FBS realignment talk is back in season...

WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?

Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.

So, is this Bullshit?

Yes.

The football program has revenues from ticket sales and money games. We averaged 4209 home attendance in 2022 per the NCAA and even if our average ticket price was $10 (it's lower), that would mean total ticket revenue of ~$250k (42k gate x 6 home games). We played one money game against Purdue which I believe they paid out $500k. So we essentially had $750k in football program revenue. Obviously there are a couple other line items but they're not meaningful revenue streams.

According to the Knight Commission website, football had a spend of $4.17m in 2022. So $4.17m - $750k is a $3.42 million dollar deficit. So to make those numbers line up, they collect student fees and then also take school funds to make them balance out -- which is the accounting magic/balance sheet bullshit numbers you see.

Where this compounds is that Title IX requires you provide a female athletic opportunity for every male opportunity. So for every guy on the football roster, we have to fund a female scholarship athlete to balance it out. If you look at the Knight Commission graph on spending, 31% is student financial aid ($5.5m) and if you realize that football is the largest scholarship sport by a factor of 5, suddenly that deficit is even larger because you have to fund women's sports to balance it out.

We can all love football as much as we want. But it's holding back all of our other sports where additional funding could mean turning them into elite programs nationally.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Alright, I’ll buy that, but cutting football means we cut 60+ female athletes, or adding 60+ male athletes?
 
Alright, I’ll buy that, but cutting football means we cut 60+ female athletes, or adding 60+ male athletes?

You would add additional sports and then just balance depending on how lean you wanted to run. To maintain D1 status, a school has to field at least 7 male and 7 female sports (or 6 male and 8 female) with 2 being team sports for each gender.

I've done analysis before and I can easily save 40-50 scholarships as well as the millions in OpEx/CapEx. You could save even more if you wanted to run really lean. For example, soccer and tennis facilities already exist.
 
A decent argument that the "14-program" rule violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:

 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
A decent argument that the "14-program" rule violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:


I 100% agree with that, too. I'd add in Title IX. Between the 14 program rule and it's application, all it has done has done is handcuffed schools into spending money when they really have no business in doing so.

If Title IX went away tomorrow, women's sports wouldn't go away. Schools would be able to focus money on women's sports they wish to field vs those they're being forced to field to meet hard caps. Being able to put more into women's hoops, women's track and field vs funding an 8th women's sport should be at the discretion of the school.

In 2023, there is no lack of college opportunity for anyone in the United States.
 
Yes.

The football program has revenues from ticket sales and money games. We averaged 4209 home attendance in 2022 per the NCAA and even if our average ticket price was $10 (it's lower), that would mean total ticket revenue of ~$250k (42k gate x 6 home games). We played one money game against Purdue which I believe they paid out $500k. So we essentially had $750k in football program revenue. Obviously there are a couple other line items but they're not meaningful revenue streams.

According to the Knight Commission website, football had a spend of $4.17m in 2022. So $4.17m - $750k is a $3.42 million dollar deficit. So to make those numbers line up, they collect student fees and then also take school funds to make them balance out -- which is the accounting magic/balance sheet bullshit numbers you see.

Where this compounds is that Title IX requires you provide a female athletic opportunity for every male opportunity. So for every guy on the football roster, we have to fund a female scholarship athlete to balance it out. If you look at the Knight Commission graph on spending, 31% is student financial aid ($5.5m) and if you realize that football is the largest scholarship sport by a factor of 5, suddenly that deficit is even larger because you have to fund women's sports to balance it out.

We can all love football as much as we want. But it's holding back all of our other sports where additional funding could mean turning them into elite programs nationally.
Just remember, a lot of colleges do not have football with a huge enrollment that suck in basketball and baseball. So, it’s not a sure thing to throw money at it, and expect to have elite programs. Look how DePaul or UIC is faring. UIC has a huge enrollment.
 
Just remember, a lot of colleges do not have football with a huge enrollment that suck in basketball and baseball. So, it’s not a sure thing to throw money at it, and expect to have elite programs. Look how DePaul or UIC is faring. UIC has a huge enrollment.

Yep, nothing is a given. You don't want to blindly spend, but there is a positive correlation between spending and winning. I've not done a deep dive on UIC's spending, but I know DePaul spends the least out of the Big East. They honestly would be a better fit in the MVC -- as would Butler.


Edit: Just found 2023 data. Looks like DePaul is 10/11 in Big East and Butler is 11/11. UIC is actually middle of the pack in the Valley. I don't know what they spend it on. Could just be COL difference being in Chicago though.

 
Yep, nothing is a given. You don't want to blindly spend, but there is a positive correlation between spending and winning. I've not done a deep dive on UIC's spending, but I know DePaul spends the least out of the Big East. They honestly would be a better fit in the MVC -- as would Butler.


Edit: Just found 2023 data. Looks like DePaul is 10/11 in Big East and Butler is 11/11. UIC is actually middle of the pack in the Valley. I don't know what they spend it on. Could just be COL difference being in Chicago though.

Alright Jason, you got me overthinking this. Sorry, you know more about how this works more than I do. We know all B10 teams are making Bank with the TV deal, no matter what product they put on the field.
But do other MidMajor teams that have football subsidies the team with student fees and University funds? I see these Mid American teams play with nobody at their games.
Hopefully our Die heart fans on here are not throwing down we are losing money because we suck?
 
Alright Jason, you got me overthinking this. Sorry, you know more about how this works more than I do. We know all B10 teams are making Bank with the TV deal, no matter what product they put on the field.
But do other MidMajor teams that have football subsidies the team with student fees and University funds? I see these Mid American teams play with nobody at their games.
Hopefully our Die heart fans on here are not throwing down we are losing money because we suck?
And, are the students aware of a portion of their money goes to subsidized the teams?
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
No, it doesn't.

