What it really costs to build a championship caliber team

[cornfed24-7]

1 minute ago, hskr4life said:

This argument seems a little moot considering NIL collectives will still be a thing no? There are plenty of volleyball private donors I’m sure. This distribution is only referencing what the university allocated money will go to which probably pales in comparison to what collectives will become.

Yeah I'm just debating to debate here

 

I agree. It's also why I think @FredsSlackshas a solid idea on giving a big chunk to the Mens basketball program. 

 

 

[OmahaHusker]

3 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

This argument seems a little moot considering NIL collectives will still be a thing no? There are plenty of volleyball private donors I’m sure. This distribution is only referencing what the university allocated money will go to which probably pales in comparison to what collectives will become.

 

I personally think donations go down once rev share is allowed. Boosters have to have fatigue from giving as much as they are being asked at this point. From the stadium reno to the football team to now the other programs. 

[cornfed24-7]

1 minute ago, OmahaHusker said:

 

I personally think donations go down once rev share is allowed. Boosters have to have fatigue from giving as much as they are being asked at this point. From the stadium reno to the football team to now the other programs. 

Multiple people havea made the comments about how this thing has to stabilize eventually and I agree. 

 

Because right now this situation has the same feeling as the late 90's dot com bust or the 00's housing crash. 

 

Money's getting tight for everyone across the board. And unfortunately we didn't get the eccentric billionaire that spends we got the prudent billionaire that saves

[nustudent]

23 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

You wouldn't sure. Neither would I. I should make clear I am not a volleyball fan. Don't care much for the sport. 

But if you don't see the importance to the University in maintaining the caliber of program that is Nebraska Volleyball nothing I'm going to say will persuade you. 

I'm not saying it's not important.  But all it takes is one sweet 16 run in basketball to offset that real quick.   And I still think there is a monetary value to everything.  If you have one of the top 2-3 volleyball programs in the country and you are still that far behind the men's basketball team who is nothing....the value can only be carried so far.  And god forbid that value drops with Cook stepping away....

[nustudent]

21 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

 

I do believe this will ring true.  It would not surprise me in the least if the Volleyball team received a higher proportion of revenue share than the raw data and numbers would indicate. 

 

The team wins and Nebraskans have shown over and over and over that they will go above and beyond to support a winner.  Perhaps more importantly and to cornfed's point, one area where a value is hard to pin down, is the benefit the school receives from the added exposure and potential future enrollment.  There are stories that can easily be found about how Alabama's out of state attendance is up an absurd amount over the past 20 years.  The reason - Nick Saban - and students, not football players, enrolling at a university that wins and is always seen on TV.  Nebraska volleyball won't have the impact of Alabama football but to dismiss that potential impact and how that plays into the AD's NIL allocation strategy would be akin to missing the forest through the trees.

 

If the above is true, the one sport that probably does suffer is men's basketball.  It won't be football for obvious reasons.  This is where you hope 1890 steps in, bridges the gap and infuses additional funds to ensure we are a consistent top half of the Big 10 funded program.

I think the VB team will get a higher % than 95% of other VB teams.   But I still think it falls into that 'Other' Category.   It's not going to take away from Football or Men's Basketball.   That's bad business.   Those programs have underperfomed but are still the two most prominant programs in the AD.   And their ceiling is so much higher than where they are at now.   

It's going to take away from Baseball, Women's Hoops, Wrestling, etc.   Those programs don't have the ceiling or impact that Football or MBB do.   That's smart business.

Edited 18 hours ago by nustudent

[cornfed24-7]

4 minutes ago, nustudent said:

That's bad business

I truly believe, at this moment and time, Nebraska is the only college you can make the argument it's not bad business. 

 

Edit to add and that really the biggest dig you can make at how unsuccessful our basketball program has been

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by cornfed24-7

[nustudent]

6 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

I truly believe, at this moment and time, Nebraska is the only college you can make the argument it's not bad business. 

 

Edit to add and that really the biggest dig you can make at how unsuccessful our basketball program has been

 

 

It's bad business if you are taking away from other more profitable programs and not taking from other less profitable and otherwise lower ceiling programs.   (I.E   Taking away from men's hoops while not taking away from women's hoops or track and field, etc)

Volleyball's reputation is pretty much as high as it can be...and it's still well behind MBB....a perennial underachiever.   Don't handcuff your #2 sport to invest in a sport with a semi-capped ceiling when you have plenty of others who also don't perform/have a very low ceiling.

