MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on November 29, 2014, 09:08:26 AM
-
http://the-boneyard.com/threads/do-not-look-at-the-big-easts-record.68607/
This thread popped up on my phone (get Big East alerts from google). It was interesting getting the perspective of UConn fans. It seems like there is a definite divide between fans on which conference they'd rather be in. I got the impression that most would prefer the BEast.
-
If they dump their football program and find a friend, they're welcome to join the Big East in my book.
-
If they dump their football program and find a friend, they're welcome to join the Big East in my book.
Or if their conference falls apart and they're willing to stash football in the MAC
-
Or if their conference falls apart and they're willing to stash football in the MAC
Neither of which is going to happen...
-
I don't want anyone stashing football. The Big East should be basketball only. No D1 football. Football schools in this league would always have one got out the door. I only want teams that want to be here.
-
http://the-boneyard.com/threads/do-not-look-at-the-big-easts-record.68607/
This thread popped up on my phone (get Big East alerts from google). It was interesting getting the perspective of UConn fans. It seems like there is a definite divide between fans on which conference they'd rather be in. I got the impression that most would prefer the BEast.
Interesting Thread. Clearly they have no fondness for Wojo
U Conn is in a good position no matter what conference they are in. Defending National Champs and pretty much going to be in the discussion every year. They will get in the ACC the next time they expand. Last go around they were finessed by Louisville and their political backers.
-
They will get in the ACC the next time they expand. Last go around they were finessed by Louisville and their political backers.
Louisville is a better athletic program by a long shot. In retrospect it was an obvious choice.
And I don't think the ACC is expanding anytime soon. They already have 14 members and Notre Dame as an associate. The only conference that I think is looking at expansion is the Big 12, and since it would be highly expensive, I don't think they'll be taking any members from the ACC.
-
UConn is in a really tough spot. Geographically the ACC is the only option, but unless Notre Dame goes all-in, I can't see them expanding. Maybe another associate member to balance the ACC tournament, but even that seems unlikely.
I think the Huskies need the AAC to succeed. There's just no one else that wants them.
-
Interesting Thread. Clearly they have no fondness for Wojo
U Conn is in a good position no matter what conference they are in. Defending National Champs and pretty much going to be in the discussion every year. They will get in the ACC the next time they expand. Last go around they were finessed by Louisville and their political backers.
They are afraid he will succeed at MU....so the schadenfreude.
-
Louisville is a better athletic program by a long shot. In retrospect it was an obvious choice.
And I don't think the ACC is expanding anytime soon. They already have 14 members and Notre Dame as an associate. The only conference that I think is looking at expansion is the Big 12, and since it would be highly expensive, I don't think they'll be taking any members from the ACC.
That and the strategic advantage Lville game them. The ACC knew that the B12 would never take Uconn for geographical reasons. The B12 would, however, likely consider Lville and Cincy. So the ACC takes Lville before the B12 can and the upshot is that they still have Uconn intheir back pocket should they ever need them.
-
Interesting Thread. Clearly they have no fondness for Wojo
U Conn is in a good position no matter what conference they are in. Defending National Champs and pretty much going to be in the discussion every year. They will get in the ACC the next time they expand. Last go around they were finessed by Louisville and their political backers.
I disagree about the reason Uconn did not get it. The conference was at 14 so everyone got a 1/14th share. From them to dilute to a 1/15 share, that 15th school had to bring something to the table. Uconn is not bringing the NYC TV market. So the thought was they would dilute for Uconn and not make it back by adding them. Louisville promised its TV market, and possibly Cincinnati and Indianapolis. You may not buy this argument but the ACC brass did.
The conference is at 15 now. That is maximum. No one is going higher until other conferences collapse (read Big 12). Should this happen the B1G is going first and everyone will follow.
-
The ACC has 15 members. 14 football playing and Notre Dame.
They had 12...added Pitt and Syracuse...lost Maryland...added Louisville.
-
The ACC has 15 members. 14 football playing and Notre Dame.
They had 12...added Pitt and Syracuse...lost Maryland...added Louisville.
Yes, I knew that, confused them with the old BE. My bad.
Edited my post above, same story applies. Tell us what revenues Uconn brings to the table, and you'll understand why they are not part of the ACC. Remember, the priority is football, football football, basketball , everything else. It's nice that Uconn wins NC in basketball but what does that mean for football revenue?
-
Last thought, if the ACC is going to consider Uconn, West Virginia will sell its soul to get out of the Big 12 for the ACC. Do not assume if the ACC expands Uconn is next on the list. Boston College might have something to say about that.
-
I doubt the ACC ever takes UConn.
UConn has nothing to offer in terms of football, and the only hoops-related reason for the ACC's expansion was to end the BE's reign as the premier hoops conference. They accomplished that by taking UL and Cuse (and got the NYC TV market with Cuse). Even if UConn joined the BE, there'd be little question that the ACC will be the best overall hoops conference most years.
So what exactly would the ACC get? Good football? Nope. The NYC TV market? No need - they already have it. The best hoops conference? No need - they already have it. UConn would be nothing more than another mouth to feed. Great hoops program, no doubt...but the ACC already has plenty of them.
-
I disagree about the reason Uconn did not get it. The conference was at 14 so everyone got a 1/14th share. From them to dilute to a 1/15 share, that 15th school had to bring something to the table. Uconn is not bringing the NYC TV market. So the thought was they would dilute for Uconn and not make it back by adding them. Louisville promised its TV market, and possibly Cincinnati and Indianapolis. You may not buy this argument but the ACC brass did.
The conference is at 15 now. That is maximum. No one is going higher until other conferences collapse (read Big 12). Should this happen the B1G is going first and everyone will follow.
