Sunbelt Athletic Budgets

wardly · April 27, 2011

i feel that if the belt is going to grow as a conference that can compete in athletics as a whole they must establish an athletic budget benchmark. this will weed out the bottom dwellers such as ULM, keep out programs such as NMSU, and allow the conference to add stronger programs such as La. Tech. your thoughts?

ColoradoEagle · April 27, 2011

NMSU has a higher athletic budget than any SBC program. La. Tech would be in the bottom half of SBC athletic budgets.

Edited April 27, 2011 by ColoradoEagle

wardly · April 27, 2011

don't know where you are getting your information. according to their president they reported a $16 million athletic budget to the state 12/1/10. also, according to albq. journal article 8/12/10 they transfered $4.1 million from academics to shore up athletic department, which still ran a $8.4 deficit. regarding la. tech, i would not want both them and ulm in the belt as they basically cover the same market. howver, la. tech would be a big upgrade in all sports over ulm. just an old man's opinion.

ColoradoEagle · April 27, 2011

From USA Today. It could be wrong or outdated, but I don't see NMSU as a drag on the conference the way La. Tech would be. Not saying I want either one, but I'm not sure why they were brought up in the first place.

My personal preference is to see what happens with FCS teams over the next few years than to add a school like La. Tech who doesn't bring anything to the table. I wouldn't mind seeing an underfunded school like ULM drop down to FCS, but I wouldn't want to see any existing SBC member forced out.

VideoEagle · April 27, 2011

i feel that if the belt is going to grow as a conference that can compete in athletics as a whole they must establish an athletic budget benchmark. this will weed out the bottom dwellers such as ULM, keep out programs such as NMSU, and allow the conference to add stronger programs such as La. Tech. your thoughts?

The problem with "minimum budgets" is any decent finance person can show you whatever budget amount you want in an afternoon. The easiest way is by listing things that most people wouldn't consider parts of an athletic budget within. For example, they could say it's "too difficult to break out electrical costs" on a per building basis or just based on the amount of time the building is being used for NCAA athletic and thus count all of the electricity used for the University as part of the athletic budget. And don't think about the conference mandating how a university chooses to do it's own books. No President is going to agree to that and most wouldn't think about trying to impose that on others.

It's a lot like the bowls. People who don't know better think the New Orleans Bowl is the lowest payout, but what they list as the "payout" is what is actually paid out to each school. Other non-BCS bowls list bigger "payouts," but deduct 25% to 75% of that amount for various guarantees and fees from what they actually pay each school.

The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. What you find in the newspapers is only the large print, almost never the details!

wardly · April 28, 2011

From USA Today. It could be wrong or outdated, but I don't see NMSU as a drag on the conference the way La. Tech would be. Not saying I want either one, but I'm not sure why they were brought up in the first place.

My personal preference is to see what happens with FCS teams over the next few years than to add a school like La. Tech who doesn't bring anything to the table. I wouldn't mind seeing an underfunded school like ULM drop down to FCS, but I wouldn't want to see any existing SBC member forced out.

i googled NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC BUDGET and followed the bouncing ball. just using them and LA TECH as examples, which i guess were poor choices. regardless, i would like to see a minimum athletic budget to weed out those who can't afford to support all sports they have. again, just an opinion.

GrayEagle · April 28, 2011

i googled NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC BUDGET and followed the bouncing ball. just using them and LA TECH as examples, which i guess were poor choices. regardless, i would like to see a minimum athletic budget to weed out those who can't afford to support all sports they have. again, just an opinion.

Speaking of googling, enter "equity in athletics" and use the first entry which will is "ope.ed.gov./athletics/. You will have to learn to navigate the website but listed will be the revenues, expenditures and other data for all public institutions in the U.S. They are required to report these annually to the Department of Education after each June 30. An official for each college or university that operates under Title IX swears that the statement is true so they should be reliable figures. With the last report the University of Louisiana at Monroe reported total revenue of 8.320 million dollars for the period ending June 30, 2009. That's the lowest of the FBS schools and they hold that distinction every year.

What's worse, when the Arkansas agreement ends soon for ULM, both revenue and attendance will hit the skids. Some minimum standards in budget and attendance should be set so that the conference continues to move forward. That would have to be done at the conference level because the NCAA will always be reluctant to enforce its attendance requirement.

