New Coaching Staff
- Thread starter Patterson825
- Start date
This article explains the annual Penn State projected revenue from the B1G media/TV contract. A projected $100 million by 2030. Check it out.
House Money: How Much Will Penn State Football Pay its Players in 2025?
If U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approves the House v. NCAA titanic settlement next Monday in Oakland, it will mean a big payday for tens of
www.statecollege.com
FWIW:
$100 M per year in media revenue share (which is an optimistic - but I do not think totally unrealistic - projection for the not so distant future) will not even come close to covering PSU Athletic's escalation of operating expenses.
Not. Even. Close.
That's the Monkey in the Wrench.
(FWIW: PSU is not the only "name" program in that same boat)
PSU, in 2023 and 2024 fiscal years, had the worst two-year financial results in the history of PSU athletics - aside from the COVID year (obviously) and the sanction years.
(Folks can look up those public records)
The numbers for 2025 fiscal year - ending June 30 2025 - have not yet been published. Expectations, of course, were for huge "philanthropy" to buy a little time (remember all those loud proclamations of every multi-million dollar "donation"? Haven't heard of them in a while..... maybe they just stopped announcing them, since they are so busy tallying up the money?)
So, the available data is BEFORE these expenses start to hit the books:
$20 Million + per year in revenue sharing to players
$10 M + in payoffs to fired coaches (fortunately a one-time expense.... until the next time)
Increases to scholarship numbers (and costs) for all sports
PK's statements that they will spend $30 M per year in "NIL" and $17 M per year in Coaching staff (just for football)
Addition of the west coast teams - significantly increasing travel expenses for all sports (all that the west coast schools field teams)
Huge increases in both "coaching" and "administrative" positions within Penn State Athletics
Debt for all of the "here-and-there" projects of the last couple years (soccer, field hockey, practice bubble, Lasch building, sports admin offices, etc etc etc)
And, oh, yes, BEFORE any of the expenses for that little remodel job going on along Park Avenue
And more and more and more..... including that old "inflation" thingy
And even in PSU's projections (some would say "fantastical" projections), which - obviously - they have already blown well past wrt expenditures, they projected a fiscal cliff in around 10 years. (Spoiler: It ain't gonna' take that long)
Any wonder that PSU President and AD are advocates for the Kick-The-Can-Down-The-Road Payday Loan?
It is what it is. Enjoy it while it last - PSU Admins certainly are.
Maybe we should cut sports that lose money. You on board?
That would be pretty much all of them except football, basketball and I can't remember if the third is hockey or wrestling.
If someone is going to complain about the football team making $47M profit then they should be complaining about the sports that actually lose money.
I could live with half as many sports. PSU has about twice as many sports as Clemson.
Do we really need conference affiliation in non revenue sports? Notre Dame is in the Big just for Ice Hockey. Does PSU need to be in the B10 for non revenue sports? Does the womens soccer , mens soccer, women's field hockey, track, cross country, really need to be in the B10? Do we need to send teams to USC, Washington, UCLA and play in empty stadiums? Soccer and field hockey probably draw less than 1000 per game. That is a joke. To be honest we might draw more if we played regional teams and then both sets of fans could attend. PSU could pay Pitt, Maryland, WVU, Syracuse, Rutgers, Temple, Lafayette, Lehigh, Bucknell, Penn, in non revenue sports.
I certainly expect you will see some of what you wish for - either in dropped or underfunded sports.
How much of an impact will that make?
Depends on which ones you would you prefer to drop?
Of existing men's sports:
There are two that lose more than $2 Million per year: Baseball ($2.8 M) and Wrestling ($2.0 M)
You want to drop them? None of the others would save nearly as much $
On the women's side?
Basketball is - by far - the biggest money loser (and always has been, even when they were a consistent winner) - $4.8 M loss. You want to drop that one? That would make an impact, for sure.
Other than that: Volleyball loses $2.3 M, and Women's Ice Hockey loses $2.0 M.
