Staff Reductions Coming To ADs

[AppStFan1]

Do strikes really hurt the players? Maybe short run while on strike. Seems NFL, NBA and MLB players getting paid more after each strike.

The NFL spread checks beyond just the season to like 36 or 40 weeks because many players were having to take out loans in the off-season. By spreading the checks out more it forced players to manage their money a little better. That is why I say players hurt from it because the checks stop and they typically don't manage their money well so they can't strike for too long. NFL owners could literally shut the league down for 2 years and they would be fine financially but 90% of NFL players would not be fine if they did that. It is even worse in college now because they now have a taste of getting checks and would not want to give that up. I also think fans would turn on players more than the school and the players would be seen as the bad guy by most fans. It just would not be smart for them to strike but I'm sure it will happen one day.

[BambooRdApp]

It is a booster who loves golf and basically keeps the program afloat because they love it, right? It is not because they are selling out matches and drawing revenue from crowds or TV money, correct?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

Since you are an App "revenue only" fan and even those sports do not support themselves without alumni support, how much are you giving to ensure they are achieving the maximum revenue possible?
.which, putting it another way, how much are you giving to ensure they have the best opportunity to win?

[AppSt94]

It is a booster who loves golf and basically keeps the program afloat because they love it, right? It is not because they are selling out matches and drawing revenue from crowds or TV money, correct?

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

[AppStFan1]

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

Since you are an App "revenue only" fan and even those sports do not support themselves without alumni support, how much are you giving to ensure they are achieving the maximum revenue possible?
.which, putting it another way, how much are you giving to ensure they have the best opportunity to win?

Of course they all need alumni support but my point is football draws most of that by far over any other sport. Basketball gets the second most but that is still a gap. No other sport averages over 30,000 fans for each game. It is not close. I give what it takes to be in YC and have season tickets but I am not about to stretch myself by giving money I don't have either. I am not the one complaining about the money we have. Those who bring that up should be the ones giving more money to make up for it. If I had the money of Tommy Sofield I would give to get my name on a building like him and sit in the suites for sure. I would rather give towards a facility or football program as a whole over to just help one player. I want my money to help all in the program instead of just one individual player.

[AppStFan1]

So what’s your point? Baseball sells tickets but it doesn’t generate the revenue that makes it self sufficient. Do we shutter baseball? Not all donors share the same viewpoint as you on a football first structure. There are donors that contribute handsomely to the viability of non revenue sports that likely go away altogether if the program(s) that they support and love go away. The money that Irene Sawyer provides to women’s sports won’t be redistributed to football because it likely goes away. The same goes away for those that support golf, track and the like.

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

[AppSt94]

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

You are missing my point. The revenue generated from ticket sales doesn’t cover the football budget. So to your point, it can’t sustain itself so it must be gone. But here is the link for the 2023 year. Ticket sales across the department didn’t cover the football budget.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... report.pdf

[AppStFan1]

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

You are missing my point. The revenue generated from ticket sales doesn’t cover the football budget. So to your point, it can’t sustain itself so it must be gone. But here is the link for the 2023 year. Ticket sales across the department didn’t cover the football budget.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... report.pdf

I never once said a sport should have to fund itself off ticket sales. You cherry picked that specific piece of revenue to make a statement. Revenue is what I was talking about and it is always going to be more than just ticket sales. You do realize that not even the NFL is able to fully fund their operating expenses off ticket sales? Add in the revenue from concessions, TV, alumni support, and everything else that is drawn due to just football and then compare that to any other sport. That comparison makes my point.

[AppSt94]

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

You are missing my point. The revenue generated from ticket sales doesn’t cover the football budget. So to your point, it can’t sustain itself so it must be gone. But here is the link for the 2023 year. Ticket sales across the department didn’t cover the football budget.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... report.pdf

I never once said a sport should have to fund itself off ticket sales. You cherry picked that specific piece of revenue to make a statement. Revenue is what I was talking about and it is always going to be more than just ticket sales. You do realize that not even the NFL is able to fully fund their operating expenses off ticket sales? Add in the revenue from concessions, TV, alumni support, and everything else that is drawn due to just football and then compare that to any other sport. That comparison makes my point.