Louisville ran a very sophisticated lobbying operation, to the point of getting their US Senators involved. If you remember at the time the Big East was imploding, the U Conn President made dumb statement after dumb statement , which in part started the C 7 movement and pretty much threw away their bargaining power with TV and other conferences.
At the end of the day U Conn football sucks and Louisville Football had a long history as a top 25 team . BC was also lobbying against U Conn for some parochial reason. So even though U Conn is a much better academic fit, and brings the NY market, Louisville was able market themselves better.
It the ACC expands again the two they will look at are U Conn and Cincy.
-
If UCONN would rather be in a conference with Tulsa, Houston, SMU, Tulane, UCF, and East Carolina, all I can say is good luck. They have nothing in common with the other AAC schools (other than Cincinnati and USF - the former Big East schools) in terms of institution, location or sports prestige. It may not happen today, this week, this month or this year, but there will be a point that associating themselves in Conference USA 3.0 will bring detrimental effects to its other sports programs.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24839675/uab-football-isnt-alone-in-losing-money-for-athletic-departments (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24839675/uab-football-isnt-alone-in-losing-money-for-athletic-departments)
CBS article on the possibility of UAB dropping football by 2016. They are losing $17.5 million per year on athletics. Dropping football would significantly drop that deficit.
UCONN, among numerous other G5 schools, is listed. They are losing $18.9 million per year on athletics.
All 7 AAC schools that are public (Tulane, SMU, Tulsa are private - therefore, that do not release their figures) are on this deficit-list and losing significant amounts of money with their athletic programs.
Regardless of whether UCONN is considering joining the Big East or not, the facts do not support UCONN continuing and maintaining its sports programs (especially football) long-term in the AAC.
-
Possibly. It is impossible to view these things in a vacuum. Football at many schools is a public relations / recruiting expense more than anything.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24839675/uab-football-isnt-alone-in-losing-money-for-athletic-departments (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24839675/uab-football-isnt-alone-in-losing-money-for-athletic-departments)
CBS article on the possibility of UAB dropping football by 2016. They are losing $17.5 million per year on athletics. Dropping football would significantly drop that deficit.
UCONN, among numerous other G5 schools, is listed. They are losing $18.9 million per year on athletics.
All 7 AAC schools that are public (Tulane, SMU, Tulsa are private - therefore, that do not release their figures) are on this deficit-list and losing significant amounts of money with their athletic programs.
Regardless of whether UCONN is considering joining the Big East or not, the facts do not support UCONN continuing and maintaining its sports programs (especially football) long-term in the AAC.
Most football teams lose money.
I posted this two years ago
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34465.msg421983#msg421983
60 minutes did a story on college football.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135410n
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551556/has-college-football-become-a-campus-commodity/
In it they flat out stated the purpose of football is to raise the profile of the school. That is mission 1. Mission 2 is to make Alums feel good about the school so they donate.
Most interesting is this statement by Dave Brandon, former CEO of Dominos Pizza and now Michigan AD ...
-----
Dave Brandon: The business model of big-time college athletics is primarily broken. It's, it's a horrible business model.
Armen Keteyian: Broken.
Dave Brandon: Broken. You've got 125 of these programs. Out of 125, 22 of them were cash flow even or cash flow positive. Now, thankfully, we're one of those. What that means is you've got a model that's not sustainable in most cases. You just don't have enough revenues to support the costs. And the costs continue to go up.
Why? A big reason is universities are in the midst of a sports building binge. Cal Berkeley, for example, renovated its stadium to the tune of $321 million. The list is endless. Michigan's athletic department floated $226 million in bonds to upgrade the Big House.
-----
I assume the "125" he was talking about is actually the 127 schools that make up the FBS. Only 22 are cash-flow positive. That's it! I find that statistic unbelievable.
Why would you want to subject a university that already has national name recognition through basketball to this terrible business model? I cannot see it.
And, how does a non-scholarship or lower division program help in mission 1 (raising name recognition) or mission 2 (increasing donations)?
-
Heisenberg, most P5 schools break even (or are at least close to breaking even) with their athletic budgets. Only one B1G school lost money in 2013 (Penn State, nearly $6 million - due in most part to the Sandusky scandal). These G5 schools listed are losing tens of millions of dollars. Per year. Costs are going up. TV deals are going up. Coaching salaries are going up. The cost of athletic scholarships are going up. Everything is going up.
Also, there's this that came out today:
Thayer Evans Verified account
@ThayerEvansSI
BREAKING: UAB is firing athletic director Brian Mackin & will announce later this week it will be shutting down football program per source.
UAB will announce this week that it is dropping football in 2016 - the first of many dominoes to fall in the coming years. They will not be the last school that decides the cost is no longer worth it. Many more schools will not be able to afford the costs of a FBS football program.
-
Can I ask an honest question? And I swear this isn't trying to be political. What happened to all the liberal faculty and administrators who used to go ape (correctly!) about diverting funds from academics to athletics? Were they "bought off" by the prestige that all the athletics programs are supposed to provide their work? Do they just not care as long as their own checks clear?
-
BTW, this UAB thing looks as much political as economic.
http://deadspin.com/report-uab-to-shut-down-its-football-program-1664885691
-
So UAB will be getting a Big East invite soon?
-
Heisenberg, most P5 schools break even (or are at least close to breaking even) with their athletic budgets. Only one B1G school lost money in 2013 (Penn State, nearly $6 million - due in most part to the Sandusky scandal). These G5 schools listed are losing tens of millions of dollars. Per year. Costs are going up. TV deals are going up. Coaching salaries are going up. The cost of athletic scholarships are going up. Everything is going up.