You want to drop them? Sure, go ahead.
The rest don't amount to much.
Pick your horse(s).
Couple things I think we CAN count on moving forward:
1) You are going to see changes - I can pretty much guarantee that.
2) The changes you are going to see, at least initially, won't have much financial impact
3) The changes - at least initially - will be primarily underfunded sports (rather than dropping) - 'Dropping" is much more of a PR hit..... On the other hand, no one really pays attention to underfunding (or even notices it happening), but they wring their hands over dropping, especially women's sports.
4) The non-high profile sports will obviously become even less competitive (PSU overall athletics competitiveness - the average placing of each of our sports within the Big Ten conference - university-wide, has dropped substantially under PK... after previously dropping significantly under Barbour. In Barbour's case most of the decline was among women's sports - interestingly enough)
5) In order to have any meaningful impact at all, the cuts will have to include programs that Penn Staters generally "rah rah" about - women's volleyball - or those that are higher profile national sports - women's basketball..... or those where cuts just ain't gonna' happen, at least not in the near term (like wrestling)
6) Other significant money losers - eg. baseball, both soccer teams, both lacrosse teams - are programs were PK has recently INCREASED spending - substantially. Are those going to now be cut - especially after significant spending on FIXED COSTS that won't go away (like the Soccer Taj Mahal)?
7) In total, the amount of savings that will be realized will be a small fraction of the increases in spending for FB and Athletics Administration/Overhead.
8) The underfunding/dropping of some sports won't mitigate PSU ICA's long-term deficit situation - not enough to keep it from turning significantly into the red within the decade - that's for sure
So, then: Where will the $$$ come from?
FWIW:
I agree. And that should have been the case for DECADES.
But, it isn't.
In fact, as we all know, "we" - as a conference - just added ridiculous west coast teams to the sports conference - with all the attendant expense increases, and numerous other downsides (including academics and student-athlete
welfare)We - as an institution - just took on huge long-term debts for dramatically overpriced (and over-scoped) athletics facilities for sports that generate no revenue (and few fans)
And everyone waved their pom-poms and cheered it on.
"We Are!" (screwed)
LOL
And, even more sadly, that "culture" extends to the University - beyond just "athletics". But no one seems to care.
Last edited:
As we figured, the GM is becoming more important in college football. GM salaries will start to approach head coaches salaries. Our new GM recruited the Cincinnati quarterback , Brendan Sorsby, that just entered the portal. It’ll be interesting to see if we pick him up.
Last edited:
10 years ago I never would’ve imagined any of this, but in the context of the current era, I think this is the way to go. One of Franklin‘s downfalls in the end was the (mis)management of NIL. It appears that Campbell gives that function to the GM, and that’s the way to go in this day and age. Let the coaches coach.
Absolutely what needs to happen. If cuts need to be made, I would rather cut the non-revenue, low profile sports than cut the funding of the football program. The non-revenue, low profile sports benefit a very small group of people.
Cut the programs that are losing money and are low profile. Sports that generate excitement amongst the alumni and students and produce a significant following should be retained because those intangible benefits may justify the loss in revenue.
Great educational post. The bottom takeaway for me is that at some point we will have to experience the pain of cutting funding to non-revenue teams, even those with a high profile. The giant (football) has to be fed and prosper or the collapse and pain will be greater in the future.
Last edited:
You obviously have a lot more knowledge about the budget than I do. Start with eliminating the low profile, non revenue producing sports. I understand that that alone may not be than answer to the financial problem and may be painful, but we need to rip that band aid off. High profile sports that lose money but generate excitement (women's basketball program, PSU wrestling, and women's volleyball) should be amongst the last to reduce funding or cut but I recognize at some point, tougher decisions will have to be made.
Last edited:
Or:
They could not worry so much about "saving" $800,000 by cutting the gymnastics program.