I'm honestly shocked that our entire athletic department only sells $350,000 worth of tickets a season. That seems very low to me. We have to be giving away over two-thirds of the tickets if that's the case.

Total attendance for football in '22= 25,256
25,256 X $15/ticket= $378,840

Total attendance for MBB '22-'23= 56,883
56,883 X **$15= $853,245 (tried to reasonably average $26 lower bowl with $8 upper bowl)

Total= $1,232,085
 
If we can somehow find a way to win, maybe they will come. But as much as all the awesome Vincent Allen, Vincie Glenn, Tunch, G-mam Glussic, Derick Franklin, Shakir, Mike Sotak. Breaks my heart, but numbers don’t lie.
 
I'm honestly shocked that our entire athletic department only sells $350,000 worth of tickets a season. That seems very low to me. We have to be giving away over two-thirds of the tickets if that's the case.

Total attendance for football in '22= 25,256
25,256 X $15/ticket= $378,840

Total attendance for MBB '22-'23= 56,883
56,883 X **$15= $853,245 (tried to reasonably average $26 lower bowl with $8 upper bowl)

Total= $1,232,085

I'd bet corporate sponsorships. Tickets received through corporate sponsorships often have no face value on them.

My guess is that number reported is actual barebones ticket sales outside of that.
 
Alright Jason, you got me overthinking this. Sorry, you know more about how this works more than I do. We know all B10 teams are making Bank with the TV deal, no matter what product they put on the field.
But do other MidMajor teams that have football subsidies the team with student fees and University funds? I see these Mid American teams play with nobody at their games.
Hopefully our Die heart fans on here are not throwing down we are losing money because we suck?

Yes, most schools heavily subsidize athletics. They will put as much burden on students as they can and then the rest comes University reserves. Even many Power 5 schools have some subsidy even with their media rights paychecks. Bigger schools means bigger OpEx/CapEx expense, more debt, etc.
 
Yes, most schools heavily subsidize athletics. They will put as much burden on students as they can and then the rest comes University reserves. Even many Power 5 schools have some subsidy even with their media rights paychecks. Bigger schools means bigger OpEx/CapEx expense, more debt, etc.
So, the reality of dropping our football is because we suck? Not because we are doing anything different than most schools?
Man, guys? C-Mon!
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
So, the reality of dropping our football is because we suck? Not because we are doing anything different than most schools?
Man, guys? C-Mon!

That is quite the deduction from the data and conversation.

Most schools in FCS and even at the lower FBS level would be infinitely better off if they dropped football. Just because others are doing something fiscally irresponsible does not mean we should continue to follow suit. Especially if it means we could fund other programs to be competitive at a championship level while lessening the burden on students some.

Lets consider this article -- https://www.tribstar.com/news/local...nt was 8,541,decline, or 3,548 fewer students.

The Knight data says there were $11.15m in student fees. The Fall 2022 headcount per the article above means each student was charged $1,288.35 for their "season tickets" to subsidize athletics. It says 2023 enrollment was down 8.3% to 7,834. That means students (if student fees remained the same -- unlikely) now go up to $1,423.86. By comparison, back in 2005 the enrollment was over 10,000 so that means each student was only charged $400 for athletics.

Student Fees Since 2005:
YearStudent Fees
2005​
$4,011,802​
2006​
$4,383,142​
2007​
$4,383,142​
2008​
$4,780,276​
2009​
$5,247,776​
2010​
$5,586,063​
2011​
$5,780,135​
2012​
$7,271,934​
2013​
$7,671,177​
2014​
$8,275,953​
2015​
$8,777,137​
2016​
$9,877,138​
2017​
$10,214,241​
2018​
$10,704,911​
2019​
$10,957,998​
2020​
$11,139,554​
2021​
$11,139,554​
2022​
$11,154,554​
 
I can literally data you to death on why continuing to fund football doesn't make sense for the athletic department or the University. It would be different (albeit just slightly) if we were at the FBS level but considering the whole picture -- declining enrollment, declining attendance, subpar facilities, poor performance on average, you cannot make a good faith argument as to why it should be kept. Everything is based on nostalgia and we're almost to the point where the average alum will never have experienced a winning program during their time as a student.

There is a big reason why I'm back to beating this drum. Many states are now passing NIL laws and the next iteration that is being heavily pushed is revenue sharing. For example, California just passed this yesterday:


Indiana State will not be able to compete with our current sports offerings. In order to preserve athletics at Indiana State long term, we need to move to a smaller, more agile offering so the sports that do remain can be competitive within today's landscape. Or football supporters and alumni can start coming off of millions in donations per year which is a far cry from the $134k they raised on Give To Blue Day.

Just need 500 donors to commit to giving football $10k a year. You in?

It's just math.
 
Last edited:
So, the reality of dropping our football is because we suck? Not because we are doing anything different than most schools?
Man, guys? C-Mon!

more reality for you...

Indiana State began playing football in 1896; counting the many seasons in which the team was not allowed to play (1908) or no team was formed (1899, 1900, 1903 and 1910-1919 inclusive); this fall will be the 114th season of Sycamore football - the cumulative record is 405-555-24 (.424) and 1 conference title. The Trees have garnered 3 playoff appearances in 45 years of NCAA playoffs.

Yes, the Trees have put a number of players in the pro ranks (50) but none have achieved any LEGIT National Notoriety as a player; Tonyan is having some success but how many fans knew of him outside Terre Haute, his hometown and Green Bay?

Jason has provided AMPLE financial/fiscal data that CLEARLY indicates too much money is being extorted from students being spent on a middling/mediocre football program. This fiscal reality will soon be slapping the BoT and the University leadership in the face.
 
Back
Top