Money for Facility Projects Shouldn't be a Problem

[KentuckyBoiler]

The Big Ten Conference just signed a new 10 year contract with ESPN for 50% rights for $1.14 Billion. With Fox Sports owning the other 50% and a separate deal with CBS for basketball, the Big Ten will bring in $2.64 billion in the next 6 years. Even with sharing now with Rutgers and Maryland, our annual share will continue to increase. We will have the money to continue to stay competitive facility wise, if we would use this money for athletics, instead of pulling some money for other university projects. The question is will we use this money exclusively to expand our athletic projects. Probably not if we continue how we have done it. I am hoping our new AD will fight to use this money for athletics.

 

[BoilerBiker]

Add some more Olympic sports to better our chances in the directors cup
/s

 

[nat100]

Add some more Olympic sports to better our chances in the directors cup
/s

No! Use the money to improve the ones we have. Increasing the number of sports only further drains resources.

 

[BoilerBiker]

No! Use the money to improve the ones we have. Increasing the number of sports only further drains resources.

Sorry that was just an attempt at sarcasm.... /s

 

[indianphil]

sh#t...at Purdue this means a new lab and dormatory!

 

[FirstDownB]

I bet someone can figure out a way to funnel this money from the AD to the University, which can then give subsidies back to the state, which then can then be redirected to IU, so their AD can keep their share and buy out their bball coach.

 

[njm8845]

Including btn money, they're predicting about $45M per school.

Read an article about it's tough for osu to spend it all. They already have top facilities.

I would say this should make a difference at Purdue, but football has been in a steady decline since btn was started, despite the influx of dough.

 

[JohnHoosierr]

Including btn money, they're predicting about $45M per school.

Read an article about it's tough for osu to spend it all. They already have top facilities.

I would say this should make a difference at Purdue, but football has been in a steady decline since btn was started, despite the influx of dough.

Just goes to show how poor leadership has been under Burke. All the extra cash/exposure and Burke proceeds to drive the program in the ground straight to China.

 

[lbodel]

The Big Ten Conference just signed a new 10 year contract with ESPN for 50% rights for $1.14 Billion. With Fox Sports owning the other 50% and a separate deal with CBS for basketball, the Big Ten will bring in $2.64 billion in the next 6 years. Even with sharing now with Rutgers and Maryland, our annual share will continue to increase. We will have the money to continue to stay competitive facility wise, if we would use this money for athletics, instead of pulling some money for other university projects. The question is will we use this money exclusively to expand our athletic projects. Probably not if we continue how we have done it. I am hoping our new AD will fight to use this money for athletics.

Part of Purdue's problem right now is that it depends on "X" amount of money to make up for the budget shortfall we have from tickets being so low.

Every school gets this money. But the fact of the matter is that the rich keep on getting richer and the poor struggle to keep up. This is why doing things like holding onto a coach too long really hurts you - our overall ticket revenue is being SLIGHTLY saved by basketball - but if you split our ticket revenue up for football/basketball, football would be embarrassingly low.

Even if we just had mediocre football ticket revenue we would be able to do so much more with our TV money.

People complain about the university taking some of the revenue - but Purdue's lucky as hell right now to be in the Big Ten. If Purdue was in a different conference, it would practically be bankrupt. We shouldn't be relying on an abnormally high TV contract to stay afloat on your day-to-day operations. Purdue's been using it as a crutch, which has allowed things to stay the same - i.e. keeping Hazell too long. If Purdue was getting the TV revenue of the Pac 12 - they wouldn't be able to afford to f around.

The baffling part is that Purdue's operating the smallest athletic departments in the Big Ten. If anything, Purdue should be getting more "bang for its buck" considering our operating budget with number of sports is smaller than others.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Including btn money, they're predicting about $45M per school.

Read an article about it's tough for osu to spend it all. They already have top facilities.

I would say this should make a difference at Purdue, but football has been in a steady decline since btn was started, despite the influx of dough.

Well at least now O$U can afford to provide tattoos so the players don't have to cut deals to get them.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Part of Purdue's problem right now is that it depends on "X" amount of money to make up for the budget shortfall we have from tickets being so low.

Every school gets this money. But the fact of the matter is that the rich keep on getting richer and the poor struggle to keep up. This is why doing things like holding onto a coach too long really hurts you - our overall ticket revenue is being SLIGHTLY saved by basketball - but if you split our ticket revenue up for football/basketball, football would be embarrassingly low.

Even if we just had mediocre football ticket revenue we would be able to do so much more with our TV money.

People complain about the university taking some of the revenue - but Purdue's lucky as hell right now to be in the Big Ten. If Purdue was in a different conference, it would practically be bankrupt. We shouldn't be relying on an abnormally high TV contract to stay afloat on your day-to-day operations. Purdue's been using it as a crutch, which has allowed things to stay the same - i.e. keeping Hazell too long. If Purdue was getting the TV revenue of the Pac 12 - they wouldn't be able to afford to f around.

The baffling part is that Purdue's operating the smallest athletic departments in the Big Ten. If anything, Purdue should be getting more "bang for its buck" considering our operating budget with number of sports is smaller than others.

There was an article last FB season on either BR or SBN saying which schools got the most bang for their buck and Purdue was one of the top schools. I can't recall the time frame and it looked at the entire AD. I'm not really disagreeing with your point.

The only other point I'd make is this money should greatly help our FB coach search. We should be able to entice a P5 head coach or high assistant coach from the ACC, P12, etc. versus a MAC coach. This TV deal is a game changer. And TV revenue >>> gate revenue now throughout the conference.

 

[SIBoiler2]

There was an article last FB season on either BR or SBN saying which schools got the most bang for their buck and Purdue was one of the top schools. I can't recall the time frame and it looked at the entire AD. I'm not really disagreeing with your point.

The only other point I'd make is this money should greatly help our FB coach search. We should be able to entice a P5 head coach or high assistant coach from the ACC, P12, etc. versus a MAC coach. This TV deal is a game changer. And TV revenue >>> gate revenue now throughout the conference.

All true IF the money isn't pulled away from the AD. I've seen too much of Purdue money management in the past few years to believe it will happen.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

All true IF the money isn't pulled away from the AD. I've seen too much of Purdue money management in the past few years to believe it will happen.

Actually less and less BTN has been pulled away. Last number I saw was less than $500K per year, although that doesn't include the last two years. I'd be interested to see what happened there.

 

[nat100]

Actually less and less BTN has been pulled away. Last number I saw was less than $500K per year, although that doesn't include the last two years. I'd be interested to see what happened there.

MItch pledged to stop taking as much a year or so ago.

 

[PurduePeteBsie87]

When Burke pitched the new football training facility, he used some check mark comparisons of a bunch of criteria related to Purdue's facilities. Of course, since he was pitching the new facility, Purdue was dead last in the Big 10 in almost every criterion on his list. My question is: if our football facilities were so poor, why did we build a new pool, baseball field, softball field, golf course, etc? I have no problem with those sports, but football pays the bills and brings the university recognition and prestige in sports.

 

[nat100]

When Burke pitched the new football training facility, he used some check mark comparisons of a bunch of criteria related to Purdue's facilities. Of course, since he was pitching the new facility, Purdue was dead last in the Big 10 in almost every criterion on his list. My question is: if our football facilities were so poor, why did we build a new pool, baseball field, softball field, golf course, etc? I have no problem with those sports, but football pays the bills and brings the university recognition and prestige in sports.

All facilities were poor when he took over.

The pool had a specific donation by a former swimmer, so I don't count that one.