(Maybe it makes sense to do that - or things like it. And maybe it makes sense to do it, at least arguably. And I think reasonable people could deliberate moves like that. But it ain't gonna' avoid the pending &$%#storm anyway)
And, instead:
Not overpay by $15,000,000 building a Taj Mahal admin building for Soccer (when, for $15,000,000 less, they could have completed what was "needed" - decent team facilities for the M and W programs.)
Not spend $30,000,000 to construct office space for scores of additional admins - and maybe not add those millions and million to the annual payroll
Not literally burn in a bonfire $10,000,000 for people to NOT work for PSU ICA
And, golly, not overpay by $100s of millions over what it should cost to complete the Beaver Stadium (largely) vanity project - and focus only on the stuff that generates net revenue.
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc..... ad infinitum
Or not?
Fencing, Golf, Gymnastics (probably should move over to USA gymnastics control for all school teams), Swim/Dive and Tennis would be the smallest rosters and thus easiest IMO. It doesnt save a ton of cash but its a start. Agree completely about giving all these other teams upgrades in their facilities is nonsense as well.
Can you imagine if Sandy had gotten her dream Natatorium or whatever it was.
Can you imagine if Sandy had gotten her dream Natatorium or whatever it was.
What about PSU paying other coaches not to coach in other places? Can we do that, too?Part of it.... but certainly not all (PSU will be on the hook for at least portions - several million - of Knowles and Cutelnicki - at least - in addition to the $9 million door prize to (VT)HCJF).
For coaches to NOT coach your team.
The most recent year that full numbers are available (2024) the most highly paid staff was OSU at $11.5 Million College Football Assistant Coach Salaries - USA TODAY
I am sure those numbers will continue to inflate for 2025 and 2026.
In addition to the $17 million PK was talking about for this year's staff, PSU will be paying somewhere around $13 million for coaches to NOT coach the team in 2026.
So, not only the most highly paid staff in 2026, in all likelihood - but ALSO paying the equivalent of "top 5" staff money to another group of coaches to NOT coach here.
That is, obviously, not optimal
Like Veruca Salt in a candy store.
Cogent points, IMO.
That said, who at PSU is going to make those decisions?
1) Given abundant history, that should frighten you.
2) There is no way - given the lay of the land - to make any meaningful impact WITHOUT cutting or reducing from programs that will cause an uproar among some sections of the community.
Just one "for instance":
What do we think would happen if PSU said tomorrow... "No more women's basketball".... keep in mind, that is the ONLY "non-revenue" program that, if cut, would even make a noticeable dent in the spending.
It has been the biggest money loser for decades - and, for at least several years, was the single biggest money losing sports program of ANY school, anywhere in the country - and struggles to draw ANY paying customers.
And, still, given all that, do you think that would happen?
OTOH: Would there be an uproar if PSU cut.... let's say, Tennis? Probably not much. But the financial impact is less than rounding error.
So those are not decisions that are properly made when left to the type of people who have always been charged with making those kinds of decisions.
And, to be fair, are not situations with any easy answers.
On The (other) Other Hand:
Not wasting away 10s of millions every year on stuff that has no value? THAT is what would make an impact - and would be relatively easy to do.
But "we" won't do that.
It is not our culture.
Alas
I would be glad to make the cuts. When I am commissioner of the universe I will cut baseball and women's basketball on day 1.
I would also close half the branh campuses and also cut departments that lose money.
Why does the Women's basketball program cost so much more than other programs women's basketball program? Perhaps significant cuts in funding are in line. I would imagine that keeping women's basketball program is a requirement to be part of the BIG and receiving monies from the BIG network (which needs content to survive).
A) Good question.
(FWIW, I don't have - though they could be found, if someone wanted to do that - $ to $ of "costs" vs other programs. I only have handy the net of Expenses minus Revenues)B) No requirement by the Big Ten that PSU sponsor the sport.