So Dave Brandon lied to 60 minutes?
My understanding is athletic department accounting is where the old Enron accountants wound up, they help create largely made up numbers to show they are making money by including school donation and other "creative methods" to keep everyone off their backs.
Point is Brandon statements are largely what most believe about athletic departments.
-
I know a lot of UConn fans, and they'd all rather be in the current Big East the current AAC. But they look at that as better of two awful options. They desperately want to be in the ACC. UConn has a near impossible task of being good in football, as Connecticut high schools simply do not produce football players, and UConn is not an attractive option for the 2 or 3 big time recruits from the state each year. You need a core of guys in your backyard for football, after which you fill out with regional and national recruits. UConn's football core is the leftovers from NY and NJ after the big football schools get their recruits.
-
Louisville is a better athletic program by a long shot. In retrospect it was an obvious choice.
And I don't think the ACC is expanding anytime soon. They already have 14 members and Notre Dame as an associate. The only conference that I think is looking at expansion is the Big 12, and since it would be highly expensive, I don't think they'll be taking any members from the ACC.
Louisville has better athletic programs than UConn?
Football no doubt is way better, and that's the big money one for sure, but men's basketball is equal with UConn probably being a miniscule better the last 25 years. Women's basketball - no contest. In Olympic sports at least UConn has won national championships in men's soccer & women's field hockey. Even the UConn baseball team has produced recent major leaguers like Rajai Davis, Mike Olt & George Springer. The UConn hockey team is going to be a hit, despite that not really mattering in the conference shuffle (except for maybe the Bog 10?).
From what I read, Boston College wants to be "New England's Team" and they think UConn threatens that. Which doesn't really make sense since BC just welcomed them to Hockey East.
The Hartford TV market is still larger than Louisville. It sure seems like no one school delivers New York City TV market. The old Big East did because it had a tag-team of NYC-area schools. Syracuse gets the ACC in the market, but not the market. Same with Rutgers (who do also deliver 3 to 4-times as many cable TV paying eyeballs as Connecticut ever could.) UConn is the only major school still out there that technically is in the New York TV as Fairfield County, CT is rolled in the NYC TV market. Besides over-hyping the NYC connection, and doing everything to gain AAU membership, it's most likely all-for-naught other than turning their football team around and I reluctantly agree that may not even be enough?
-
Louisville has better athletic programs than UConn?
Football no doubt is way better, and that's the big money one for sure, but men's basketball is equal with UConn probably being a miniscule better the last 25 years. Women's basketball - no contest. In Olympic sports at least UConn has won national championships in men's soccer & women's field hockey. Even the UConn baseball team has produced recent major leaguers like Rajai Davis, Mike Olt & George Springer. The UConn hockey team is going to be a hit, despite that not really mattering in the conference shuffle (except for maybe the Bog 10?).
You are correct about football and men's basketball. After that, the importance of individual sports drops off. But Louisville women's basketball has made two final fours and baseball has made the CWS three times. It has a relatively new football stadium (as does UConn) and a brand new basketball arena.
But most importantly, prior to joining the ACC, it already had an athletic budget of $80+ million. I believe that is about $15 million more than UConn.
Louisville's growth in athletics over the past decade has been extremely impressive.
-
The ACC will not invite UCONN anytime soon, not because of the perceived animosity between Boston College and UCONN, but rather the need to keep the football powers in conference (Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Virginia Tech, etc.) happy and prevent them from being bolting to another P5 conference (Big 12 being the most likely). If Florida State had one loss this season, they would be on the outside looking in from the CFP perspective.
The B1G will not invite UCONN anytime soon because, academically, they are well behind the other schools. They are also not an AAU member, which Jim Delaney said would have factored into the invite to Nebraska (who is no longer an AAU member).
The Big 12, with West Virginia already on an island (and the fact that UCONN will just further separate the schools within the conference), will not invite UCONN anytime soon.
UCONN, as previously stated, appears to be putting all of their eggs in the football basket. Disregarding football, playing Tulane, East Carolina, Tulsa, UCF, and Houston does nothing to help maintain their elite basketball program. Top recruits will not want to go to a conference that is considered Conference USA 3.0. Even though UCF won the Fiesta Bowl last year, and UCONN won the National Championship, both have done nothing to change the perception that it is a "best of the rest" conference. The Big East brand is still strong. The fact that the league has done so well in OOC only strengthens that notion.
-
Can I ask an honest question? And I swear this isn't trying to be political. What happened to all the liberal faculty and administrators who used to go ape (correctly!) about diverting funds from academics to athletics? Were they "bought off" by the prestige that all the athletics programs are supposed to provide their work? Do they just not care as long as their own checks clear?
They're still there, and still care, and still raise hell. They haven't been bought off or gone away.
And its not just liberal faculty members who are upset.
-
You are correct about football and men's basketball. After that, the importance of individual sports drops off. But Louisville women's basketball has made two final fours and baseball has made the CWS three times. It has a relatively new football stadium (as does UConn) and a brand new basketball arena.
But most importantly, prior to joining the ACC, it already had an athletic budget of $80+ million. I believe that is about $15 million more than UConn.
Louisville's growth in athletics over the past decade has been extremely impressive.
Also, their was a WSJ story a year or two ago that Louisville agreed with ESPN to move it's games to Tuesday night. They were in the forefront of having college football games on Tuesday and Wednesday night that transformed the revenue potential of the sport.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551556/has-college-football-become-a-campus-commodity/
In it they flat out stated the purpose of football is to raise the profile of the school. That is mission 1. Mission 2 is to make Alums feel good about the school so they donate.
