Admittedly, I wasn't following it at the time, but if we really did spend $20M on a softball stadium, and since you asked, here's some stats for this year's team. Looks like they are 21-17, but so far only three home games (all losses) vs MN (avg attendance about 500+) and a split of two games vs IU (no attendance figure for one of those games, the other had 722 in attendance). There are seven more home games this season. Tickets are $5 for adults and $2 for youths (but $1 for some games). If they can average 600 paying customers/game (aggressive estimate assuming improving weather) and $4.25/seat, that's about $2500/game or about $30K in total ticket revenue for the season (excluding concessions, which I assume a $20M stadium is equipped to offer...but probably only one window considering how many are open on game days in Ross-Ade). That probably doesn't even pay for the utilities and maintenance for the year.
This is absolutely not meant as a slam to the women's softball program....just an examination of the financial return on the investment. Our non-revenue sports are going to be in a world of hurt eventually if the big revenue sport (i.e., football) doesn't turn it around soon and start filling (at least most of) R-A again which not only drives seat/parking/concessions revenue, but also juices athletic department contributions from fans & alumni. BTN splits can only go so far in supporting the Athletics budget.
http://www.jconline.com/story/sport...e-softball-stadium-elevates-program/24895489/
The cost of the stadium is quoted here as $13 mill. But that doesn't include the land acquisition, which was complicated for reasons I can't recall. GBI did an article, or two, about it several years ago, and I thought the total cost ended up being about $20 mill, but maybe it was closer to $15 mill? Either way, it's way too much to spend on women's softball at a time when football was far behind peer institutions in terms of facilities, which Purdue now admits, but denied at the time.
The $13 mill was raised by calling it a phase of the Mackey Complex Project. That way, donors who wanted to support competitive basketball facilities were effectively coerced into pay $13+ mill for a women's softball stadium, in order to get donor money to basketball.
This sort of charade has been Purdue University's (i.e., the BOT and President's) business model for its Athletic Department since Jeschke: 1) Siphon the revenues out of men's basketball and football and use those revenues to fund the non-revenue sports. 2) Use the BTN money to support unrelated university projects, like the student learning center and the co-rec improvements, and then throw an unjustifiably large overhead charge on the AD to siphon off any remaining BTN money. Finally, 3) run to the JPC crying that there is no money to compete with peer B1G's institutions in men's basketball and football, implying that members need to give more if they want to compete in revenue sports, and if they don't, the failure of those sports will be the fault of JPC members. This was the gist of Nancy Cross' infamous letter during the Painter to Mizzo debacle -- the real problem was not MB, Cordova, or the BOT, it was the JPC's failure to open another vein and give more!
The logic behind this business model is very simple, Purdue University holds its own football and men's basketball programs hostage, by effectively threatening to deny adequate support -- support which the programs themselves more than generated before it was siphoned off. The BOT and President do this because they know alums and JPC members will donate to support football and men's basketball, whereas we're less likely to directly support the non-revenue sports or the university's pet projects.
The next AD needs to recognize this problem, and be committed to changing the business model. The model we need is one that's committed to achieving success in football and men's basketball, which would in turn produce the revenues needed for competitive non-revenue sports, along with the occasional boondoggle for the BOT or President. Look at all the other universities that brag about having self-sustaining Athletic Departments -- they use the business model I just suggested, not the failed Purdue model of effectively holding football and men's basketball for ransom.
