• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Joining the Mountain West would run an $8MM - $9MM annual deficit - can we overcome that?

5280Griz said:
The G6 is a dying product because there is a need for P4 football as well as FCS but I am not sure where G6 fits into that. You are sacrificing home playoff games for meaningless bowl games by leaving the FCS for the G6. If it is unlikely that someone will go from G6 or FCS to the NFL and the majority of the Griz opponents will be at less than 75% capacity in either league what real benefit is there to moving up? The downside is you are leaving the stability of the FCS. Programs like Northern Arizona and Northern Colorado are built around developing local players that the FBS schools in their state didn’t recruit. There will always be a need for those types of programs. You are also leaving behind the home playoff games.
Click to expand...
If you think we we would be better off playing and sticking around with Portland State, Northern Colorado and UT-Tech instead of Wyoming, Nevada and NDSU etc. I have ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you
 
mthoopsfan said:
Okay, but that isn’t going to get UM to FBS.

Again, do you think UM has never thought of increasing enrollment?
Click to expand...
No. Increasing enrollment is the lifeblood of a public university.

However, some people get in the mindset of "We've already looked at that and it won't work here." or "That's not how we do things at Montana.".

That's why I'm excited by President Shinn.
 
GriznMN said:
No. Increasing enrollment is the lifeblood of a public university.

However, some people get in the mindset of "We've already looked at that and it won't work here." or "That's not how we do things at Montana.".

That's why I'm excited by President Shinn.
Click to expand...
Name one person at UM who ever said or thought what you said in your second para.
 
uofmman1122 said:
This is just coocoo looneybird logic.

The vast majority of G6 football teams are infinitely better positioned to survive any P4 split than the majority of FCS programs that generate less and lose more money each year. Outside of the top programs, there is no stability in FCS.

Acting like App State is in danger of folding its football program, but Portland State isn't is just insane levels of delusion.
Click to expand...
yep. without Money games a big group of FCS go away or fall to D2
 
AZhoopsMTfootballfan said:
The G6 isn’t going to invite entire FCS conferences nor will the G6 product ever be the top tier of the sport, it is actively moving away from that. The only teams in the MWC that had over 90% attendance last season were Hawaii and NDSU which both have stadiums with capacity below WaGriz. The G6 is a dying product. Revenue overall is up but look at G6 revenue in proportion to P4 revenue and the gap is getting larger every year. The FCS is stable in my opinion compared to the G6 and the Griz have a realistic chance to compete for championships.
Click to expand...
Maybe most FCS basketball teams should fall.to D2 where they have a realistic chance at winning a championships?

Hawaii has a brand new Stadium under construction btw so very poor comparison.
 
Note App St's student fee revenues: "
Appalachian State University’s athletic department operating budget and total revenues hover right around $48 million to $52 million annually, based on recent NCAA financial disclosures and fiscal reports.

As a mid-major program competing in the Sun Belt Conference (FBS), App State relies heavily on student fees, donor contributions, and institutional support to balance its ledger.

Financial Overview (Fiscal Year 2024)​

  • Total Operating Revenues: ~$51,973,251
  • Total Operating Expenses: ~$51,973,251

    College Athletics Database
Note: Like most public university athletic programs, App State operates on a balanced budget model where institutional support and fees adjust to match expenses.

Where the Money Comes From (Revenues)​

App State’s revenue structure relies significantly on internal university funding and student subsidization alongside self-generated athletic revenue:

  • Student Fees: $15.36 million (30%) — The single largest chunk of the athletic funding comes directly from mandatory student fees.

    College Athletics Database

  • Donor Contributions (Yosef Club): $11.12 million (21%) — Philanthropic giving and booster club revenue.

    College Athletics Database

  • Institutional & Government Support: $8.31 million (16%) — Direct funding allocations from the university.

    College Athletics Database

  • Ticket Sales: $6.99 million (13%) — Heavily driven by football gate receipts.

