It’s all about the money nowadays when it comes to college athletics. Whether it’s “how much money can this sport make us?” or “how much money do we have to spend to keep this sport afloat?” The ultimate question always comes down to money.
When Utah Athletic Director Chris Hill made the announcement that the University of Utah would cut its men’s track program, he stated that it was “to redirect funds to help strengthen other sports.” In 2005, the year the cut was made, Utah had a grand total athletics revenue of $25,133,885 and a grand total athletic expense amount of $24,850,485, leaving a total revenue amount of only $283,400. Total revenue streams from the Mountain West Conference were around 1.2 million. So all in all, Utah was looking at a total athletics revenue of about $1.5 million in 2005. Division I schools can spend that in a single fiscal quarter.
In 2005, Hill knew that he would be looking at more or less the same kind of numbers and he was beginning to feel hot under the collar. He had a football team that was going to need more than 1.5 million in recruiting expenses alone. True, donations were coming in from Crimson Club members and what not, but Hill knew that a sacrifice would need to be made somewhere in order to get Utah football to a place where it would be able to maintain their national standing. He needed to loosen the ever tightening budgetary choke hold he was under.
So, he cut men’s track. At the time, despite the disappointment on the part of USA Track and Field, it seemed like the right thing to do. It would free up a little room in the budget and make a few more crucial scholarships available that were badly needed.
But now, things are different. As I said before, there is big difference between PAC-12 money and Mountain West money. We know that Utah wasn’t a full-fledged member (as far as revenue sharing goes) of the PAC-12 right from the get go, but it still was a huge improvement from their days in the Mountain West. Here is the progressive revenue sharing schedule that Utah agreed to when it joined the PAC-12:
2011-12
|
No shares unless new money is generated.
|
2012-13
|
50% Distribution of all league revenue
|
2013-14
|
75% Distribution of all league revenue
|
2014-15
|
100% Distribution of all league revenue
|
In 2012-13, with just a 50% revenue share, Utah made $9.9 million from the PAC-12. In 2013-15, that increased to $14.5 million with a 75% share. For the 2014-15 seasons, with full membership in the PAC-12, Utah will enjoy a $23.3 million revenue share with a projected 4% annual increase thereafter.
During their final year in the Mountain West, Utah’s total athletic budget totaled around 29 million. In 2013, the budget increased to 53.3 million. The major blow up in athletic spending came mostly from all of the facility construction like the new football complex, a new field house, and a new state of the art basketball facility. The good news is the Utes think the worst of their Pac-12 budget crunch is behind them.
Where does Utah go from here to make themselves as competitive as possible? We have a recruiting lure in our new facilities, now they need to start thinking about the recruiting lure of the men’s track team. If you don’t understand why track would be a big recruiting lure for athletes, read my Reason #1 post that deals with Oregon State. If money is the issue, then Utah needs to take a lesson from USA Track & Field CEO Craig Masback when he said “Not only are these sports (Track & Field/Cross Country) less burdensome financially than most college sports, their overall NCAA participation continues to grow, especially among minorities.”
"Due to the nature of the sport, the incremental cost of an additional student-athlete in track and field and cross country is minimal compared to those in other sports which require substantial investments in equipment and facilities," said Sam Seemes, CEO of the USTFCCCA. "Even more particular to Utah's situation, their men's and women's programs shared a coaching staff, so the monetary savings from cutting the men's program is decreased even more."
What does it cost to operate a men’s track team in the PAC-12? In the words of the late Bernie Mac, let’s break it down like a fraction:
You’ll notice that Oregon State’s column is blank, as you know from my previous post, OSU is just starting to bring back their men’s program in a different, less official way, so their expenses are not calculated into this breakdown.
Here’s a look at the total men’s and women’s Track and Field/Cross Country expense break down for each school in the PAC-12.
The addition of men's outdoor/indoor track and field/cross country teams would cost an average of between $310K - $345K additional per year. This would bring Utah’s total budget for all combined track and field to between $576K and $611K as opposed to their current total budget of $266K.
Once the budgetary constraints of all of the new constructions have lifted, this is a totally reasonable addition to the yearly budget that would prove to be a great benefit to the athletics program overall.
Unlike Oregon State, Utah doesn't need to build an entirely new Track and Field complex to start the process. We already have a state of the art track facility in the McCarthey Track and Field complex. As was stated above, you don’t need any additional coaches, except perhaps a few additional graduate assistants to help people manage. At its most simple level, to field a men’s team would roughly cost around $2,700 per athlete per year. That includes uniforms, travel expenses, and equipment. Is it worth it to get the best athletes we can at Utah? Most definitely.
0 comments:
Post a Comment