Re: Revenue, regardless of whether UM moves up or not.
It will be interesting to see if ANYBODY, new prez, AD, etc., is willing to re-align how present revenues are handled.
O'Day mentioned increasing rent, and increasing costs for out-of-state athletes. Then there are the "administrative" and "overhead" costs that PR mentions in passing.
The facts/situation, as I understand them, are that in the post-Hogan realignments
1. the Athletics Dept had to start paying "rent" for the stadium and fieldhouse.
2. That also meant that concessions revenues went to UM rather than athletics.
3. King George already had taken these revenues:
a. Griz license plate money
b. money from sale of Griz gear (which I'm sure was purchased because of loyalty to some otherwise invisible academic dept.
I have no idea if the university gets the Saturday parking money or if it goes to athletics, but I'll bet it goes to UM.
How much more $$ could go to athletics if all of these things were reversed (I know, now the athletics dept gets revenue from the "new" plates), WHO KNOWS?
Two other important sources of "more":
Increase in student athletic fees
Increase in University allocation -- to a par w/msu. Why not?
Regents could help by going to a waiver of a certain number of out-of-state tuition fees -- rather than athletics having to pay cash for that -- and let msu waive the same number.
RE the TV money: This has been the Big Sky policy for at least 10 years. And I have no problem believing it's an 8-1 vote against changing the lion's share away from home teams. So it's a $10 k deal for TV of a Griz game -- that means $6 k every other year for each of the other guys, or $60 k for msu. As meager as their resources are, why would they give up the money? That's not going to change.
The point: There's some money going elsewhere than athletics that could/should be redirected. Would Jim Foley help? Who knows?
Then the reality of 54% female at UM vs 54% male at msu. Title IX requires reflection of enrollment percentages. So UM has to have more female athletes than msu has to do; an opportunity to pursue women of means (they're supposed to have more than half the nation's wealth, anyway).
It all comes down to money, coming or going. Maybe the regents need to hear more from egrizzers about UM getting equity to msu expenditures for athletics. Legislators, too.
It will be interesting to see if ANYBODY, new prez, AD, etc., is willing to re-align how present revenues are handled.
O'Day mentioned increasing rent, and increasing costs for out-of-state athletes. Then there are the "administrative" and "overhead" costs that PR mentions in passing.
The facts/situation, as I understand them, are that in the post-Hogan realignments
1. the Athletics Dept had to start paying "rent" for the stadium and fieldhouse.
2. That also meant that concessions revenues went to UM rather than athletics.
3. King George already had taken these revenues:
a. Griz license plate money
b. money from sale of Griz gear (which I'm sure was purchased because of loyalty to some otherwise invisible academic dept.
I have no idea if the university gets the Saturday parking money or if it goes to athletics, but I'll bet it goes to UM.
How much more $$ could go to athletics if all of these things were reversed (I know, now the athletics dept gets revenue from the "new" plates), WHO KNOWS?
Two other important sources of "more":
Increase in student athletic fees
Increase in University allocation -- to a par w/msu. Why not?
Regents could help by going to a waiver of a certain number of out-of-state tuition fees -- rather than athletics having to pay cash for that -- and let msu waive the same number.
RE the TV money: This has been the Big Sky policy for at least 10 years. And I have no problem believing it's an 8-1 vote against changing the lion's share away from home teams. So it's a $10 k deal for TV of a Griz game -- that means $6 k every other year for each of the other guys, or $60 k for msu. As meager as their resources are, why would they give up the money? That's not going to change.
The point: There's some money going elsewhere than athletics that could/should be redirected. Would Jim Foley help? Who knows?
Then the reality of 54% female at UM vs 54% male at msu. Title IX requires reflection of enrollment percentages. So UM has to have more female athletes than msu has to do; an opportunity to pursue women of means (they're supposed to have more than half the nation's wealth, anyway).
It all comes down to money, coming or going. Maybe the regents need to hear more from egrizzers about UM getting equity to msu expenditures for athletics. Legislators, too.