Harry · April 28, 2011

I find these discussions regarding other school's budgets or lack thereof distasteful. Who are we to be pointing that finger given our recent history? In addition, I commend ULM for what they have accomplished on the field with minimal funding.

wardly · April 28, 2011

I find these discussions regarding other school's budgets or lack thereof distasteful. Who are we to be pointing that finger given our recent history? In addition, I commend ULM for what they have accomplished on the field with minimal funding.

ULM brings nothing to the table. they are a poor school academically with minimun athletic funding whose students recently voted against an athletic fee. in addition they are in a rual part of Louisiana with few people and little following. as distasteful as it might seem to some, i would cut them loose. and yes, we can finger point. i am proud of what we have accomplished this past decade. we just have outgrown them. it happens.

Harry · April 28, 2011

ULM brings nothing to the table. they are a poor school academically with minimun athletic funding whose students recently voted against an athletic fee. in addition they are in a rual part of Louisiana with few people and little following. as distasteful as it might seem to some, i would cut them loose. and yes, we can finger point. i am proud of what we have accomplished this past decade. we just have outgrown them. it happens.

I hear you and I'm all for being with like institutions. Let's just better our own ship and the rest will take care of itself.

Mean Green 93-98 · April 28, 2011

If your only purpose in dropping ULM is so LaTech can join the Belt, I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding LaTech, but it needs to be on the Belt's terms.

I just don't see ULM as being a drag on the Belt. They seem to be able to whup up on us in football just fine. They field a baseball team, we don't. Their football team beat Bama a few years ago. We have a ways to go before we "outgrow" ULM.

jdennis82 · April 28, 2011

The funny thing about all these threads about raising the requirements for attendance, budget, or any other metric, the line is always drawn somewhere just below North Texas.

eppy4life · April 28, 2011

The funny thing about all these threads about raising the requirements for attendance, budget, or any other metric, the line is always drawn somewhere just below North Texas.

You always want to be the smallest house in the neighborhood.

LongJim · April 28, 2011

ULM brings nothing to the table. they are a poor school academically with minimun athletic funding whose students recently voted against an athletic fee. in addition they are in a rual part of Louisiana with few people and little following. as distasteful as it might seem to some, i would cut them loose. and yes, we can finger point. i am proud of what we have accomplished this past decade. we just have outgrown them. it happens.

There are have and have not programs in every conference. It's up to the rest of the conference members who actually turn a profit, appear in bowls, and have their stuff together to help the have-nots survive, right? I mean, isn't that the fair thing to do? Hang in there with them and be equitable? Surely, as UNT grows, wins, donations increase, and the program flourishes, and other schools continue to be a suck, UNT has a responsibility to yank their underachieving asses along with them instead of favoring jettisoning them, or bolting to a conference without the drain, don't they?

wardly · April 28, 2011

There are have and have not programs in every conference. It's up to the rest of the conference members who actually turn a profit, appear in bowls, and have their stuff together to help the have-nots survive, right? I mean, isn't that the fair thing to do? Hang in there with them and be equitable? Surely, as UNT grows, wins, donations increase, and the program flourishes, and other schools continue to be a suck, UNT has a responsibility to yank their underachieving asses along with them instead of favoring jettisoning them, or bolting to a conference without the drain, don't they?

thats what the southwest conference was based on. however, my bad for using any school as an example. my question was and is "should the belt set a minimum financial comittment/requirement for its members?" sorry i muddied the water.

stebo · April 29, 2011

There is a pretty fierce discussion about this topic on the Belt Board. ULM's problem is that they are on such a shoestring budget that they cannot compete in Div I. Yes, they have had football success - but they are in dead last of the Bubas Cup standings. ArkStFan did a nice breakdown of what putting all your eggs into one basket does for a program/school. If ULM is putting all its money into football hoping that they will raise money to fund other sports than that is a gamble. Unfortunately, their other sports have all finished in the bottom third of the Belt over the last few years. There is only so much to cut from other sports before they start to suffer and cannot compete. Their students had the chance to vote on a very modest athletic fee of $10 bucks a credit hour and only 800 people showed up to vote on it. There is a lack of interest that is sad and disturbing. I don't think they are a like minded institution. I think that NLU was a like minded institution but times have changed. Unfortunately their older alumni do not really associate with ULM and the Warhawk image, they think of ULM (unlike NLU) is a losing program and they do not support it. Very unfortunate.

Mean Green 93-98 · April 29, 2011

Unfortunately their older alumni do not really associate with ULM and the Warhawk image, they think of ULM (unlike NLU) is a losing program and they do not support it.

I hadn't heard that--that's strange. I could see some being disappointed with the change, but not supporting it because of it? Do we have alumni who have disassociated themselves because we are no longer the NTSU Eagles?