Most interesting is this statement by Dave Brandon, former CEO of Dominos Pizza and now Michigan AD ...
-----
Dave Brandon: The business model of big-time college athletics is primarily broken. It's, it's a horrible business model.
Armen Keteyian: Broken.
Dave Brandon: Broken. You've got 125 of these programs. Out of 125, 22 of them were cash flow even or cash flow positive. Now, thankfully, we're one of those. What that means is you've got a model that's not sustainable in most cases. You just don't have enough revenues to support the costs. And the costs continue to go up.
Why? A big reason is universities are in the midst of a sports building binge. Cal Berkeley, for example, renovated its stadium to the tune of $321 million. The list is endless. Michigan's athletic department floated $226 million in bonds to upgrade the Big House.
Assuming what Brandon is saying is true, let me ask an honest question... how does FBS football raise the profile of a school like Duke, Indiana or UCONN? Do we think that any of these three schools were to abandon football that there would be mass student protests on campus? Would the majority of alumni simply stop giving to the university? Would anyone - other than the football players and staff - really be upset by such a move? Is it really football that brings prestige or is it conference affiliation?
So can we all agree that the only reason Duke, IU and UCONN haven't abandoned football heretofore has simply been to maintain their conference affiliation?
-
Assuming what Brandon is saying is true, let me ask an honest question... how does FBS football raise the profile of a school like Duke, Indiana or UCONN? Do we think that any of these three schools were to abandon football that there would be mass student protests on campus? Would the majority of alumni simply stop giving to the university? Would anyone - other than the football players and staff - really be upset by such a move? Is it really football that brings prestige or is it conference affiliation?
So can we all agree that the only reason Duke, IU and UCONN haven't abandoned football heretofore has simply been to maintain their conference affiliation?
No. I think a good portion of their alumni bases like football even though it is largely a futile effort. Look at Wisconsin in the 70s and 80s. There is really nothing preventing Indiana from doing something similar. All it takes is the right people in the right places.
-
Duke is currently one of the better ACC football teams
-
Assuming what Brandon is saying is true, let me ask an honest question... how does FBS football raise the profile of a school like Duke, Indiana or UCONN? Do we think that any of these three schools were to abandon football that there would be mass student protests on campus? Would the majority of alumni simply stop giving to the university? Would anyone - other than the football players and staff - really be upset by such a move? Is it really football that brings prestige or is it conference affiliation?
So can we all agree that the only reason Duke, IU and UCONN haven't abandoned football heretofore has simply been to maintain their conference affiliation?
I think maintaining conference affiliation could be a significant part of the reason for Duke and IU - who play in conferences that will clearly be on the "inside" if and when the power conferences break away.
With UConn, it's more that they're hanging onto football in the hope that they can improve their conference affiliation before the breakup. If the breakup becomes more and more imminent and UConn is still languishing in the AAC with the "have-nots" of the D-1 football world, they might very well drop their program, and try to come back to the BE.
-
Duke is currently one of the better ACC football teams
Yes, they are. And there have been occasional seasons where Vandy has escaped the bottom of the SEC and Indiana has escaped the bottom of the Big Twelethirfourteen. The trends have never lasted long.....
-
If UCONN wants to blame anyone it should be the idiot Big 12 for taking WV or Ville when they had the chance. If that happens then who gets into the ACC WV or UCONN? If I had a guess it would be UCONN?
-
If UCONN wants to blame anyone it should be the idiot Big 12 for taking WV or Ville when they had the chance. If that happens then who gets into the ACC WV or UCONN? If I had a guess it would be UCONN?
WV would have gotten the ACC invite just has it got the Big 12 invite. WV has a very solid football program and history. It's no accident that the Big 12 was willing to reach so far out of its previous boundary to take WV. Football drives the bus.
-
Yes, they are. And there have been occasional seasons where Vandy has escaped the bottom of the SEC and Indiana has escaped the bottom of the Big Twelethirfourteen. The trends have never lasted long.....
Indiana has played in nine bowl game during its 120 season history with a record of 3-6. So, I guess that, in particular, the upward trends for Indiana football don't last long.
-
WV would have gotten the ACC invite just has it got the Big 12 invite. WV has a very solid football program and history. It's no accident that the Big 12 was willing to reach so far out of its previous boundary to take WV. Football drives the bus.
There are some deep seeded issues with West Virginia within the ACC. West Virginia had no chance for an invite last go around, and it is doubtful they ever will get one.
-
Indiana has played in nine bowl game during its 120 season history with a record of 3-6. So, I guess that, in particular, the upward trends for Indiana football don't last long.
I think that was kind of his point, that the trend of Duke having one of the better ACC football teams probably won't last long.
Just checked Duke's wikipedia page and it notes that Duke football has been to 10 bowl games with a 3-7 record with 1 ACC title. On another note, I noticed that their band acronym is "DUMB" (Duke University Marching Band).
-
No. I think a good portion of their alumni bases like football even though it is largely a futile effort. Look at Wisconsin in the 70s and 80s. There is really nothing preventing Indiana from doing something similar. All it takes is the right people in the right places.
Define "good portion." 2%? 8%? 20%? 50%? If X% of the alumni base wants football, and said X% accounts for $Y in annual donations, and football costs $Z annually, what happens if Z > Y ????
UW football - any college athletics - in the 70s and 80s is irrelevant. College football in the 2010s and beyond is a completely different animal. It's pretty much sapien vs. neanderthal in evolutionary context. If a school was losing $15M/year (adjusted for inflation) on football in 1985, the conversation in the board room would have been exponentially less congenial than it would be today.
