Fan of the Fans

[ExxHusker]

Nebrasks has the most unbelievable fans in CFB. They fill the stadium, even seats far away from the field at premium prices - with a small population base year after year after year.

They travel to away games en mass.

They're classy. Respect the opponents and treat them well. I've been to away games that were unsafe and ugly. Not in Lincoln.

The fans are truly the heart of this program. Even in this drought when the on field product hasn't compare well to the standards set in the past the fans are there.

If it wasn't for the heart of the fans the program wouldn't have a remote chance of regaining elite status.

 

[jlb321]

Agree, the fan support is amazing.

However, does the fact that the full stadium and support are going to be there whether we win 7 games or 12 games blunt the urgency of becoming elite? Something I have often wondered. Is it worth investing trying to win 11 games a year when the stadium is going to be full, etc, etc at 8 wins per year.

 

[TruHusker]

Agree, the fan support is amazing.

However, does the fact that the full stadium and support are going to be there whether we win 7 games or 12 games blunt the urgency of becoming elite? Something I have often wondered. Is it worth investing trying to win 11 games a year when the stadium is going to be full, etc, etc at 8 wins per year.

Are you saying they are not investing in the program to be a winner? Or are they in invested just about right for a 9 win team? Is that why the former coach could only win 9 games a year? How you come up with this is beyond me.

 

[jlb321]

Are you saying they are not investing in the program to be a winner? Or are they in invested just about right for a 9 win team? Is that why the former coach could only win 9 games a year? How you come up with this is beyond me.

Not at all. Sorry if it came out that way. Just an economics question. If the stadium is full at 8 wins a year spending x. Is it financially worthwhile to spend 2-3x to get to 11 wins when the stadium is going to be full either way and there is revenue sharing at the conference level.

We aren't paying top dollar or near top dollar for the head coach.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I could understand that line of thinking if Eichorst was the owner and was pocketing the "net profit" for himself.

But he has to aid in supporting 22 other programs with a portion of that revenue. Sure it would be great if all sports were self supporting, but they aren't and very few ever will be.

If the football program falters to 8 or less wins per year, attendance will suffer.

Lastly, I am not sure where you are getting your figures to spend 2 or 3X more to get from from 8 wins to 11 wins.

 

[jlb321]

I could understand that line of thinking if Eichorst was the owner and was pocketing the "net profit" for himself.

But he has to aid in supporting 22 other programs with a portion of that revenue. Sure it would be great if all sports were self supporting, but they aren't and very few ever will be.

If the football program falters to 8 or less wins per year, attendance will suffer.

Lastly, I am not sure where you are getting your figures to spend 2 or 3X more to get from from 8 wins to 11 wins.

was just throwing 2-3X out there - I have no idea
we really haven't been relevant in over a decade and attendance hasn't suffered - do we just have to have an occasional year or 2 to rekindle the hope that we might be relevant again soon

maybe 8 wins or less is the "medoza line" for the program - I think it has been shown, in the last 10-15 years, that at 9 wins per year with no conf titles or major bowl games the stands are filled - with the revenue sharing in the conference how much financial incentive is there to win at a greater clip than this? I realize investing more money doesn't necessarily equate to more wins but this is no different than other companies worldwide trying to decide if further investment equates to more revenue or can they spend less and maintain their current revenue.

Hypothetically if we decide we are going to be in the top 3 in the country each year as far as money spent on the football program - and that spending translates into more wins, conference titles an occasional bid into the national title playoff - is this expenditure a good financial investment?

stated another way - if we think the revenue curve flattens out at 9 wins per year the best financial strategy would be to try to determine the minimum amount of capital you need to spend to maintain this level. If there is a steep rise in the financial investment required to win 11 games per year but the revenue curve doesn't really rise then it doesn't make sense financially.

In the last decade the consumers (fans) haven't demanded a product any better than about 9 wins per year based on attendance.


I fully realize I am making a number of assumptions - many of which likely aren't accurate. I just find the economics interesting. I am sure merchandise, branding, donations, etc is also a piece of the puzzle. I am also not arguing we shouldn't invest - just wondering what a pure economist (not fan) would conclude

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

While there are similarities to the real business world, i don't think you can compare. A pure economist would cut every sport that isn't self supporting. At a minimum a coach for a sport, not generating positive cash flow, wouldn't be pulling in a salary in the low $200k range and those sports would not have new stadiums and facilities built. It's not like you are getting a tax break by having a swim team or bowling team.

I just don't think you can look at college athletics from a traditional business or economic position.

 

[jlb321]

While there are similarities to the real business world, i don't think you can compare. A pure economist would cut every sport that isn't self supporting. At a minimum a coach for a sport, not generating positive cash flow, wouldn't be pulling in a salary in the low $200k range and those sports would not have new stadiums and facilities built. It's not like you are getting a tax break by having a swim team or bowling team.

I just don't think you can look at college athletics from a traditional business or economic position.

fair enough - but I do think it is a business.. The stadiums and facilities are infrastructure - hospitals' decadent lobbies, big screen TVs in the rooms, etc do not make money directly but may attract customers, employees (recruits) Given title IX (perhaps thought of government regulations) you need non-revenue women's sports to keep the football program. Some of the other nonrevenue sports can be thought of welfare - society, in this case major universities, have agreed there has to be some level of support (as part of the conference aren't we obligated to have a certain # of sports?)

I agree it is not a purely financial model - but just like any other company the AD has to balance expenses, investment, and revenue taking into account the rules within which they have to operate -ie title IX, support of other programs, etc

I hope I am not coming off as argumentative - just find the topic interesting - perhaps (likely) others do not