how much revenue?
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Predictions for RMS
- Thread starter OMFGasm
- Start date
how much revenue?
Donations are not sustainable unless they continue to donate. There is no new stadium. Nike is okay money but not anything to write home about. No need to be mean. I haven't been. Like I said I understand where you are coming from but your thoughts assume everything goes perfectly.
quantify sustainable. Do they offset the costs for your head coach?
Exactly. Sustainable means conference money, tv deals, attendance money. None of the things he listed are sustainable in themselves except the nike money. But nike isn't giving them Oregon money.
I think the problem we are having here is that before revenue from a stadium counts as revenue for the AD the stadium itself has to be in the black. If cash is already in hand to fully fund a brand new stadium then yes, CSU is in fine shape and there is no issue - however as we know fully funding a renovation project is tough, much less starting from scratch. So while the donations may be up and any Nike money would certainly help - those streams have to cover the term of any borrowing to build the stadium - and then continue to run the program at an increased level. I may be wrong here - but I think there is a big gap before the stadium plan is full funded.
They haven't even finished paying off their 70 yard IPF
Can you read? They are funding their new stadium with revenue from the new stadium's concerts.
CSU President Tony Frank's own words:
"CSU spends around $25M on college athletics each year. The sources of that funding are ticket sales and game day revenues ($3.6M, 14%), revenues related to television and conference distributions ($3M, 12%), merchandise sales and logo licensing ($2.1M, 8%), directed donor support ($2.5M, 10%), a dedicated student athletic fee of $103.85/student/semester ($4.8M, 19%) and the university general fund ($9.6M, 38% — this includes $1.9M of in-kind value, utilities, and the like). If one combines the student fee and the university general fund, it’s reasonable to say we spend $14.4M of public funds (tuition and fees are classified as public funds once they arrive at the university) on athletics. That's a lot of money that could be used for other things.But let's put some context around this. Athletics also pays the university more than $6M annually in tuition and fees and other costs for their scholarship athletes. If we set aside last year's payments from athletics into an account to fund our direct institutional support for athletics this year, we would have covered well over 90%. Then there is the context of the national market. Now, I am keenly aware of the pitfalls of saying we have to do something because everyone else is (I was never able to convince my mother of that logic and she was probably right), but benchmarking is a useful management tool. Of the six public universities in the Mountain West Conference in 2010 (the last year for which I have comparative data), CSU's athletic budget was 6th, at 30% below the average (mean). We were 4th in university support and 2nd in student fees. If those sources are combined as "public funding," we were 3rd. Where we really fall behind are in ticket sales and game day revenues, royalties and licensing, TV distributions, and private fund raising. And it's worth noting that the MWC is certainly not the highest spending conference in division I athletics."
CU's annual payout from it's media deal, plus Pac 12 network revenues is expected to be in excess of $30MM. From our media deal alone, we generate more funds than THE ENTIRE CSU ATHLETIC BUDGET.
We're talking about two totally different animals here.
"CSU spends around $25M on college athletics each year. The sources of that funding are ticket sales and game day revenues ($3.6M, 14%), revenues related to television and conference distributions ($3M, 12%), merchandise sales and logo licensing ($2.1M, 8%), directed donor support ($2.5M, 10%), a dedicated student athletic fee of $103.85/student/semester ($4.8M, 19%) and the university general fund ($9.6M, 38% — this includes $1.9M of in-kind value, utilities, and the like). If one combines the student fee and the university general fund, it’s reasonable to say we spend $14.4M of public funds (tuition and fees are classified as public funds once they arrive at the university) on athletics. That's a lot of money that could be used for other things.But let's put some context around this. Athletics also pays the university more than $6M annually in tuition and fees and other costs for their scholarship athletes. If we set aside last year's payments from athletics into an account to fund our direct institutional support for athletics this year, we would have covered well over 90%. Then there is the context of the national market. Now, I am keenly aware of the pitfalls of saying we have to do something because everyone else is (I was never able to convince my mother of that logic and she was probably right), but benchmarking is a useful management tool. Of the six public universities in the Mountain West Conference in 2010 (the last year for which I have comparative data), CSU's athletic budget was 6th, at 30% below the average (mean). We were 4th in university support and 2nd in student fees. If those sources are combined as "public funding," we were 3rd. Where we really fall behind are in ticket sales and game day revenues, royalties and licensing, TV distributions, and private fund raising. And it's worth noting that the MWC is certainly not the highest spending conference in division I athletics."