What you said was that certain sports should only be allowed to exist if a donor funded it because all revenue should be given to football to support whatever they need above all others. The revenue sharing from the conference and the NCAA is for the whole athletic department and not just football. The deal is based off of all media and the majority of athletic contests across multiple sports are on the ESPN + platform.

Go back and read through the financials again and try and do some math. Ticket sales, concessions and revenue distribution from the conference and NCAA still doesn’t cover the football budget.

I will never shame someone for giving what they give because it needs to be appreciated for the sacrifice. But you giving the bare minimum to get into the stadium on gameday does not entitle you to having an equal say to what the folks that are hired to make these decisions in the athletic department.

And before you respond with the cliche, “well this is a message board,” let me stop you right there. We are seven pages deep into this and no one has shown support for your position.

[Bootsy]

Concerning this discussion, I imagine Billy Preston is somewhere singing

[appst89]

Not necessarily supporting the position, but I think he’s pretty close to right in what’s going to happen. Forcing the revenue producers to share with the non-revenue sports is probably going to be ruled to be an unfair restraint of trade. SCOTUS has already said as much. There will have to be an antitrust exemption and some sort of collectively bargained agreement for any revenue to be shared.

I absolutely detest what this has become, but I do not see any happy endings for non-revenue sports.

[AppStFan1]

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

You are missing my point. The revenue generated from ticket sales doesn’t cover the football budget. So to your point, it can’t sustain itself so it must be gone. But here is the link for the 2023 year. Ticket sales across the department didn’t cover the football budget.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... report.pdf

I never once said a sport should have to fund itself off ticket sales. You cherry picked that specific piece of revenue to make a statement. Revenue is what I was talking about and it is always going to be more than just ticket sales. You do realize that not even the NFL is able to fully fund their operating expenses off ticket sales? Add in the revenue from concessions, TV, alumni support, and everything else that is drawn due to just football and then compare that to any other sport. That comparison makes my point.

What you said was that certain sports should only be allowed to exist if a donor funded it because all revenue should be given to football to support whatever they need above all others. The revenue sharing from the conference and the NCAA is for the whole athletic department and not just football. The deal is based off of all media and the majority of athletic contests across multiple sports are on the ESPN + platform.

Go back and read through the financials again and try and do some math. Ticket sales, concessions and revenue distribution from the conference and NCAA still doesn’t cover the football budget.

I will never shame someone for giving what they give because it needs to be appreciated for the sacrifice. But you giving the bare minimum to get into the stadium on gameday does not entitle you to having an equal say to what the folks that are hired to make these decisions in the athletic department.

And before you respond with the cliche, “well this is a message board,” let me stop you right there. We are seven pages deep into this and no one has shown support for your position.

I did not say that they should not exist. I simply said if they don't draw like football or basketball I would be okay with them being absolute bare bones and offered that if you guys think we need more money so bad we should make budget cuts.

I don't shame anyone for giving for whatever reason. I just said I would not do it but to each is own. You said we are in bad financial shape so if you feel that way then give more to fix it.

[AppStFan1]

Not necessarily supporting the position, but I think he’s pretty close to right in what’s going to happen. Forcing the revenue producers to share with the non-revenue sports is probably going to be ruled to be an unfair restraint of trade. SCOTUS has already said as much. There will have to be an antitrust exemption and some sort of collectively bargained agreement for any revenue to be shared.

I absolutely detest what this has become, but I do not see any happy endings for non-revenue sports.

That is definitely part of my point. You can't force those who attract the fans, TV money, etc to share with those who don't without creating more issues.