It took decades for Indiana to get behind the Colts. Even in the early Peyton Manning days, it took a while for people to warm up to the pigskin, and it wasn't until their second or third playoff appearance before blackouts were no longer a bi-weekly concern in Indy. Even Purdue - who has had success on the field in spurts over the years - barely draws more than IU.
Not to mention that the increase in UW football's popularity over the past twenty years has much to do with it merely being a proxy for the Packers, namely, since the rise of GB in the early 90s, it has become much more difficult (both availability & price) for an average football fan in Wisconsin to get tickets to a Packer game, so UW - incidentally, whose program also began its renaissance around the same time as the Packers - has become a benefactor. Anecdotally, my father and his brother went to several Packer games a year in the 70s and 80s, in a few of those years they even went to all of the home games. In the 90s and 2000s, and more recently, they've averaged a single Packer game a year but instead have been going to 2-3 UW games every year. But even if there were ever any similar "trickle down" from the Colts' success, that spillover is going to be split between IU and Purdue, possibly even UL.
-
unless i'm completely missing something...those numbers are all BS and the issue is much more complicated. while i have no use for college football for so many reasons, the $$$ schools "lose" are probably some of the best marketing $$$ the schools spend. it's like asking how much the bucks are worth to milwaukee and the state of WI. a million studies showing a million different amounts.
-
I think that was kind of his point, that the trend of Duke having one of the better ACC football teams probably won't last long.
Yep - they're all in the same ballpark. Vandy has been to 7 bowls, Indiana 9 and Duke 10. Not looking for any significant changes in the next decade or two.
-
No. I think a good portion of their alumni bases like football even though it is largely a futile effort. Look at Wisconsin in the 70s and 80s. There is really nothing preventing Indiana from doing something similar. All it takes is the right people in the right places.
I was thinking similarly about this. While football itself may not operate at a profit, I doubt that includes donations and applications that may not come in if not for the high visibility of football.
-
I think that was kind of his point, that the trend of Duke having one of the better ACC football teams probably won't last long.
Just checked Duke's wikipedia page and it notes that Duke football has been to 10 bowl games with a 3-7 record with 1 ACC title. On another note, I noticed that their band acronym is "DUMB" (Duke University Marching Band).
Yep - they're all in the same ballpark. Vandy has been to 7 bowls, Indiana 9 and Duke 10. Not looking for any significant changes in the next decade or two.
Now I get it.
-
Not to mention that the increase in UW football's popularity over the past twenty years has much to do with it merely being a proxy for the Packers, namely, since the rise of GB in the early 90s, it has become much more difficult (both availability & price) for an average football fan in Wisconsin to get tickets to a Packer game, so UW - incidentally, whose program also began its renaissance around the same time as the Packers - has become a benefactor. Anecdotally, my father and his brother went to several Packer games a year in the 70s and 80s, in a few of those years they even went to all of the home games. In the 90s and 2000s, and more recently, they've averaged a single Packer game a year but instead have been going to 2-3 UW games every year. But even if there were ever any similar "trickle down" from the Colts' success, that spillover is going to be split between IU and Purdue, possibly even UL.
I actually don't think that is the case at all. I think the Badgers renaissance is almost entirely internal.
-
I actually don't think that is the case at all. I think the Badgers renaissance is almost entirely internal.
I agree. IMHO, the Badgers' football renaissance had to do with one thing - they started winning consistently.
-
unless i'm completely missing something...those numbers are all BS and the issue is much more complicated. while i have no use for college football for so many reasons, the $$$ schools "lose" are probably some of the best marketing $$$ the schools spend. it's like asking how much the bucks are worth to milwaukee and the state of WI. a million studies showing a million different amounts.
I was thinking similarly about this. While football itself may not operate at a profit, I doubt that includes donations and applications that may not come in if not for the high visibility of football.
I believe that the league involved plays a big part. Losing 17.5M a year to be in the Big 10 is a far superior investment to losing 17.5M a year to play in ConferenceUSA. The 18.9M or whatever UConn is losing to play football in the AAC isn't worth it for the experience of being in the AAC, but it keeps UConn's hopes that it will be invited to a big 5 conference alive.
-
I was thinking similarly about this. While football itself may not operate at a profit, I doubt that includes donations and applications that may not come in if not for the high visibility of football.
Call me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that UConn, IU or Duke would lose $17.5M/yr in donations if they dropped football. At MSU, UW, any SEC school, sure... but not at an FBS school that lives and breathes basketball.
Look at this from the other angle... why isn't Marquette dropping $17.5M/yr if it's going to bring in donations and visibility?
Why is it that it's a stupid investment for a basketball school when it's MU, but it's a smart investment for a basketball school when its UConn?
-
Breakdown of revenues and expenses for athletic programs
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Uconn is number 48 on the list
-
Breakdown of revenues and expenses for athletic programs
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Uconn is number 48 on the list
But they are losing close to $20M per year.
-
But they are losing close to $20M per year.
Could be worse... at least they didn't lose $47M last year like Rugers (even though that probably included exit fees).
-
But they are losing close to $20M per year.
As Brandon said (quoted above) all but a handful of schools lose money. They need heavy donations and crushing student fees to keep the programs going.
-
I agree. IMHO, the Badgers' football renaissance had to do with one thing - they started winning consistently.
The reason they started winning was straightforward. The school wanted more contributions from alumni. In the late 60s and 70s the administration went down a path that was focused on not giving athletes special admission privileges . That succeeded in putting the school in the Big Ten cellar along with Northwestern. In the early 80s budgetary pressures increased and a gradual lowering of standards began eventually reaching parity with schools like Michigan . Once admissions was not a factor, recruiting became easy because like it or not kids want to go to UW. The school always had great attendence even in the bad years . Once the winning came the contributions followed. Becomes a virtuous cycle thereafter.
