Reference trips to Alaska-Fairbanks, it is my understanding that UAF pays for the travel.
Reference to Title IX implications, I believe if hockey were dropped, that we would be in better position towards compliance. With 85 grants-in-aid for football, I'm not sure if all of our women's sports combined equal out to 50/50 as far as grants-in-aid are concerned.having said this, I am not a Title IX expert, so I could be off-base.
Hockey History Makes Spending Decisions at BGSU Difficult
-
transfer2BGSU
- Peregrine
- Posts: 5829
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:50 am
- Location: Jed's, Myle's Pizza, Corner Grill
Pro shop sales is a no. That goes to the Ice Arena which is part of Rec Sports. Advertisement on the Boards I have no idea. One would think that would at least be split with the Arena, but the advertisement on the Zamboni all went to the Athletic Department.FalconTurf wrote: I still want to know more about the hockey income. Does the income include ALL the following: season tickets, walk-up tickets, concessions, pro shop sales, PORTION OF STUDENT FEES, portion of Falcon Kids Club membership, advertisement on the boards, and parking fees.
Doesn't $250,000 sound low when all these sources of income are included? And consider with an average of 2,000 spectators attending 21 games totaling 42,000 fans and you average $6 income from each one of them? Your thoughts on these numbers?
**Correct me if I'm wrong with any of my numbers especially average attendance.
And transfer, I haven't heard anything different about UAF. As far as I know, they still pay for travel to and from Alaska for every team. Traveling there also allows us to play 2 extra games every season we travel there.
Phi or Die
This is taken from a post in the free-for-all forum. Im not sure what its worth, but it is from the Ohio Department of Postsecondary education,bgbill wrote:It would be interesting to have that simple cost breakdown for all sports.
Operation Expenses by team:
Men's-
Basketball- $254,102
Football- $1,353,266
Baseball- $141,350
Golf- $42,018
Hockey- $211,791
Soccer- $53,561
To see more info, visit this link.
"Fault finding is like window washing. All the dirt seems to be on the other side."
"When life hands you paper jams, make paper footballs."
"When life hands you paper jams, make paper footballs."
-
Falcon Commander
- Peregrine
- Posts: 1419
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:42 pm
$$$
As much as I would not like it and I don't know if it's do-able or not but . . . could 'Naming Rights' to the Ice Arena be 'sold' to a commercial company to generate money??
"Marathon Ice Arena" etc?
Desperate times . . . create desperate action
(of course who's got any money these days?)
"Marathon Ice Arena" etc?
Desperate times . . . create desperate action
(of course who's got any money these days?)
Show our Spirit,
Make them Fear it,
Fight for Dear Bee Gee.
Make them Fear it,
Fight for Dear Bee Gee.
-
Brown n' Orange Wokfu
- Egg
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:05 pm
My greatest complaint about the article was in the description of the large chunk of operating expenses being used to pay the Rec Sports department for ice rental. If $18,000 a year is a sizable chunk, then GC can sell anything. Totally misleading.
Let's face it, this would be an extremely easy way for athletics to get close to balancing their budget. If you eliminate the program you eliminate the $250k in "operating" expenses, which evens out the income (by the way all of the board ads go to athletics, as does concessions, parking, etc., with no additional rental of the rink beyond the $18k). If you then eliminate the 18 scholarships and the coaches expenses, etc., you have the balance of roughly $750k that you are not spending. Now with that in place you will not be reducing the general fees that the students are paying (even with 15-21 fewer games a year to attend), and that money can flow right to the bottom line against the department deficit.
I point that out as I think it is very short sighted to even think along these lines, and I think the uproar has at least made the administration think about pushing it. I also hate the fact that because the numbers work so easily there is no real debate about how much of an impact any of the other sports (football and basketball in particular) actually have against the shortfall as a percentage, or from their overall expenses versus their true revenue. I cannot remember the last free give away of hockey tickets, nor closing the dining halls in order to force the students to attend a hockey game to eat. And while I am a pretty strong supporter of the Stroh Center, I wonder how the students might vote if they really thought that choice might come at the cost of the hockey program - and before you flame me on that, think about any additional increase to the general fee and what it could go toward. Since so much of each dollar already flows to athletics, if you are adding dollars, should they go toward the new facility, or maintaining the programs that can put us on the map?
Let's face it, this would be an extremely easy way for athletics to get close to balancing their budget. If you eliminate the program you eliminate the $250k in "operating" expenses, which evens out the income (by the way all of the board ads go to athletics, as does concessions, parking, etc., with no additional rental of the rink beyond the $18k). If you then eliminate the 18 scholarships and the coaches expenses, etc., you have the balance of roughly $750k that you are not spending. Now with that in place you will not be reducing the general fees that the students are paying (even with 15-21 fewer games a year to attend), and that money can flow right to the bottom line against the department deficit.
I point that out as I think it is very short sighted to even think along these lines, and I think the uproar has at least made the administration think about pushing it. I also hate the fact that because the numbers work so easily there is no real debate about how much of an impact any of the other sports (football and basketball in particular) actually have against the shortfall as a percentage, or from their overall expenses versus their true revenue. I cannot remember the last free give away of hockey tickets, nor closing the dining halls in order to force the students to attend a hockey game to eat. And while I am a pretty strong supporter of the Stroh Center, I wonder how the students might vote if they really thought that choice might come at the cost of the hockey program - and before you flame me on that, think about any additional increase to the general fee and what it could go toward. Since so much of each dollar already flows to athletics, if you are adding dollars, should they go toward the new facility, or maintaining the programs that can put us on the map?
