Athletics look to curb economic woes
By Jacque Petersell
Editor in Chief

Editor’s note: This is the second installment of a two-part series.

The economy has played a large part in the way the athletics department makes and spends money, said Jack Hesselbrock, associate athletics director for internal operations.

“As an athletic department, we’ve always tried very hard to spend the money in the most frugal way, while at the same time maintaining a level of competition, of presentation, that is worthy of the school,” he said in an interview last semester. “But, in the past couple of years, we’ve looked at some things, for example, when we develop our budget, (like) what are some things that we absolutely have to have.

“I’m not trying to say we’re taking any short cuts on spending, but we’re trying to maximize the bang for the buck,” he said.

One way of tightening the budget, in regards to travel, is looking at the most cost effective way to travel, Hesselbrock said. Busing to close games, such as when the women’s basketball team would take a bus to Tulsa and the football team taking a bus to last year’s Galleryfurniture.com Bowl, is a way to save money, he said.

“It’s not just the assumed ‘Well let’s just hop on the plane and go,’” he said.

Tom Hathaway, assistant director of media relations at the University of Cincinnati, said a benefit to C-USA is the stability of the conference and the sharing of revenues.

“Members can budget for years in advance with the stability of scheduling, etc.,” Hathaway said. “Members also benefit from the sharing of revenues. These benefits of membership are available in times of both healthy and fluctuating economies.”

Monies from such things as bowl games, television appearances and NCAA basketball appearances go back to the conference, Hesselbrock said. Then the money is divided among all the schools in the conference, with the schools helping to earn the money receiving a larger share.

According the NCAA information, the average C-USA and the WAC distribution last year was $800,000.

When dealing with revenue, Hesselbrock said, the athletics department has been looking at different marketing ideas to focus on getting more people to the games.

“We’re trying to increase opportunities for all different levels of consumer to come,” he said. “There was a basketball game (in early December) where you bought one (ticket) you got one free, trying to get more people in.”

One new way of increasing attendance and concession revenue, such as the opening of the pavilion during the men’s basketball game against Texas Tech and the sale of alcohol during games.

“You’re always looking for ways to enhance that game day experience, so when they leave they say ‘Boy that was a good time,’” he said. “But we planned to do that with several more games and some of the marquee games. Unfortunately, to do something at a TCU athletic event that has not been attempted before with the sale of alcohol took a lot of discussion.”

Hesselbrock said local fan support has been up in recent years, but opponents’ fan travel has been down.

Another source of possible revenue was the opening of the Lupton Baseball Stadium, Hesselbrock said.

“Texas is such a hot bed for college baseball,” he said. “I think with the stadium and the ability to play some night games and to potentially bring in some opponents that would be very attractive to the baseball fan that they could see them at night after work. I think there’s potential there. It’s new ground for us.”

According to NCAA reports, in 2001 women’s sports, on average, generated in revenue only about one-fourth of what the programs spent. According to the report, women’s sports, on average, generated $1.4 million in revenue while spending $4.6 million, a difference of $3.2 million. However men’s sports, on average, generated $15.8 million and spent $10.9 million during the same time.

The numbers are similar at TCU. During the school’s last year in the WAC, women’s sports brought in $106,140 in revenue and spent $3.9 million. The amounts were up just slightly in C-USA, as the women’s program brought in $130,038 and spent $4.1 million.

Hesselbrock said not to assume choices in spending on men’s versus women’s programs.

“Something a lot of (people) don’t like to pinpoint is that it’s obviously going to take more money for football players, equipment wise, then it would a men or women’s basketball player,” he said.

Hesselbrock said the department is looking at ways to increase revenue across the board, not just in women’s athletics.

“A good example of how it’s grown is your season ticket base in women’s basketball,” he said. “(It) has grown from 300 or 400 a few years ago to 800 or 900 this year. And I think those sports and the revenue sports are looking for ways to narrow that gap.”

Recently, the NCAA has started a task force to examine current economic forces and other factors that may influence the way institutions make financial decisions. The group is also to look at where revenues for schools come from, how they are spent and the relationship with the overall budget, according to an NCAA document.

Hesselbrock said the task force is still in its early stages and said he does not think there is a school that is not looking to increase revenue and curtail spending in the current economy.

“And that goes for even some of the conferences that traditionally make a lot of revenue,” he said. “(Creating revenue has) gotten to be a real issue. It mirrors society, mirrors the economy.”

Jacque Petersell