    College Athletics Database

  • Conference, NCAA Distributions & Media Rights: $3.82 million (7%) — App State’s slice of the Sun Belt's media deal and postseason payouts.

    College Athletics Database

  • Corporate Sponsorships & Licensing: $2.45 million (5%) — Brand partnerships, apparel agreements, and local advertising.

    College Athletics Database

  • Game Guarantees: $1.39 million (3%) — Payouts received for playing away games.

    College Athletics Database

Where the Money Goes (Expenses)​

The costs of maintaining 17 varsity sports are heavily concentrated in facilities, travel, and personnel:

  • Facilities, Debt Service, & Equipment: $15.21 million (29%) — Maintenance, stadium upgrades, and equipment.

    College Athletics Database

  • Coaching Compensation: $8.82 million (17%) — Salaries and benefits for all head and assistant coaches (led by football).

    College Athletics Database

  • Non-Coaching Staff Compensation: $7.75 million (15%) — Salaries for administrative, training, marketing, and support staff.

    College Athletics Database

  • Athletic Student Aid (Scholarships): $7.15 million (14%) — Funding tuition, room, and board for student-athletes.

    College Athletics Database

  • Game Expenses & Team Travel: $6.50 million (13%) — Flights, lodging, meals, and logistics for away contests.

    College Athletics Database"
 
Appalachian State University (The FBS Model)


Appalachian State competes in the Sun Belt Conference, which requires significant operational overhead to maintain FBS eligibility. Because FBS programs are more expensive to run, they often rely on a "subsidy model."


Student Fee Contribution: Recent data shows student fees account for approximately 30% of their total athletic budget. In dollar amounts, this often exceeds $15 million annually.


Strategic Reliance: Appalachian State uses these fees as a reliable, non-market-dependent revenue stream to ensure they can compete with larger programs. This is a common strategy for mid-major FBS schools that do not have the massive media payouts seen in power conferences.


University of Montana (The High-Engagement FCS Model)


The University of Montana operates differently. While they do have a mandatory student athletic fee, it is not the engine of their department. Instead, they rely on a highly localized, high-volume engagement model.


Student Fee Contribution: Student fees represent a small, supplementary portion of the budget. Unlike the FBS schools that rely on subsidies to bridge the gap, Montana’s revenue is heavily weighted toward "self-generated" income.


Strategic Reliance: The department’s financial strength is driven by a massive regional fan base. High-capacity football ticket sales and the Grizzly Scholarship Association (GSA) act as the primary financial pillars. By maximizing private donations and ticket revenue, the department keeps its reliance on student fees significantly lower than that of Appalachian State.


Key Takeaway


The disparity in funding structures is primarily a result of their scale and competitive environment:


1. Appalachian State is essentially "buying" its position in the FBS through a combination of student subsidies and institutional support to sustain the higher costs of that competitive level.


2. University of Montana thrives by maximizing the "Griz" brand, allowing them to fund their operations primarily through the loyalty of their donor base and the massive ticket-buying power of the Missoula community, rather than passing a heavy financial burden to the student body.


Note: Data for athletic departments is subject to annual fluctuations based on conference distributions, post-season play, and capital projects (like stadium renovations). Figures for student fee reliance are based on standard institutional reporting models.

Gemini
 
Copper Griz said:
Call the Board of Regents and ask them that question. Fans can debate this topic and they have zero impact on the decision. Unless they have very deep pockets and find a way to fund the move up. I don’t see it happening. Especially since both schools have to go together.
Click to expand...

mthoopsfan said:
Why do you think that? I think the opposite.
Click to expand...

p8nted said:
Common sense and the big media money that will drive the spilt. FCS games don't cut it for them
Click to expand...

AZhoopsMTfootballfan said:
A lot of schools have actually been increasing revenue through partnerships such as jersey patches to reduce reliance on media revenue.
Click to expand...
Been saying this for a while now. The MTK logo on the turf is step in the wright direction. You are allowed two jersey patches on uninforms and 1 on equipment. Learfield do the heavy lifting which they get a cut of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top