Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

'08-'09 Football expenditures (Athletics total)
Temple $8,037,577 ($26,879,311)
Northern Ill. $7,186,711 ($19,903,785)
CMU $6,050,523 ($22,476,972)
Ohio U. $5,869,228 ($21,893,603)
Toledo $5,857,513 ($19,165,629)
EMU $5,612,011 ($21,951,867)
WMU $5,603,913 ($21,674,165)
Miami $5,356,706 ($24,685,668)
Buffalo $5,241,024 ($23,446,561)
Ball State $5,181,790 ($19,385,563)
Akron $4,788,604 ($19,197,353)
Kent State $4,203,789 ($17,179,520)
BGSU $4,197,503 ($16,320,676)

Is it because we are that poor, or is BGSU making a conscious decision not to fund football? One thing to think about...we sure are financially efficient when you compare money spent to wins and program strength.

Here is a pretty cool website that shows a breakdown of all revenues and expenses.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial ... ool_id=111

BourbonFalcon wrote:Is it because we are that poor, or is BGSU making a conscious decision not to fund football? One thing to think about...we sure are financially efficient when you compare money spent to wins and program strength.

I think mainly because we had more expenditures in the previous years with the new scoreboard, turf, and other Doyt improvements.

Or are those expenses not considered part of the football expenditures?

I'm not sure if I'm happy that we are being fiscally responsible with our athletic budget or worried about the future of our athletic program because we are at the bottom of the list. It's no secret that you have to spend money to make money and it's also not a secret that (HYPOTHETICALLY) the more money you spend the better your chances of winning games is.

Am I saying that we should be spending money like it grows on trees? Absolutely not. Am I saying that maybe we need to find ways to generate more money to be spent on Athletics? Perhaps. And this can be done many ways. Increasing enrollment is one way. It's kind of a Chicken/Egg scenario where we need to generate enrollment to get money for athletics, but we need to spend money on athletics to generate enrollment.

BourbonFalcon wrote:Is it because we are that poor, or is BGSU making a conscious decision not to fund football?

Nope, we're poor.

I find it interesting that not only is our football expenditure the lowest in the MAC, but our athletics total expenditure is also the lowest.

Do you give away all the women's basketball tickets? $11,000? At a buck a ticket average and 800 fans per game you would get $7,200 for conference games alone. 6 OOC tilts would add$4,800 which is $12,000. That number makes no sense- ours is $40,000 and it seems low as well.

BGSU $4,197,503

What BG spends on football doesn't even cover the salaries of the coaching staff at the University of Florida.

Hell.......it barely covers Urbans, although a lot of his is paid from sources outside the university.

According to that Indy paper we are third in ticket sales

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial ... field_rank

Hey spending money does not always guarantee wins, just look at EMU. Being smart with the money you spend is more important. When you hire coaches and constantly have to buy them out is not a good use of money.

daspollak wrote:Hey spending money does not always guarantee wins, just look at EMU. Being smart with the money you spend is more important. When you hire coaches and constantly have to buy them out is not a good use of money.

Why can't you both spend money and be smart with the money you spend?

See, I like these numbers, a lot. Being last in the MAC in total expenditures and yet still having a fairly competitive team shows a couple of key things. First of all, it shows that our coaching hires have generally been good. Say what you want about Gregg Brandon, he certainly wasn't a great head coach, but by MAC standards he was a pretty good one in terms of overall record and big quality wins (unfortunately bad losses too, but that was GB for you), and BG got paid less for each win during his tenure than just about any school in I-A. Only once in the past decade, between Meyer, Brandon, and Clawson has BG been under .500. The Clawson hire looks like a good one too based on preliminary evidence both on the field and off it.

Secondly, it shows that Bowling Green hasn't lost sight of focus and gotten caught up in the spending arms race that has enveloped college football. We've pretty much stayed within our means. And that's not necessarily a bad thing if you spend money where it matters, on quality coaches, on equipment and facilities, and on athletic scholarships. Schools like Eastern Michigan and Kent State (more recently also Akron and Toledo), teams that are almost perennially bad, they've been stuck in a cycle where their coaches suffer and have often gotten fired/bought out and they've blown money in areas such as marketing where it simply isn't needed.

Football and athletics in general are important, don't get me wrong, but they are but one portion of a university's mission, to provide it's students with the best quality education, and the life experience necessary to give students opportunities to succeed when they leave after 4 (or however many) years. I think the way our athletic department spends money fits that mission.

When our women's basketball team won a whole bunch of games, Curt Miller got a fat raise for his work. BG recognizes the need to spend money when the situation arises. I don't think we penny pinch just for the hell of it.