GrandGreen · April 29, 2011

The Belt begged ULM to join were they could have enough members to sponsor football. Later, ULM joined in all sports. I don't get all this talk about minimum anything, the Belt is a collection of schools with very modest means compared to most other football conferences. Every Belt school competes by virtue of student fees and state funds. None are remotely close to being solvent based on donations, ticket revenues, game guarantees and other program produced revenues.

Based on a very narrow student vote, NT now has the funds necessary to compete in a lower level conference. More than likely the greatest thing that has ever happened to NT sports but hardly something to crow about to the outside world.

untjim1995 · April 29, 2011

There are have and have not programs in every conference. It's up to the rest of the conference members who actually turn a profit, appear in bowls, and have their stuff together to help the have-nots survive, right? I mean, isn't that the fair thing to do? Hang in there with them and be equitable? Surely, as UNT grows, wins, donations increase, and the program flourishes, and other schools continue to be a suck, UNT has a responsibility to yank their underachieving asses along with them instead of favoring jettisoning them, or bolting to a conference without the drain, don't they?

It seems to me that the Longhorns and the Aggies should work on being equitable then with the rest of the Big XII-II to have an equal payout. Since Iowa State and Baylor are have-nots, they can be "carried by Texas, OU, and A&M" to survive by sharing equally in conference TV revenue, right? I mean that's only fair.

In reality, with anything, $$$ drives the bus. If the SBC or UNT feels that someone isn't carrying the load and should be replaced, more power to them. When Texas was going to leave to go to the Pac-10, it didn't seem like the Kansas schools, Iowa State, Mizzou or Baylor were really that high on UTs agenda for "bolting without the drain". Those aforementioned schools are in a conference with Texas, OU, and A&M for one reason and one reason only--they all agreed to less money and power. The funniest part in all of this is how a school like Tech so unabashedly basked in the glow of being a tick on Texas' body. I guess it pays well to have friends in high places. Its something UNT, ULM, or anyone else in the SBC wouldn't know a thing about.

LongJim · April 29, 2011

It seems to me that the Longhorns and the Aggies should work on being equitable then with the rest of the Big XII-II to have an equal payout. Since Iowa State and Baylor are have-nots, they can be "carried by Texas, OU, and A&M" to survive by sharing equally in conference TV revenue, right? I mean that's only fair.

Those teams are already essentially sharing TV equally--or least making out far better financially than they should based on what they actually do for themselves with program support, donations, and the like. A good article debunking some of the fallacies that fans (far more than the schools themselves) perceive about "unbalanced" revenue between the teams is here:

Figures

In reality, with anything, $$$ drives the bus. If the SBC or UNT feels that someone isn't carrying the load and should be replaced, more power to them. When Texas was going to leave to go to the Pac-10, it didn't seem like the Kansas schools, Iowa State, Mizzou or Baylor were really that high on UTs agenda for "bolting without the drain". Those aforementioned schools are in a conference with Texas, OU, and A&M for one reason and one reason only--they all agreed to less money and power. The funniest part in all of this is how a school like Tech so unabashedly basked in the glow of being a tick on Texas' body. I guess it pays well to have friends in high places. Its something UNT, ULM, or anyone else in the SBC wouldn't know a thing about.

I agree with everything in your paragraph, above. The lead dogs should eat first, eat best, and leave what's left. Don't like it? Build and win.

The rest of the SBC should be the gum on the bottom of UNT's shoe when UNT walks into the bank to deposit their bowl payout. The rest of the SBC should eventually be put in position to beg UNT to stay in the conference when they are ready to bolt to greener pastures, due to the interest in UNT's program regionally or even better--nationally.

When UNT reaches that rarefied air, they should look back at their little sisters in the SBC and tell them that they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, give them all a little chuck under the chin, and tell them:

"I've grown up, lil nipper. You stay here, and take care of the farm with Troy and Forrest. Keep digging for roots out in the hills, and you and momma will do jus fine. I've got bigger fish to fry. Write soon."

"But you cain't just leave us here Bucky!" the SBC might say.

"I cain't hep you if'n you won't hep yerselves, Monroe. Ain't fair. Worked too hard too long. You just stay here, fetch water when momma needs it, and put a little back when the crop comes in. That'll keep you in fatback and baccy fer when you need it. I'm gonna seek my fortune. Don't ask me fer money. I'll send some when I can from what I make."