There will absolutely be an antitrust and CBA in college football one day. You can take that to the bank. If the players ever decide to strike the results will be disastrous for them as the fans will turn on them best case and worst case the program will fold.

I detest what this has become as well. It definitely won't be a happy ending for non-revenue sports.

[BambooRdApp]

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

You are missing my point. The revenue generated from ticket sales doesn’t cover the football budget. So to your point, it can’t sustain itself so it must be gone. But here is the link for the 2023 year. Ticket sales across the department didn’t cover the football budget.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... report.pdf

I never once said a sport should have to fund itself off ticket sales. You cherry picked that specific piece of revenue to make a statement. Revenue is what I was talking about and it is always going to be more than just ticket sales. You do realize that not even the NFL is able to fully fund their operating expenses off ticket sales? Add in the revenue from concessions, TV, alumni support, and everything else that is drawn due to just football and then compare that to any other sport. That comparison makes my point.

What you said was that certain sports should only be allowed to exist if a donor funded it because all revenue should be given to football to support whatever they need above all others. The revenue sharing from the conference and the NCAA is for the whole athletic department and not just football. The deal is based off of all media and the majority of athletic contests across multiple sports are on the ESPN + platform.

Go back and read through the financials again and try and do some math. Ticket sales, concessions and revenue distribution from the conference and NCAA still doesn’t cover the football budget.

I will never shame someone for giving what they give because it needs to be appreciated for the sacrifice. But you giving the bare minimum to get into the stadium on gameday does not entitle you to having an equal say to what the folks that are hired to make these decisions in the athletic department.

And before you respond with the cliche, “well this is a message board,” let me stop you right there. We are seven pages deep into this and no one has shown support for your position.

I did not say that they should not exist. I simply said if they don't draw like football or basketball I would be okay with them being absolute bare bones and offered that if you guys think we need more money so bad we should make budget cuts.

I don't shame anyone for giving for whatever reason. I just said I would not do it but to each is own. You said we are in bad financial shape so if you feel that way then give more to fix it.

Do you even know how many non-students attended mens basketball games during 24/25 season?

[AppSt94]

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

You are missing my point. The revenue generated from ticket sales doesn’t cover the football budget. So to your point, it can’t sustain itself so it must be gone. But here is the link for the 2023 year. Ticket sales across the department didn’t cover the football budget.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... report.pdf

I never once said a sport should have to fund itself off ticket sales. You cherry picked that specific piece of revenue to make a statement. Revenue is what I was talking about and it is always going to be more than just ticket sales. You do realize that not even the NFL is able to fully fund their operating expenses off ticket sales? Add in the revenue from concessions, TV, alumni support, and everything else that is drawn due to just football and then compare that to any other sport. That comparison makes my point.

What you said was that certain sports should only be allowed to exist if a donor funded it because all revenue should be given to football to support whatever they need above all others. The revenue sharing from the conference and the NCAA is for the whole athletic department and not just football. The deal is based off of all media and the majority of athletic contests across multiple sports are on the ESPN + platform.

Go back and read through the financials again and try and do some math. Ticket sales, concessions and revenue distribution from the conference and NCAA still doesn’t cover the football budget.

I will never shame someone for giving what they give because it needs to be appreciated for the sacrifice. But you giving the bare minimum to get into the stadium on gameday does not entitle you to having an equal say to what the folks that are hired to make these decisions in the athletic department.

And before you respond with the cliche, “well this is a message board,” let me stop you right there. We are seven pages deep into this and no one has shown support for your position.

I did not say that they should not exist. I simply said if they don't draw like football or basketball I would be okay with them being absolute bare bones and offered that if you guys think we need more money so bad we should make budget cuts.

I don't shame anyone for giving for whatever reason. I just said I would not do it but to each is own. You said we are in bad financial shape so if you feel that way then give more to fix it.

Making budget cuts isn’t generating more money. It’s reallocating existing money. When you match my giving kid, you can tell me what to do with my money. And you can’t count what money your daddy gives as yours.