Especially when you already have an elite level NIL program outside the university for VB

Edited 18 hours ago by nustudent

[cornfed24-7]

5 minutes ago, nustudent said:

It's bad business if you are taking away from other more profitable programs and not taking from other less profitable and otherwise lower ceiling programs.   (I.E   Taking away from men's hoops while not taking away from women's hoops or track and field, etc)

But this is the circular argument not everything is captured on a balance sheet.

 

Bad business is also throwing good money after bad. And nobody outside of us here on this board would argue that's not what has been happening with Nebraska Basketball. 

 

 

[nustudent]

Just now, cornfed24-7 said:

But this is the circular argument not everything is captured on a balance sheet.

 

Bad business is also throwing good money after bad. And nobody outside of us here on this board would argue that's not what has been happening with Nebraska Basketball. 

 

 

At some point in time it is though.   When a 'bad product' is worth 10x as much as a 'great product'.....how much is the 'great product' really worth?   And what happens if that great product ever takes a step back or the bad product takes a step forward.

 

Throwing more money at the VB program isn't going to make it more profitable.  It's pretty close to being capped because it's already at a pinnacle.   Men's BB can grow at lot more.   

 

And again....you can give more to VB without taking from MBB.

[Norm Peterson]

Husker volleyball doesn't have to compete for recruits with Husker men's basketball. It has to compete with other volleyball teams. If they don't get 10% of the revenue share, who's going to outspend them?

 

Volleyball has such a committed fanbase here, they could literally run their own 1890 and be able to outspend virtually any other program in the nation.

[Nebrasketball1979]

12 minutes ago, nustudent said:

At some point in time it is though.   When a 'bad product' is worth 10x as much as a 'great product'.....how much is the 'great product' really worth?   And what happens if that great product ever takes a step back or the bad product takes a step forward.

 

Throwing more money at the VB program isn't going to make it more profitable.  It's pretty close to being capped because it's already at a pinnacle.   Men's BB can grow at lot more.   

 

And again....you can give more to VB without taking from MBB.

 

In a vacuum, I completely agree with you.  You also are likely correct that any added money is coming out of a different pot than basketball but I don't think that is definitive.  I just think the one aspect that is not captured in this discussion is the intangible benefits that will come from the exposure and potentially future enrollment bumps.  Maybe it doesn't amount to much but let's say an additional 25 students (or girls who grew up as big fans) enroll at Nebraska in 2030 as out of state enrollees.  In today's dollars, that an extra $700K of tuition for the school.  I have no idea if that's too high or way too low but there is a value there to the University that simply cannot be captured in just gate sales and concessions.  Could basketball have this same impact if they become great?  Of course...that just seems like a looong ways out based off historical precedence!

 

Ironically, when my son and I last attended a game, we always make a habit of stopping by the book store to stock up on apparel.  We were pretty much set on basketball and football stuff so what did we buy...volleyball shirts/sweatshirts.  For a women's team, they are pretty transcendent and it's remarkable they can have cross appeal to men and women alike, which is a rarity for women's sports (Caitlyn Clark not withstanding).  There is absolutely value in that and likely quite a bit.

Edited 17 hours ago by Nebrasketball1979

[cornfed24-7]

4 minutes ago, nustudent said:

At some point in time it is though.   When a 'bad product' is worth 10x as much as a 'great product'.....how much is the 'great product' really worth?   And what happens if that great product ever takes a step back or the bad product takes a step forward.

 

Throwing more money at the VB program isn't going to make it more profitable.  It's pretty close to being capped because it's already at a pinnacle.   Men's BB can grow at lot more.   

 

And again....you can give more to VB without taking from MBB.

No question basketball has more potential. The athletic department has shown no ability to recognize that potential. 

 

Not sure if you're a football fan or not, but at a minimum you are aware. And it's quite shocking you discounting how easy it is for a program on top fall into relative insignificance

[hhcmatt]

1 hour ago, Vinny said:

Or a basketball arena that averages 50% capacity.

 

Revenue share from an university is 1) How much are you going to revenue share and 2) How will you split that among your programs

 

This site and specifically this chart proved pretty helpful to me.

 

https://nil-ncaa.com/

 

It's football and basketball for sure but after that hockey projects to be the biggest $$ item. It's not nothing for sure. 

 

One thing to note that has already been noted in this model is that football is very expensive which is why non-football schools in the Big East will be at an advantage in terms of revenue sharing. 

[nustudent]

9 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

 

In a vacuum, I completely agree with you.  You also are likely correct that any added money is coming out of a different pot than basketball but I don't think that is definitive.  I just think the one aspect that is not captured in this discussion is the intangible benefits that will come from the exposure and potentially future enrollment bumps.  Maybe it doesn't amount to much but let's say an additional 25 students (or girls who grew up as big fans) enroll at Nebraska in 2030 as out of state enrollees.  In today's dollars, that an extra $700K of tuition for the school.  I have no idea if that's too high or way too low but there is a value there to the University that simply cannot be captured in just gate sales and concessions.  Could basketball have this same impact if they become great?  Of course...that just seems like a looong ways out based off historical precedence!

