic events) and having that facility is a large piece of the puzzle to closing/minimizing the athletics deficit. An events center would also make some programs (notably MBB and WBB) more competitive thereby generating a significant increase in interest and revenue via donations and ticket sales.

· In addition to athletics not benefiting from concession revenues at athletic events, they also do not directly benefit from apparel revenue aside from whatever is sold on the Hornetfanshop. Almost all of the apparel in the bookstore uses the athletics logo(s) and those sales go directly into the University coffers (after Follet takes their cut, of course). So this is another revenue stream that is not taken into account in the $2.6M number being thrown around.

· University Central Reserves are tapped as $18M was used towards the Tchschen Science Building. This means there isn’t a slug of money to throw at a new events center in the near future to get that project moving if private funds aren’t raised.

· Sac State campus-wide student fees in the CSU are 11th highest for the 2019-20 academic year and 5th highest among D1 CSUs (posted below). This means that increasing the athletic fee (or incurring a fee to cover the events center) is a viable option on the table for admin to consider.
Cal Poly: $4,201
San Jose: $2,110
San Diego: $1,768
Bakersfield: $1,677
Sacramento: $1,626
Northridge: $1,235
Fullerton: $1,182
Long Beach: $1,092
Fresno: $847

The bottom line is the $2.6M deficit can be addressed in various ways, and barring an economic collapse I don’t see this being a major cause for concern that will result in any athletic programs getting cut.
"I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast." W.C. Fields
Post Reply

Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis
Weber State