[AppDawg]

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... ancial.pdf

It’s all here. This is 2024, the most recent and all prior years available on finops site as well.

[AppSt94]

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

I clearly state a rough estimate and the numbers that I used to come up with that. So there is no link but those numbers are close to what the revenue would be.

I figured you were rounding based on numbers you saw online. I would love to see the exact amount of money that every sport brought in this past year and the amount of alumni donations for the AD overall and those that were given just to a specific sport. If you find a link with exact numbers I would love to see it.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... ancial.pdf

It’s all here. This is 2024, the most recent and all prior years available on finops site as well.

Two things. Football operates in a very distinct hole when comparing expenses vs revenue. The other is how much revenue golf earns per the statement.

[bcoach]

When you talk about Irene I am curious how old is she? She might fund a sport now but when she dies will her children still do it? If you are depending on one person and the sport does not generate revenue through tickets, merchandise, TV revenue, etc then at some point that sport will be a drain unless you replace that donor with someone younger.

The whole reason for debate is Title IX and other sports wanting to share revenue. I want to keep all other sports if they are fully funded by a booster and they are not eating up a share of the revenue that the sports who generate revenue bring in. We need the system to be solvent or we will all see losses of things we don't want. Having a CBA appears to be the way to go. I have always thought we should have it and more ADs are now saying so.

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

Since you are an App "revenue only" fan and even those sports do not support themselves without alumni support, how much are you giving to ensure they are achieving the maximum revenue possible?
.which, putting it another way, how much are you giving to ensure they have the best opportunity to win?

Of course they all need alumni support but my point is football draws most of that by far over any other sport. Basketball gets the second most but that is still a gap. No other sport averages over 30,000 fans for each game. It is not close. I give what it takes to be in YC and have season tickets but I am not about to stretch myself by giving money I don't have either. I am not the one complaining about the money we have. Those who bring that up should be the ones giving more money to make up for it. If I had the money of Tommy Sofield I would give to get my name on a building like him and sit in the suites for sure. I would rather give towards a facility or football program as a whole over to just help one player. I want my money to help all in the program instead of just one individual player.

What happens when you pull out student fees? Football didn't generat that. Student fees are a tax on all students.

[AppStFan1]

You are missing my point. The revenue generated from ticket sales doesn’t cover the football budget. So to your point, it can’t sustain itself so it must be gone. But here is the link for the 2023 year. Ticket sales across the department didn’t cover the football budget.

https://finops.appstate.edu/sites/defau ... report.pdf

I never once said a sport should have to fund itself off ticket sales. You cherry picked that specific piece of revenue to make a statement. Revenue is what I was talking about and it is always going to be more than just ticket sales. You do realize that not even the NFL is able to fully fund their operating expenses off ticket sales? Add in the revenue from concessions, TV, alumni support, and everything else that is drawn due to just football and then compare that to any other sport. That comparison makes my point.

What you said was that certain sports should only be allowed to exist if a donor funded it because all revenue should be given to football to support whatever they need above all others. The revenue sharing from the conference and the NCAA is for the whole athletic department and not just football. The deal is based off of all media and the majority of athletic contests across multiple sports are on the ESPN + platform.

Go back and read through the financials again and try and do some math. Ticket sales, concessions and revenue distribution from the conference and NCAA still doesn’t cover the football budget.

I will never shame someone for giving what they give because it needs to be appreciated for the sacrifice. But you giving the bare minimum to get into the stadium on gameday does not entitle you to having an equal say to what the folks that are hired to make these decisions in the athletic department.

And before you respond with the cliche, “well this is a message board,” let me stop you right there. We are seven pages deep into this and no one has shown support for your position.

I did not say that they should not exist. I simply said if they don't draw like football or basketball I would be okay with them being absolute bare bones and offered that if you guys think we need more money so bad we should make budget cuts.