UNT may not know anything about it now, but they need to be of the mindset that they are going to become the big dog in SBC sports, be the bell-wether school scholastically, be the money-making force in the SBC, and stop the cycle of poverty by getting themselves into a better situation conference-wise. They definitely don't want to carry the entire load themselves, and when they do, they should get the lion's share of the reward from doing it.

Arkstfan · April 29, 2011

The Belt begged ULM to join were they could have enough members to sponsor football. Later, ULM joined in all sports. I don't get all this talk about minimum anything, the Belt is a collection of schools with very modest means compared to most other football conferences. Every Belt school competes by virtue of student fees and state funds. None are remotely close to being solvent based on donations, ticket revenues, game guarantees and other program produced revenues.

Based on a very narrow student vote, NT now has the funds necessary to compete in a lower level conference. More than likely the greatest thing that has ever happened to NT sports but hardly something to crow about to the outside world.

Let's jump into the wayback machine.

If Tech doesn't balk at joining for football sending UCF scurrying for the exits, and then Boise (who was intent on joining) and Tech had not received WAC invites, ULM isn't in the Sun Belt as a football only member. The league had the chance to invite them as a full member when UNT, MTSU, and NMSU were offered full membership and instead football only was offered.

Now fast forward a few more years. The NCAA declares that a conference must have eight full members playing FBS to be an FBS league, the Sun Belt only has five such schools but Utah State, Idaho, Troy and ULM are football only. The Sun Belt offers full membership to Troy, Utah State and Idaho who accept, ULM was not offered.

Then the WAC comes calling and takes USU and NMSU and later Idaho. Then FIU agrees accelerate their move, FAU is brought in for all sports in return for their accelerated move. Only then does ULM come onboard as a full member.

While ULM has been essential to the existence of the Sun Belt, I think the history very clearly indicates that the Sun Belt membership did not want to go with ULM football only but did so in what we now hear called "survival" mode and did not want to invite ULM as a full member but did so in "survival" mode.

Survival mode doesn't always lead to bad decisions. Troy and FAU have worked out well despite complaints about Troy academics.

I'm not for booting anyone out but I believe that ULM has not found an effective strategy for Sun Belt membership and the school should undertake an honest evaluation of whether they have a good means of righting the ship. When 10 of 16 sports finish in the bottom third of the league, and 5 of 7 completed so far have finished either last or next to last, there are clearly problems to correct.

Arkstfan · April 29, 2011

It seems to me that the Longhorns and the Aggies should work on being equitable then with the rest of the Big XII-II to have an equal payout. Since Iowa State and Baylor are have-nots, they can be "carried by Texas, OU, and A&M" to survive by sharing equally in conference TV revenue, right? I mean that's only fair.

In reality, with anything, $$$ drives the bus. If the SBC or UNT feels that someone isn't carrying the load and should be replaced, more power to them. When Texas was going to leave to go to the Pac-10, it didn't seem like the Kansas schools, Iowa State, Mizzou or Baylor were really that high on UTs agenda for "bolting without the drain". Those aforementioned schools are in a conference with Texas, OU, and A&M for one reason and one reason only--they all agreed to less money and power. The funniest part in all of this is how a school like Tech so unabashedly basked in the glow of being a tick on Texas' body. I guess it pays well to have friends in high places. Its something UNT, ULM, or anyone else in the SBC wouldn't know a thing about.

They did the math. An unequal share of Big XII revenue was better than an equal share of what they could earn on their own. Personally I think those schools made a huge mistake long-term and a great decision short-term. In the short-term fans are happy to remain in a major conference. In the long-term the financial gap will widen to such a point that they will become irrelevant as long as UT, OU, and TAMU have reasonably competent management. They would be better served aligning with schools like Louisville, TCU, and Cincinnati who would be more compatible financially, rather than sink into a Vanderbilt/Miss.St. existence.

There is no real money on the table in the Sun Belt except in basketball, just the way it is. Right now we give the team earning a basketball unit something like 75% of the unit the first year it is paid and the next five years it is shared equally. We would fix basketball quickly if we changed the system. The league takes six units off the top (one per year). Everything earned above that or 80% of that goes to the school earning it.

Example 1

UNT gets the only bid, loses first round. UNT gets the NCAA per diem but the unit goes to the conference.

Example 2.

UNT gets the only bid but advances to the second round. UNT gets the per diem check, the first unit goes to the leage and UNT gets 80% of the second unit (roughly $200,000 after the deduction) for each of the six years.

Example 3.