Our trajectory over the past 45 years really has been the same as UW but on a smaller scale due to our size. We have consistently won and have a decent level of support from our alumni as a result . That in part explains the tension with Buzz Larry Williams and academic standards . It has a real dollars and cents impact.
-
WV would have gotten the ACC invite just has it got the Big 12 invite. WV has a very solid football program and history. It's no accident that the Big 12 was willing to reach so far out of its previous boundary to take WV. Football drives the bus.
They tried, and were denied. It was rather funny at the time when schools were accepting invitations left and right that they were running around getting rejected.
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/32130030
-
The reason they started winning was straightforward. The school wanted more contributions from alumni. In the late 60s and 70s the administration went down a path that was focused on not giving athletes special admission privileges . That succeeded in putting the school in the Big Ten cellar along with Northwestern. In the early 80s budgetary pressures increased and a gradual lowering of standards began eventually reaching parity with schools like Michigan . Once admissions was not a factor, recruiting became easy because like it or not kids want to go to UW. The school always had great attendence even in the bad years . Once the winning came the contributions followed. Becomes a virtuous cycle thereafter.
Our trajectory over the past 45 years really has been the same as UW but on a smaller scale due to our size. We have consistently won and have a decent level of support from our alumni as a result . That in part explains the tension with Buzz Larry Williams and academic standards . It has a real dollars and cents impact.
Rick Tellender wrote a book about this and it tells a different story. By 1991 Wisconsin was a pathetic dumpster fire. Then they turned it all around
From Red Ink to Roses: The Turbulent Transformation of a Big Ten Program
By Rick Tellender
http://www.amazon.com/From-Red-Ink-Roses-Transformation/dp/067174853X
Telander Probes High Human Cost Of College Sports
September 23, 1994
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-09-23/features/9409230102_1_rick-telander-college-sports-sports-journalists
The title of Rick Telander's penetrating, highly readable study of the University of Wisconsin's athletic department is misleading. Telander observed the Badgers at close range in 1991, two years before the Rose Bowl season that transformed the once nearly bankrupt department into a money machine. The Badgers' march to Pasadena evidently was as much of a surprise to Telander as it was to other sports journalists; he covers it only in a nine-page postscript.
But 1991 was an eventful year in Madison anyway. The department, under severe financial pressure, cut five of its 26 sports. A volleyball coach died, and a fencer nearly did. An assistant women's basketball coach and the team's top player were forced off the team amid sexual innuendoes. Several athletes were arrested. Hopes were nurtured and crushed. And Barry Alvarez's football team began to get better and draw a few more fans to Camp Randall Stadium.
The book's starting point is the death in 1986 of football coach Dave McClain, who took the Badgers to three bowl games in his eight years at Wisconsin.
Five years later, Al Fish, hired in the interim as the department's administrative officer-translation, hatchet man-sums up the financial mess caused by dwindling football attendance: "If we'd hired the right man after McClain died, I wouldn't be here today."
But Jim Hilles and Don Morton clearly weren't the right men. Hilles was coach for one year, and after three dismal seasons Morton was fired almost singlehandedly by chancellor Donna "I hate to lose" Shalala, who also had hired ex-UW football hero Pat Richter as athletic director before she became Bill Clinton's secretary of health and human services.
In one of the book's most moving portraits, Telander tells of how Morton remained a "hostage" in Madison, unwilling to move while his quarterback son was in high school and unwilling to venture anywhere a Wisconsin booster might be found, which in Madison is almost everywhere.
Richter hired Alvarez, who even in lean times was able to procure almost anything he wanted for his football team.
Fish and Richter were adamant that elimination of the five sports was unavoidable. Publicly they expressed pained sympathy for those who would be made to suffer and pleaded with anyone else to offer another solution. Privately they knew the cuts were a done deal, that they had the necessary athletic board votes in their pockets. The fateful board meeting was scheduled for the day before spring break.
One of the sports that was cut was fencing, which cost just $57,000 a year. Two weeks after Jim Frueh, a Big 10 champion, almost lost his life when he tangled with a Notre Dame opponent whose blade punctured his lung, his sport was killed by Fish and Richter.
Frueh is bitter. Fencers, as well as gymnasts, baseball players and crew members "actually attend college," he says. "Football and basketball players, those aren't students."
That's an exaggeration, although Telander notes that one study showed Alvarez's first three football teams had an average SAT score more than 250 points below that of all incoming freshmen and ranked ninth in the Big 10.
Two characters in the book stand out. Telander's alter ego is Barry Baum, a sportswriter for the Daily Cardinal, Wisconsin's student newspaper. When not skewering players and coaches in print, Baum can be found doing what all students do: looking for love. And there's Rick Aberman, a part-time athletic department psychologist available full time to chat with athletes and tell them they're normal when they're certain they're not. Aberman worries, with good reason it turns out, that the athletic department doesn't appreciate what he does because he doesn't directly bolster the bottom line.
But the bottom line, Telander keeps reminding us, has a human side. This fascinating book makes one question whether big-time college sports are worth their high cost.
