Dave Paulsen

[gmujim92]

If you have to cut sports to make it work at the NCAA DI level w/o football, you probably don't belong at the DI level.

Strongly disagree.

Don't you have to evaluate return on investment at some point and decide whether you have the ability to adequately fund your current portfolio of athletic teams?

We can realistically afford to maintain the minimum number of sports needed to remain in Division I.

Offering more than that, given our revenue limitations, is discretionary and the result of an administration that prioritizes "participation" in many sports over competing for championships in the few sports anyone really cares about.

 

[Vurbel]

If you have to cut sports to make it work at the NCAA DI level w/o football, you probably don't belong at the DI level.

I don't know about not being at the D1 level. Maybe we should have stayed in the CAA, but we are the largest school in the state and are in the 2nd wealthiest county in the country.

 

[Cedric Dempsey]

Strongly disagree.

Don't you have to evaluate return on investment at some point and decide whether you have the ability to adequately fund your current portfolio of athletic teams?

We can realistically afford to maintain the minimum number of sports needed to remain in Division I.

Offering more than that, given our revenue limitations, is discretionary and the result of an administration that prioritizes "participation" in many sports over competing for championships in the few sports anyone really cares about.

I would never advise a client of 35,000 enrolled to enter a conference like the A10 if it didn't have a comprehensive institutional plan to grow the resources necessary to compete on a clear and consistent basis. If a $5 mil hoop budget is an A10 goal for Mason and you have to cut your way there then you don't have the correct plan, in my opinion. The ROI issue is also greater than the direct sport revenue. I'm guessing there is significant enrollment revenue to your university since it appears you have few head count sports (no football) and probably have a considerable number of walk-on's and equivalencies paying millions in tuition and fee costs. Mason appears to sit in a tremendous position w/o football and there are a lot of smart people who can figure this out w/o eliminating relatively low cost opportunities.

 

[GSII]

Does cutting 6 sports get us 2 million in annual savings?

 

[GMUgemini]

Strongly disagree.

Don't you have to evaluate return on investment at some point and decide whether you have the ability to adequately fund your current portfolio of athletic teams?

We can realistically afford to maintain the minimum number of sports needed to remain in Division I.

Offering more than that, given our revenue limitations, is discretionary and the result of an administration that prioritizes "participation" in many sports over competing for championships in the few sports anyone really cares about.

How do you define ROI, though, for a university? I know everyone likes to say that athletics is "business," but it's a non-profit business, and one that serves the greater university organization, not just itself. These questions are a lot more complicated than costs vs. revenue streams.

 

[GMUgemini]

Does cutting 6 sports get us 2 million in annual savings?

If you cut sports like baseball and soccer, probably.

 

[gmujim92]

I would never advise a client of 35,000 enrolled to enter a conference like the A10 if it didn't have a comprehensive institutional plan to grow the resources necessary to compete on a clear and consistent basis. If a $5 mil hoop budget is an A10 goal for Mason and you have to cut your way there then you don't have the correct plan, in my opinion. The ROI issue is also greater than the direct sport revenue. I'm guessing there is significant enrollment revenue to your university since it appears you have few head count sports (no football) and probably have a considerable number of walk-on's and equivalencies paying millions in tuition and fee costs. Mason appears to sit in a tremendous position w/o football and there are a lot of smart people who can figure this out w/o eliminating relatively low cost opportunities.

I don't disagree, my only contention was your point that if you have to cut sports you shouldn't be D-I to begin with.

There is a minimum threshold allowable according to NCAA rules. Mason exceeds that threshold because the administration wants to, not because it has the resources to effectively compete in each of those sports.

If the administration decided to cut back to the NCAA minimum, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[GSII]

Even if we cut to save 1 million its worth it. Bball is the only program, that can benefit university in the millions of dollars range.

 

[mkaufman1]

Even if we cut to save 1 million its worth it. Bball is the only program, that can benefit university in the millions of dollars range.

As much as I agree- I find it hard to fathom that athletes of other sports don't see themselves as important for the chance to compete, even if they aren't bringing in attention/revenue for the school. The opportunity for someone to compete in a division 1 sport is an honor. I don't think Mason would have went to the A10 if they felt they had to cut sports to get the resources to compete in their main sports (Basketball primarily then baseball/soccer etc).