ASU wins the tournament to get the auto bid. UNT gets in at-large. ASU loses, UNT advances to the second round. The league takes one unit for the first round and 20% of the other first round unit and 20% of the second round unit. ASU and UNT split the remaining first round unit and UNT takes 80% of the second round unit. ASU takes roughly $100,000 a year for the next six years, UNT takes $300,000 per year.

Do this and success pays and pays pretty nicely. A check of $100,000 a year will buy two non-returned home games in basketball.

jimbob · April 30, 2011

i feel that if the belt is going to grow as a conference that can compete in athletics as a whole they must establish an athletic budget benchmark. this will weed out the bottom dwellers such as ULM, keep out programs such as NMSU, and allow the conference to add stronger programs such as La. Tech. your thoughts?

While its always about money (money talks) this conference is going to get better because programs are tired of getting their asses handed to them by opponents they believe are in the same class. This upgrade by UNT of its coaching staff is going to motivate the ULM boosters/alumni to step up; maybe next year or the one after.

Makes you kinda wonder if hiring Dodge for cheap was a plan. If he wins; you're a genius; if he loses, it was a worthwhile experiment, but now we gotta go get some real talent.

Losing to programs like Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky should piss you right off.

We'll see, but this hiring of this coaching staff is how you get better. Kids are fired up; they say we're gonna be good. Doesn't really matter if they are; they think they are.

Yellow Snow · May 2, 2011

They did the math. An unequal share of Big XII revenue was better than an equal share of what they could earn on their own. Personally I think those schools made a huge mistake long-term and a great decision short-term. In the short-term fans are happy to remain in a major conference. In the long-term the financial gap will widen to such a point that they will become irrelevant as long as UT, OU, and TAMU have reasonably competent management. They would be better served aligning with schools like Louisville, TCU, and Cincinnati who would be more compatible financially, rather than sink into a Vanderbilt/Miss.St. existence.

I have a few comments about the way the B12 TV deal works.

The TV revenue is split in half, one half is divided equally amongst all the schools and the other half is split based on TV appearances. The current TV deal strictly pays out on TV appearances. In addition, the whole pie got significantly bigger. Our old secondary rights deal went from around 1 million per school to around 4.5 million guaranteed (half of total payout split 10 ways). The second half is payed out for every game you play on TV. Everybody wins. Texas maintains rights to their own TV network (as do all of the schools) and they also get the increased TV money for secondary rights. You are exactly right that an unequal share of B12 money for Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, etc. is better than we could get on our own.

That said, only the B10 and SEC make more in TV money per school than the Big 12 will under this new contract. It's a no brainer to stay. Aligning with Louisville, Cincinatti, or TCU doesn't make any sense at all. When all is said and done with the new tv deals (primary rights are up in 2015), Iowa State is looking at about 20-25 million per year in TV revenue. That DWARFS what we'd get anywhere else not named SEC or B10.

In fact the B10 teams made about 23 million off of tv last year. If anything THEY need to worry about conference stability when Ohio State and Michigan see the crazy money Texas is bringing in that they are missing out on by not having the ability to form their own tv outlets. Why should Iowa State complain? Sure Texas makes more, but then again they SHOULD make more. WE make more too (like double what we'd make in any conference not the B10 or SEC).

I don't think you see the real ramifications of the revenue gap clearly. The law of diminishing returns comes into play. So what if the revenue gap between Iowa State and Texas gets larger... They already have more money than God. How exactly is this new money going to add to their advantage?

I suppose they could gold plate their urninals to attract better recruits, but really, what do they need that they don't already have? We are using this money to bowl in the south endzone, add a 6 million dollar high def jumbotron scoreboard (15th largest in the country), and build a stand alone "football only" facility with new weight rooms, locker rooms, etc. These make more of a difference to Iowa State than Texas, because Texas already has these things. Give a rich man a 20 and he lights a cigar with it, give it to me and I buy a case of beer.... much more beneficial to me i say... :rolleyes:

Do you think UNT could use and extra 5 million more wisely than... say Oklahoma? It would add more value to your program than theirs for sure. So technically the money gap gets wider but the facilities gap closes. You can build things with that money that they already have.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Yellow Snow

shaft · May 2, 2011

Makes you kinda wonder if hiring Dodge for cheap was a plan. If he wins; you're a genius; if he loses, it was a worthwhile experiment, but now we gotta go get some real talent.
\

No, the Dodge hire was not some master plan to low ball the rest of the conference. 1. We had to raise our pay scale to get Dodge. 2. Nice try, trying to spin the worst coaching era in school history.