 

Ironically, when my son and I last attended a game, we always make a habit of stopping by the book store to stock up on apparel.  We were pretty much set on basketball and football stuff so what did we buy...volleyball shirts/sweatshirts.  For a women's team, they are pretty transcendent and it's remarkable they can have cross appeal to men and women alike, which is a rarity for women's sports (Caitlyn Clark not withstanding).  There is absolutely value in that and likely quite a bit.

I understand your point and I get that. But $700,000 five or six years from now isn’t very much.    Men’s basketball can learn that in one weekend in March. It doesn’t need to become great to do it. It needs one good weekend.   

[GhostOfJoeMcCray]

22 minutes ago, nustudent said:

At some point in time it is though.   When a 'bad product' is worth 10x as much as a 'great product'.....how much is the 'great product' really worth?   And what happens if that great product ever takes a step back or the bad product takes a step forward.

 

Throwing more money at the VB program isn't going to make it more profitable.  It's pretty close to being capped because it's already at a pinnacle.   Men's BB can grow at lot more.   

 

And again....you can give more to VB without taking from MBB.

Is volleyball capped though? It’s feasible they could move to PBA permanently someday and sell out every match with ticket prices the same or more as MBB. 

[nustudent]

2 minutes ago, GhostOfJoeMcCray said:

Is volleyball capped though? It’s feasible they could move to PBA permanently someday and sell out every match with ticket prices the same or more as MBB. 

I suppose that’s possible.   But it’s also possible that DBK is the Solich to Cook’s Osborne.   
 

I’m not saying she is, but both of those are pretty big what ifs.   but it’s probably more likely that things fall off a little bit with her then all of a sudden doubling what was happening under what is considered arguably the greatest volleyball coach of all time.  
 

What’s not a big what if is the money that men’s basketball brings in from the TV deal.   women’s volleyball will never do that    

Edited 17 hours ago by nustudent

[HuskerFever]

54 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Money's getting tight for everyone across the board. And unfortunately we didn't get the eccentric billionaire that spends we got the prudent billionaire that saves

 

It's too bad we soured that relationship over a Coke vs. Pepsi fight.

[cornfed24-7]

3 minutes ago, nustudent said:

the money that men’s basketball brings in from the TV deal

But don't we get that regardless if we're good or bad?

[nustudent]

4 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

But don't we get that regardless if we're good or bad?

We do.   That’s the point.    One team is at its pinnacle and the other team is the opposite. And yet it’s still worth that much more.    God forbid Nebraska ever performs in basketball. If it does that gaps only go wide it by a significant advantage.    
 

Nevraska can go 0-20 it conference play next year and it still gives me worth $10 million more per year than the volleyball program.    If Nebraska ever makes it to the round of 32 or a sweet 16 or the volleyball program falls off at all, that gap is going wide significantly.

Edited 17 hours ago by nustudent

[cornfed24-7]

Just now, nustudent said:

We do.   That’s the point.    One team is at its pinnacle and the other team is the opposite. And yet it’s still worth that much more.    God forbid Nebraska ever performs in basketball. If it does that gaps only go wide it by a significant advantage.    

So what you're saying is it's the unmeasurables that matter because regardless what either team does the TV contracts are set in stone?

[nustudent]

6 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

So what you're saying is it's the unmeasurables that matter because regardless what either team does the TV contracts are set in stone?

There are still unmeasurables at play.    What I’m saying is is that one program is maxing out those unmeasurable’s while the other isn’t.   If those ever change the gap wide and significantly.    
 

No matter how good volleyball is or how good basketball is, volleyball will never make more money than the basketball team    so don’t take from them     Take from the other programs and operate in the red 

 

and let’s also remember that if Nebraska ever makes and performs in the NCAA tournament, they make more money than what they already do.   

Edited 17 hours ago by nustudent

[Norm Peterson]

So, about half of the veteran players (non-freshmen) in the Sweet 16 are new transfers to their program this year.

 

 

[Huskerpapa]

How does Title IX play into revenue distribution?

[Navin R. Johnson]

Ouch

 

 

[cornfed24-7]

2 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

So, about half of the veteran players (non-freshmen) in the Sweet 16 are new transfers to their program this year.

 

 

So we need to have 2 starters on the roster, Get 2 in the portal, and have a freshman step up. Got it.