 

[Falco]

As much as I agree- I find it hard to fathom that athletes of other sports don't see themselves as important for the chance to compete, even if they aren't bringing in attention/revenue for the school. The opportunity for someone to compete in a division 1 sport is an honor. I don't think Mason would have went to the A10 if they felt they had to cut sports to get the resources to compete in their main sports (Basketball primarily then baseball/soccer etc).

I tend to agree. Paulsen is on the right track to turn this program around. We don't need to rush into any rash decisions. With a little more success donations will come, and attendance will rise.

God forbid Mason is unable to create more revenue in the next two season then a real discussion about cutting sports will occur.

That all said, if Mason did decide to cut sports earlier I would not lose any sleep.
DJ3, A moment ago Edit Delete Report

 

[mkaufman1]

I tend to agree. Paulsen is on the right track to turn this program around. We don't need to rush into any rash decisions. With a little more success donations will come, and attendance will rise.

God forbid Mason is unable to create more revenue in the next two season then a real discussion about cutting sports will occur.

That all said, if Mason did decide to cut sports earlier I would not lose any sleep.
DJ3, A moment ago Edit Delete Report

I agree, I'm sure very few of anyone care about sports like Tennis or Golf, but obviously the athletes and their families that compete in those sports do. In addition- with the trend of the program I agree that things should definitely improve from a revenue perspective.

Sigh, offseason discussions "suck", lol. This one has been beaten, so its almost time for the new scoreboard, mason hall of fame and Mason football discussions lol

 

[Patriot8]

Increasing revenue can also start with improving Mason's current media rights deal with Learfield. I don't know what the terms of the current agreement are, or when it is up for renewal, but I do know that Mason would be an attractive property for other companies in that space. IMG, JMI, etc.

 

[Falco]

Increasing revenue can also start with improving Mason's current media rights deal with Learfield. I don't know what the terms of the current agreement are, or when it is up for renewal, but I do know that Mason would be an attractive property for other companies in that space. IMG, JMI, etc.

Kind of related. I often wondered why naming rights deals are generally used for athletic facilities and not academic buildings. I know big donors get their name on buildings, but why not go after cooperate money for an academic building.

I envision Tech Row. A building designed and funded by Google, another one Apple. and so on....

As a 18 year old perspective student I would be really impressed.

 

[GMUgemini]

Kind of related. I often wondered why naming rights deals are generally used for athletic facilities and not academic buildings. I know big donors get their name on buildings, but why not go after cooperate money for an academic building.

I envision Tech Row. A building designed and funded by Google, another one Apple. and so on....

As a 18 year old perspective student I would be really impressed.

No.

 

[Falco]

No.

care to elaborate?

 

[Cedric Dempsey]

Increasing revenue can also start with improving Mason's current media rights deal with Learfield. I don't know what the terms of the current agreement are, or when it is up for renewal, but I do know that Mason would be an attractive property for other companies in that space. IMG, JMI, etc.

Cable/Media rights usually belong to the conference nationally and regionally.

 

[Jack Strop]

care to elaborate?

• Parking space #3,287 sponsored by Hav-a-Bite Eatery

• Bike rack #4 sponsored by Weber Tire

• Lamp post #12 on Patriot Circle sponsored by Fairfax Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

• Urinal #3 in second floor men's bathroom in Thompson Hall sponsored by Pool Service Company

Uhh, no.​

 

[Patriot8]

Cable/Media rights usually belong to the conference nationally and regionally.

I'm not talking about television rights. I'm talking about sponsorship media (signage, print, radio, IP rights, etc). Learfield is currently Mason's media rights holder. Learfield pays Mason a guaranteed amount for the rights to sell their sponsorship inventory, and typically there is a revenue sharing model in addition to the guarantee.

 

[Patriot8]

Kind of related. I often wondered why naming rights deals are generally used for athletic facilities and not academic buildings. I know big donors get their name on buildings, but why not go after cooperate money for an academic building.

I envision Tech Row. A building designed and funded by Google, another one Apple. and so on....

As a 18 year old perspective student I would be really impressed.

To try and not completely disregard your question... while I have not seen or heard of any academic buildings with corporate naming rights, I do know that some Career Services offices have started down that path.

 

[GMUgemini]

To try and not completely disregard your question... while I have not seen or heard of any academic buildings with corporate naming rights, I do know that some Career Services offices have started down that path.

There are university-private sector incubators on some campuses too, but they aren't exactly branded incubators.