-
Rick Tellender wrote a book about this and it tells a different story. By 1991 Wisconsin was a pathetic dumpster fire. Then they turned it all around
From Red Ink to Roses: The Turbulent Transformation of a Big Ten Program
By Rick Tellender
http://www.amazon.com/From-Red-Ink-Roses-Transformation/dp/067174853X
Telander Probes High Human Cost Of College Sports
September 23, 1994
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-09-23/features/9409230102_1_rick-telander-college-sports-sports-journalists
The title of Rick Telander's penetrating, highly readable study of the University of Wisconsin's athletic department is misleading. Telander observed the Badgers at close range in 1991, two years before the Rose Bowl season that transformed the once nearly bankrupt department into a money machine. The Badgers' march to Pasadena evidently was as much of a surprise to Telander as it was to other sports journalists; he covers it only in a nine-page postscript.
But 1991 was an eventful year in Madison anyway. The department, under severe financial pressure, cut five of its 26 sports. A volleyball coach died, and a fencer nearly did. An assistant women's basketball coach and the team's top player were forced off the team amid sexual innuendoes. Several athletes were arrested. Hopes were nurtured and crushed. And Barry Alvarez's football team began to get better and draw a few more fans to Camp Randall Stadium.
The book's starting point is the death in 1986 of football coach Dave McClain, who took the Badgers to three bowl games in his eight years at Wisconsin.
Five years later, Al Fish, hired in the interim as the department's administrative officer-translation, hatchet man-sums up the financial mess caused by dwindling football attendance: "If we'd hired the right man after McClain died, I wouldn't be here today."
But Jim Hilles and Don Morton clearly weren't the right men. Hilles was coach for one year, and after three dismal seasons Morton was fired almost singlehandedly by chancellor Donna "I hate to lose" Shalala, who also had hired ex-UW football hero Pat Richter as athletic director before she became Bill Clinton's secretary of health and human services.
In one of the book's most moving portraits, Telander tells of how Morton remained a "hostage" in Madison, unwilling to move while his quarterback son was in high school and unwilling to venture anywhere a Wisconsin booster might be found, which in Madison is almost everywhere.
Richter hired Alvarez, who even in lean times was able to procure almost anything he wanted for his football team.
Fish and Richter were adamant that elimination of the five sports was unavoidable. Publicly they expressed pained sympathy for those who would be made to suffer and pleaded with anyone else to offer another solution. Privately they knew the cuts were a done deal, that they had the necessary athletic board votes in their pockets. The fateful board meeting was scheduled for the day before spring break.
One of the sports that was cut was fencing, which cost just $57,000 a year. Two weeks after Jim Frueh, a Big 10 champion, almost lost his life when he tangled with a Notre Dame opponent whose blade punctured his lung, his sport was killed by Fish and Richter.
Frueh is bitter. Fencers, as well as gymnasts, baseball players and crew members "actually attend college," he says. "Football and basketball players, those aren't students."
That's an exaggeration, although Telander notes that one study showed Alvarez's first three football teams had an average SAT score more than 250 points below that of all incoming freshmen and ranked ninth in the Big 10.
Two characters in the book stand out. Telander's alter ego is Barry Baum, a sportswriter for the Daily Cardinal, Wisconsin's student newspaper. When not skewering players and coaches in print, Baum can be found doing what all students do: looking for love. And there's Rick Aberman, a part-time athletic department psychologist available full time to chat with athletes and tell them they're normal when they're certain they're not. Aberman worries, with good reason it turns out, that the athletic department doesn't appreciate what he does because he doesn't directly bolster the bottom line.
But the bottom line, Telander keeps reminding us, has a human side. This fascinating book makes one question whether big-time college sports are worth their high cost.
I think this actually supports what I am saying. Shalala amped up the lowering of standards even more which Alvarez exploited . Telander is a good writer a former Northwesten guy. The book started in 1986, but the first round of academic lowering actually started during the McClain era . They didn't have the execution of it down properly and had a few incidents etc on campus as they went down market too fast at first, which got some push back as they became publicized.
-
The addition of UConn would be great. They would be the biggest draw for every team in the conference and thus increase revenue for everyone. They would also return the BET to a sell-out event (or closer to it). They would add to tourney credits and provide the conference with a legit title contender every now and then. Beats the hell out of SLU to me...
I guess I don't care that they have football. They would be in the BE for prob the next decade no matter how much lobbying they did to move into the BIG or ACC.
-
http://the-boneyard.com/threads/do-not-look-at-the-big-easts-record.68607/
This thread popped up on my phone (get Big East alerts from google). It was interesting getting the perspective of UConn fans. It seems like there is a definite divide between fans on which conference they'd rather be in. I got the impression that most would prefer the BEast.
I like the 10-team round robin, but my dream conference is still the current 10 plus UConn and VCU. I know many on the Board would prefer a St. Louis, but I just don't see them being a power long-term post Majerus despite the success last year. I know Gtown vetoed VCU getting in, and we can't offend them, but as long as they are where they are, we may long-term have the Big East, American Athletic and Atlantic 10 fighting to be the "best mid-major" and the Power 5 separate from the rest of us at least perception wise.
I know this year the BEast is off to a great start and maybe we can make it a Power 6 for basketball, but you add VCU and UConn - taking away from our top two contenders - and the Big East is permanently the basketball conference that is grouped with the Power 5 with those two on the other side of the divide with the Mid-Majors.
-
I think this actually supports what I am saying. Shalala amped up the lowering of standards even more which Alvarez exploited . Telander is a good writer a former Northwesten guy. The book started in 1986, but the first round of academic lowering actually started during the McClain era . They didn't have the execution of it down properly and had a few incidents etc on campus as they went down market too fast at first, which got some push back as they became publicized.
If you look at Bucky sports they sucked from the Great Depression until the early 90s. Ok "sucked" might be too strong ... The were the middle of the road nothing special B1G school. However, they really did suck in the 70s and 80s.
