non-bball fans: this coaching hire is important

[Guest BasketBull.]

Many of you disappear when bball is in the air, I sense. But this hire, I would argue, is very important for USF athletics, especially for future funding.

Namely, if men's bball can be turned into a winner, it will create another source of revenue for USF athletics. Then, the money can go to support all the other sports, such as non-sweating baseball...

Plus, if men's bball is strong like football, whatever happens to the Big East down the road, USF will land just fine. Right now, we've got one leg --football.

I would dare to say that this coaching hire and the events to follow in regards to USF athletics' support for men's bball is second only to the creation of football at USF...

Just imagine what USF athletics could do with an extra million or 2 millions from basketball profits every year?

[Joe]

Basketbull, not trying to be a buzz kill, but basketball, even if it's considered  a "revenue" sport is rarely is used to support olympic sports in a university. In most cases the money from basketball is reinvested in that program. Only about 50 schools made over a Million in basketball last year.

Football runs 75% of the athletic departments in the D-IA schools. Money is just much more abundant because the NCAA does not have their hand in the championship.

For a comparison in 2005 the top earning football program was Texas, with a profit of 39 Million (ND and UGA weren't far behind).

Whereas the top earning basketball programs were Louisville and Duke at around 13 Million.

I think this hire is important for the future of USF basketball, but this school is a football school and will ALWAYS be a football school. Football will be the program that funds most sports, basketball may one day be able to fund itself, but I don't see it becoming a beacon of financial success while the football program is still growing.

[Velcro]

also... the lower bowl was sold out at the sun dome for men's games.  Even though most didn't show up, those seats were sold.

So the impact of those seats filling up means only concession money to the revenue numbers.

Sure there will be more show up in the higher levels, if you increase say 2000 level 2 tickets per game x 16 games x $15 per game, you are still only looking at under $500k revenue increase (before concessions).*

If we sold out every single game, assuming we avg 3500 now, the increase would only $1.75 million.  And there is no way we are going to sell out every game.  We didnt' even sell out the UF game a while back.  If we can't sell out that game, we'll never sell out games vs North Alabama, or Texas Arlington.  

Now, with some facility upgrades to the sun dome, adding luxury boxes, more big dollar donation seats, etc... there is potential to generate revenue in other means.

*disclaimer... my numbers may be off, but you get the point

[JoeB]

I think they should reduce the ticket price for those non Big East games at the start of the year.  Nobody shows up for them.  At least if they reduce the price more people will actually show up to the dome to watch the Bulls.  More people showing up earlier in the year, would most likely mean more showing up during the middle and last part of the year too.  $15 is way too much to spend to see Jacksonville versus USF.  $5-10 should be the low end ticket price.

[Velcro]

If more would show up, that might be a good idea... but would more show up is the question... i don't know that it is certain that ticket price is why people don't show up.  I tend to think people just don't care about hoops around here and would rather do something else.

Still, i agree in theory.

[Joe]

Also have to figure law of diminishing returns. Is it worth cutting ticket prices (and if in theory attendance increases) paying more to keep vendors adequately staffed or janitors to clean up after everyone?

[JoeB]

The way I see it, the more people there, the more concessions the vendors sell.  Its a win/win.  I assume USF gets back some of the concessions revenue too.