MU Athletic Department expenses...~ $22 million

[Chili]

Now, I've answered it....when is someone going to answer my question....why did Al, Rick, Hank, Mike, Kevin, Bob also schedule the same way?  That is....15 or 16 home games (in the old days with less games overall in the schedule) and 18 home games in more recent times?

Waiting..........

Hint....it's economics based.   

Holy cow --
Are you suggesting those guys had near the resources, budgets (or revenue streams) that we currently have? 

I will repeat, we're spending too much money to keep claiming we can't afford an extra road game every other year. It just doesn't add up. I don't recall Mike Deane or Kevin O'Neill having two coaches/dir of ops making well over six figures apiece. Heck, there was a story recently that Crean tossed out a set of brand new warm-ups that we wore vs. DePaul last year because we played poorly. Are you kidding me? We spend like sailors on shore leave and then claim we can't afford to play a decent road game every other year? It doesn't make sense. 

I did find your point about 3 off-campus games (in tournaments) for the cost of one interesting, though. That does make sense.

So you know the dir. of bball ops salaries? Interesting.

Also, you think MU pays for warmups? No you don't. You know there are these silly little things called shoe contracts that provides the men's team with all of their clothing. You know that is also why team wears a lot of athletic apparel around campus - because the players get it for free! From the shoe company.

Stop being so ignorant. I bet if Crean or the University said the Earth was round and revolved around the Sun you would be screaming that the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of Solar System.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So TC has been able to change everything about MU hoops except for that?  We have donors paying for everything from Quarter million dollar AC salaries to prvate jets for recruiting but we can't figure out how to play another home and home?  Get real, it's b/c TC wants easy wins in Nov & Dec. 

And I'll ask the question again, what's a home game worth?

I think he has changed that...he most certainly has increased the budget for his team but he can't take away the fact his team supports 13 other teams...he can't change that at all.

Does he also want easier wins in November and December....yup...just like Al McGuire did, Rick Majerus, Mike Deane, Jim Boeheim, Ben Howland, etc.

If we played in a weaker conference, then my guess is you would see slightly better home games (still buy games, but slightly better).

When you know your conference is going to give you at LEAST 6 losses if not 8, then you don't want to tack on more than 1 or 2 in non-conference or you have no shot at the NCAAs.  That's smart scheduling, it's why almost every coach in America does it.  Some have more flexibility because their conference isn't as tough.

I've got a little bet for you and PRN....when Crean leaves do you honestly think the next MU coach will be playing less than 18 home games?  Do you honestly believe our non-conference home schedule will improve when the past 30 years have shown it won't?  Answer honestly.   

[NavinRJohnson]

In the end, all we're talking about is adding 1 maybe 2 road games and subtracting 1 maybe 2 home games.  EVERYTHING else with regards to the MU hoops budget model has changed, why can't this? 

Not sure why everyone has to over complicate this...Why should it change? Because a few people want it to? Being in the BE, we don't need that game for RPI purposes or anything else. Playing in Maui, @UW, etc., TC obviously doesn't feel it is necessary, we have a brutal road schedule in conference, so why would Mu give up the significant money they make on the extra home game to play a game they don't consider necessary?

What exactly is the argument anyway...that if we went and played a game at Cheighton, or Illinois we'd suddenly win all of our conference road games? Please! If we can schedule a made for TV game against a UNC, UCLA, Indiana, etc. I assure you we would do it. Short of that, there is no reason to forgo the ticket revenue of another home game.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Now, I've answered it....when is someone going to answer my question....why did Al, Rick, Hank, Mike, Kevin, Bob also schedule the same way?  That is....15 or 16 home games (in the old days with less games overall in the schedule) and 18 home games in more recent times?

Waiting..........

Hint....it's economics based.   

Holy cow --
Are you suggesting those guys had near the resources, budgets (or revenue streams) that we currently have? 

I will repeat, we're spending too much money to keep claiming we can't afford an extra road game every other year. It just doesn't add up. I don't recall Mike Deane or Kevin O'Neill having two coaches/dir of ops making well over six figures apiece. Heck, there was a story recently that Crean tossed out a set of brand new warm-ups that we wore vs. DePaul last year because we played poorly. Are you kidding me? We spend like sailors on shore leave and then claim we can't afford to play a decent road game every other year? It doesn't make sense. 

I did find your point about 3 off-campus games (in tournaments) for the cost of one interesting, though. That does make sense.

Actually, under Deane we were top 15 in the nation in budget....so yes, we've had resources for awhile.  Not as much as now, then again prior coaches didn't play in the Big East and all the expenses that entails either.  Expenses are much greater today then they were under Al, Rick, Kevin, Mike, etc...thus more resources.

Works both ways.

[Marquette84]

has joining the Big East really but such a strain on the finances that getting one or 2 more quality games in a season can't happen?  (remember '02/'03 when it was @ND, @Dayton, vs.Wisc, and vs.Wake Forrest) i mean, that's the only difference i see now.

there's another thread where people have listed a bunch of teams that would be good, that aren't top 10 teams, but from good conferences that help prepare the team and get them ready (more than any Savannah State or Coppin St ever could).  and for costs, each school covers the others travel expenses (or some %) (set a value that's equal for both).

games against a Maryland or Texas Tech would bring in 17-18,000 to the BC rather than the 12-13,000 they get now for their Dec games.  plus that calibur of game would almost certainly be on ESPN, ESPN2, ABC?, CBS? bringing in more revenue than a Time Warner Sports covered game.