C) I don't think it effects cut of BTN revenue (which ain't all that much, fwiw). I do know that PSU allocates it all to just FOOTBALL (maybe a slice to Men's BB as well - I'd have to check). But other sports - which do appear from time to time on BTN - soccer, gymnastics, etc) do not get allocated BTN money. So my guess is it wouldn't impact. Each Big Ten school has, or doesn't have, some of those sports that occasionally appear on BTN. I do NOT think they get reduced BTN share (though someone else may have definitive info).
In any event:
For political/PR reasons, if nothing else, I doubt PSU will be dropping women's hoops anytime in the forseeable future. So likely a moot issue.
FWIW:
TTBOMK, There is something that is supposed to start next year - "The Allstate / Big Ten Women's Sports Championship" (or some such name) Where Allstate (the insurance company) is supposed to kick in some $$ (probably a very small number, but I haven't seen any details) - and crown a Big Ten Women's Sports champion.
No details, TTBOMK, as to how that will work. But I doubt there will be meaningful $$ involved - and doubt, even more, that sponsoring or not sponsoring a specific sport will have meaningful impact - if any - for the schools.
By the numbers: Big Ten women's basketball attendance
Where did Illinois stack up in 2024-25 in a new-look, 18-team conference? Beat writer Joe Vozzelli takes a closer look
Not sure their cost is significantly higher, its just that no one shows up for games. 2200 avg attendance and how many of those actually paid to get in? I know its hard to travel to State College for a midweek night game but that can't be the only reason; the product has been bad, the arena is too big and no extra amenities to make a family bring their kids and the student body doesnt seem to be as invested in sports as they were 20 years ago
It does effect decisions. A school would have to cut one men's sport and one womens sport at a time. They could not cut all womens sports.
I'm am going to guess that one way around that rule might be to eliminate gender sports and simply list the men's teams as coed. Everyone could then tryout but the final teams would be all men.
Last edited:
By the numbers: Big Ten women's basketball attendance
Where did Illinois stack up in 2024-25 in a new-look, 18-team conference? Beat writer Joe Vozzelli takes a closer lookwww.news-gazette.com
Not sure their cost is significantly higher, its just that no one shows up for games. 2200 avg attendance and how many of those actually paid to get in? I know its hard to travel to State College for a midweek night game but that can't be the only reason; the product has been bad, the arena is too big and no extra amenities to make a family bring their kids and the student body doesnt seem to be as invested in sports as they were 20 years ago
There costs are probably much higher because of the facilities. What do you think it costs to use the Bryce Jordan ?
It might cost a million a game to use a football stadium. Basketball arena Maybe 100k a game. The soccer and field hockey teams can play in an empty field on the side of the road.
Like an idiot, I continue to click on this thread anytime it gets a new post expecting to see some updates on the coaching staff. Silly me.
Definitely.By the numbers: Big Ten women's basketball attendance
Where did Illinois stack up in 2024-25 in a new-look, 18-team conference? Beat writer Joe Vozzelli takes a closer look
Not sure their cost is significantly higher, its just that no one shows up for games. 2200 avg attendance and how many of those actually paid to get in? I know its hard to travel to State College for a midweek night game but that can't be the only reason; the product has been bad, the arena is too big and no extra amenities to make a family bring their kids and the student body doesnt seem to be as invested in sports as they were 20 years ago
FWIW:
In the last reporting year, PSU Women's BB had roughly $200,000 total ticket revenue
At around 30,000 total attendance - that is $7 per ticket (I expect a bunch of tickets at $10-20.... which I think is around the face value, combined with a lot of comps or giveaways).
Of course, PSU Women's hoops has been awful as of late.
But even going back to when PSU was winning - back-to-back Big Ten titles:
Ticket revenue was around $280,000
Now, that was a decade ago, so adjusting for inflation that would be more like $500,000.
Better, but still not enough of a differential - even in the best years - to make a dent in that $4-5 Million deficit.
It’s now official. Huge upgrade for us.
You could’ve waited another two minutes.
They just flipped the DE from NJ that was committed to ISU also.