CU's annual payout from it's media deal, plus Pac 12 network revenues is expected to be in excess of $30MM. From our media deal alone, we generate more funds than THE ENTIRE CSU ATHLETIC BUDGET.
We're talking about two totally different animals here.
So your president is using tax and tuition money to fund an athletic department that can't fund itself. That's great. Lots of schools do that.
Clearly Momma Frank is not down with the plan.
CU's athletic fees for students are way cheaper than CSU. It is 24.50/ semester or $49 a year. Assuming 30,000 students paying fees equaling ($1,470,000).
30,000 is probably high but still how much does CU get from the General fund? I would bet most of it is just loans.
CU pays 7.4m a year in athlete student fees.
https://admin.xosn.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=27774
http://bursar.colorado.edu/tuition-fees/fees-description/student-fees/
30,000 is probably high but still how much does CU get from the General fund? I would bet most of it is just loans.
CU pays 7.4m a year in athlete student fees.
https://admin.xosn.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=27774
http://bursar.colorado.edu/tuition-fees/fees-description/student-fees/
Last edited:
Wow. How are the Care Bears and my little pony doing in your neighborhood? What new stadium? If you win in football it will take care of itself? How did that work out for you in the Sonny years? Yet, it will be different this time? Oh well, doesn't matter. Compared to CU, CSU was born a street rat, will die a street rat, and have only the fleas in Fart Collins to mourn you.
Please be here on Labor day to explain the inexplicable loss to CU after all of your rock solid analysis.
GoBuffs08
Well-Known Member
What new stadium revenue? You have a current stadium that nobody attends. You have your current advertisers that are paying for signs around the stadium to let the folks know the new overalls are in stock, 2 for 1 Slim Jims at 7-11 with a ticket stub and whatever else. These are the same advertisers that will be at the new stadium buying adds for for the same 12k people that attended games at the old stadium.
Explain to me how if nobody attends CSU games now, and you rarely sold out games during your peak, what makes you think 30k more people are just going to show up for games? You will have a slight bump in attendance for a year. Until people realize that you are still CSU and only going to win 3 games a season. Then it will be back to normal.
His forehead >> Peyton manning's forehead
fify
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Fight CU takes offense at that.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Just thought of that too.
Did anyone catch the picture of their new deputy AD?
:scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2:
You forget that they're joining the Big 12. :wink2:
Try and keep up, the SEC is bringing roses and a Whitman's sampler to the door right now.
And the PAC 16!
Several issues with your statements on revenue:
1. The new stadium is not built yet. It will not be available until 2014 at the earliest. You still have to operate for at least two more seasons at Hughes. To fill up Hughes the next couple seasons (and probably moving into the new season), you are going to have to take a hit on ticket sales revenue to bring in more people. It will be tough to do with the schedules you guys are playing in the near future. Then you have the presumed move into the new 42K seat stadium. How many people are you going to draw that first season? Is it going to be at least 35K or under 30K? The difference is pretty substantial. Then you have to figure out when to pay off the IPF and any remaining stadium costs.
2. TV money is driving expansion. Mega TV deals are boosting the profiles of schools. That is where the real money is when it comes to sustainable revenue streams. As Sacky pointed out, CU's projected TV revenue absolutely dwarfs that of your school. A new stadium and a contract with Nike is not going to be enough to make up that gap.
3. Suppose the longshot invite into a power conference comes sometime soon. Do you think you guys are going to be full members right away? Or do you think the first couple years might be a probationary period similar to Utah's situation in the PAC-12? You guys would be making more in those first couple seasons than in the MWC, but how much more? Then you have the auxiliary costs of joining a power conference. Substantial increase in assistant coach pay, recruiting budget, academic support, potentially higher travel costs, etc.
You see where the "money is not an issue" logic starts to fall a bit short?