Two problems with your post:

1.  There is no correlation between non-conference schedule and later success.  NC A&T played the #1 most difficult non-conference schedule in college basketball this year--they are currently 3-2 in the MEAC with losses to Morgan State and Norfolk State.  If the logic that playing tougher teams helps you beet lesser conference foes had any merit, then NCA&T's schedule (which including Missouri, DePaul, Pittsburgh, Washington State, Miami, Tennessee, and St. Louis) would have made them strong favorites over Norfolk State, who had a non-conference SOS of 338 of 341 teams. 

And lest you think this is an unfair comparision since the MEAC isn't a power conference, Arizona played the #2 toughest Non-Conference SOS.  They are sitting 2-3 in the Pac 10.  PLaying at Memphis and Kansas simply hasn't helped them get wins over Oregon, Arizona State, or Stanford.

Miami OH (#3 sos) is currently 1-3 in the MAC

Mississippi Valley State (#4) is currently 2-3 in the Southwest

Davidson #5 is 9-0 in conference

SIU #6 SOS is 4-3 in the MVC

Middle Tennessee is 3-4 in conference play.

#8 toldeo is 2-3 in conference play

#9 Chattenooga is 7-2 in conference play, which puts them behind Davidson in the Soutner.

#10 Temple is 2-1 in the A-10, tied with six other teams for 2nd place.

So there you have it--just three of 10 teams that could even reasonably be described as having the success that a tough schedule should facillitate.


As for the Big East, once again, schedule strength is at best a non-factor.
Syracuse (#11 SOS) played the toughest non-conference schedule in the Big East, and they are 3-4 in conference play.  Georgetwon, played one of the weaker schedules, and are still #1 in conference.


Same thing applies in other major conferences:  Arizona State played the #11th EASIEST schedule (or 330th most difficult), and they're 4-1, tied for first with Washington State (who played the #253rd' toughest schedule)



2.  Teams don't decide to play UNLESS the networks decide to cover it.  It's a naive notion that MU and Maryland would decide to play, and hope that ESPN or CBS gets involved. 

The only way that game is scheduled is if CBS or ESPN calls the two schools and suggests that they play a game to fill a hole in ESPN's or CBS's schedule. 

[mu_hilltopper]

One thing I still don't understand is .. hasn't the Department's economics improved drastically in the past 5 years?  

Ticket revenue has easily doubled, as season tickets have doubled in price, plus our attendance is up.  -- On top of that pile of cash, lays the ESPN/Big East contract, which was supposedly the biggest in the history of college basketball.  -- Then there's the NCAA tournament credits $$, which MUST be higher than what we got in our CUSA days.

So .. I realize "competing in the Big East" (in all sports) is more costly .. but has that cost outstripped the huge amount of new cash rolling in? -- That's a tough one to believe. -- It's not like we added a sport.  Mostly what's changed is the destinations our team travels to, which can't amount to huge spikes in budgets. -- Sure, we've upgraded our coaches here and there, and our equipment .. but if someone was running a company at $X revenue level, and in 3-5 years got $2X but managed to "still" be strapped .. doesn't make sense.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

It's a naive notion that MU and Maryland would decide to play, and hope that ESPN or CBS gets involved. 
The only way that game is scheduled is if CBS or ESPN calls the two schools and suggests that they play a game to fill a hole in ESPN's or CBS's schedule. 

I don't think that muPartY suggested the networks would not be included in discussions upfront, but I'm curious why you choose to refer to such an idea as "naive?"

[The Man in Gold]

MU's expenses are about $22 million ($21.8 million) for all of athletics.  This covers scholarships, coaching salaries, administrative, recruiting, scheduling, uniforms, etc, etc. 

MU Men's hoops spends just a shade under $8 million and have revenues about $21 million.

Why is this so controversial.  It is pretty easy to see MU's athletic department basically breaks even when you account for the limited revenue brought in by other sports.  As was mentioned before, you could roughly say MU makes about $1,000,000 a game (even if the real number turned out to be only half that), the athletic department needs to offset the loss of revenue ($0.5MM-$1MM) with some other money making ventures.  If they raised ticket prices they might be able to offset that, if there was a consensus among all fans the new prices were worth it.

It's all about economics.  Based on the numbers, the clear priority is offsetting the costs of running a highly competitive program, not making profit.    So unless  all fans are willing to sacrifice on the commitment to the basketball team or another program, please let this topic go.  Everyone of us would love to see more marquee games in the BC, but that requires a trade-off.

[NavinRJohnson]

Dude, where's that burger from?

[Chili]

Dude, where's that burger from?

Sobelman's

[The Man in Gold]

<--The Sobelman...mmm  /drool

[ChicosBailBonds]

I take it then that you guys feel a new MU coach would still schedule 18 home games and plenty of bunnies...as many as today with a similar out of conference schedule?