I don't shame anyone for giving for whatever reason. I just said I would not do it but to each is own. You said we are in bad financial shape so if you feel that way then give more to fix it.

Do you even know how many non-students attended mens basketball games during 24/25 season?

I don't know the exact number but I know that men's basketball draws way more fans field hockey, golf, etc. You should include students in the attendance numbers though. Students are a good chunk of our football crowds as well.

[AppStFan1]

I brought her up because she spends a lot of money a time fundraising for women’s sports. She does not give enough to fund them. It is not the responsibility of any donor to fund a budget for a sport. Donations are subsidies given out of generosity. There isn’t a single sport at App, including football that can survive on its own revenue.

Football generates roughly $2 million in season ticket sales and another $5.4 million in individual ticket sales These are rough numbers based on 8k season tickets at $250 per and 12,000 individual game tickets at an average of $75 per seat per game. That is roughly $7.4 million. That doesn’t cover the football budget.

I’m sorry, but what you “want” is purely selfish in that it is completely football driven. You aren’t an App supporter, you are an App Football supporter with a thinly veiled “I want to keep all sports” if someone else pays for it.

Getting rid of everything that can’t find additional support on their own is like Michael Jordan playing a game of 5 on 1. Sure he is the best player but who’s going to inbound the ball to him?

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

Since you are an App "revenue only" fan and even those sports do not support themselves without alumni support, how much are you giving to ensure they are achieving the maximum revenue possible?
.which, putting it another way, how much are you giving to ensure they have the best opportunity to win?

Of course they all need alumni support but my point is football draws most of that by far over any other sport. Basketball gets the second most but that is still a gap. No other sport averages over 30,000 fans for each game. It is not close. I give what it takes to be in YC and have season tickets but I am not about to stretch myself by giving money I don't have either. I am not the one complaining about the money we have. Those who bring that up should be the ones giving more money to make up for it. If I had the money of Tommy Sofield I would give to get my name on a building like him and sit in the suites for sure. I would rather give towards a facility or football program as a whole over to just help one player. I want my money to help all in the program instead of just one individual player.

What happens when you pull out student fees? Football didn't generat that. Student fees are a tax on all students.

That is a big chunk of the money brought in for sure. I can guarantee you that if you polled students on what sport would they want them to benefit if they had to pick one and could not say no sport it would be football and basketball by a landslide over all others.

[bcoach]

Can you provide a link with those exact numbers?

I am not an App football only supporter. I do think football, basketball, and baseball should drive most decisions but it is good to have other sports for more athletes. Those happen to be my 3 favorite sports but they are the money sports. They should carry the most weight.

Since you are an App "revenue only" fan and even those sports do not support themselves without alumni support, how much are you giving to ensure they are achieving the maximum revenue possible?
.which, putting it another way, how much are you giving to ensure they have the best opportunity to win?

Of course they all need alumni support but my point is football draws most of that by far over any other sport. Basketball gets the second most but that is still a gap. No other sport averages over 30,000 fans for each game. It is not close. I give what it takes to be in YC and have season tickets but I am not about to stretch myself by giving money I don't have either. I am not the one complaining about the money we have. Those who bring that up should be the ones giving more money to make up for it. If I had the money of Tommy Sofield I would give to get my name on a building like him and sit in the suites for sure. I would rather give towards a facility or football program as a whole over to just help one player. I want my money to help all in the program instead of just one individual player.

What happens when you pull out student fees? Football didn't generat that. Student fees are a tax on all students.

That is a big chunk of the money brought in for sure. I can guarantee you that if you polled students on what sport would they want them to benefit if they had to pick one and could not say no sport it would be football and basketball by a landslide over all others.

" and could not say no sport" really ? You said that? What if you asked them if they wanted to pay it at all? I mean ask the ones who pay it, either the student or the parent. The point is it is not earned. So it really has to be taken out when figuring who pays for themselves much less covering other sports.