The book says collectively they compiled about the worst athletic record in the Big Ten during the 70s and 80s. You don't have your Athletic department on the verge of bankruptcy and cutting sports left and right in the early 90s because of one or two bad years. It happens because of decade after decade of incompetence and poor performance. It also happens because nobody went to Camp Randall to watch games in the 70s and 80s. The stadium was half-full during that period, and more than one game was delayed due to fights in the stands because drunk fans were not paying attention to the game.
Lowering the academic standard was nothing new, Bucky was leading the B1G in arrested athletes in the 80s (per the book). That happened in the McClain era, if not earlier.
What saved Wisconsin was two simple words, Barry Alvarez. He was able to take criminals and win, not admit criminals just to reach havoc on Madison.
The difference between Bucky and Northwestern is academics. In everything but football and basketball, one could argue that northwestern is among the best in B1G athletics, and that has nearly always been the case. NU's high academic reputation attracts non-revenue athletes that no other Big 10 school and match. Yes, Northwestern does not lower its admission standards for football and basketball and it hurts them in recruiting. However Fitzgerald still makes them competitive in football and lets see what Collins does with basketball.
Incidentally, if NU did lower their admission standards for football, I think think could be among the best in the Big Ten, a midwest version of Stanford.
-
If you look at Bucky sports they sucked from the Great Depression until the early 90s. Ok "sucked" might be too strong ... The were the middle of the road nothing special B1G school. However, they really did suck in the 70s and 80s.
The book says collectively they compiled about the worst athletic record in the Big Ten during the 70s and 80s. You don't have your Athletic department on the verge of bankruptcy and cutting sports left and right in the early 90s because of one or two bad years. It happens because of decade after decade of incompetence and poor performance. It also happens because nobody went to Camp Randall to watch games in the 70s and 80s. The stadium was half-full during that period, and more than one game was delayed due to fights in the stands because drunk fans were not paying attention to the game.
Lowering the academic standard was nothing new, Bucky was leading the B1G in arrested athletes in the 80s (per the book). That happened in the McClain era, if not earlier.
What saved Wisconsin was two simple words, Barry Alvarez. He was able to take criminals and win, not admit criminals just to reach havoc on Madison.
The difference between Bucky and Northwestern is academics. In everything but football and basketball, one could argue that northwestern is among the best in B1G athletics, and that has nearly always been the case. NU's high academic reputation attracts non-revenue athletes that no other Big 10 school and match. Yes, Northwestern does not lower its admission standards for football and basketball and it hurts them in recruiting. However Fitzgerald still makes them competitive in football and lets see what Collins does with basketball.
Incidentally, if NU did lower their admission standards for football, I think think could be among the best in the Big Ten, a midwest version of Stanford.
I am in agreement with most of what you are saying. Yes, Bucky wasn't ever elite they were mid tier primarily due to bad management. However, I can tell you there was a conscious desire by a series of chancellors to try to be like Northwestern and deemphasize athletics they applied a misguided academics notion to athletics as part of that. That created the race to the bottom. Once the school eased that AND had a good coach they could compete again.
The school was regularly an attendance leader, however indeed many of the people were drunk and not in the stands.
Shalala supported taking it to the next level and doing what ever they needed to win big as she wanted larger contributions from the 400,000 alumni . Alberez, a guy with no conscious, was perfect for that role . As to budget issues, I always question athletic department accounting it is a bit like Movie Production, where certain people take money off the top which leads to a reported loss. Wisky has three revenue sports (hockey was especially huge in those days) and the Big Ten shared Bowl money prorata. People sometimes hide their agendas under the cloak of budget constraints.
I agree with you that Northwestern could become a Stanford if it lowered its standards. We will probably see that happen sometime in the next 10 years. The big money facilities donors are going to demand it. As they will want to see the return on their investment.
-
I like the 10-team round robin, but my dream conference is still the current 10 plus UConn and VCU. I know many on the Board would prefer a St. Louis, but I just don't see them being a power long-term post Majerus despite the success last year. I know Gtown vetoed VCU getting in, and we can't offend them, but as long as they are where they are, we may long-term have the Big East, American Athletic and Atlantic 10 fighting to be the "best mid-major" and the Power 5 separate from the rest of us at least perception wise.
I know this year the BEast is off to a great start and maybe we can make it a Power 6 for basketball, but you add VCU and UConn - taking away from our top two contenders - and the Big East is permanently the basketball conference that is grouped with the Power 5 with those two on the other side of the divide with the Mid-Majors.
I think the window for VCU will be when our Fox contract is up. There will be sufficient history of our current format to make an informed economic decision about expansion . Also by then Shaka will be gone and we will see if VCU was only a one hit wonder. My sense is Football is driving the bus at U CONN, with the new NCAA contract it will be hard to get off it. Our best avenue now is to have as any teams as we can schedule non conference with U Conn
-
I actually wish UMass hadn't made the transition to higher league football play, they'd be a natural fit with the BEast if they ever decide to drop it. Then if UConn got with the program too and cut out their middling program, it would be a perfect two additions.
-
UAB is on the table.
-
I agree with you that Northwestern could become a Stanford if it lowered its standards. We will probably see that happen sometime in the next 10 years. The big money facilities donors are going to demand it. As they will want to see the return on their investment.
Note for everyone else ... Northwestern has embarked on a program to spend $200 million (no typo!) on athletic facilities. That DOES NOT include the football stadium. When done, NU will jump to near the top in athletic facilities. Given its tremendous academic reputation (top 14 in US News and #1 among the B1G) and these new facilities, if they lower their admission standards for athletes than can indeed become the Stanford of the Midwest ... something no other B1G school can do.
-
Note for everyone else ... Northwestern has embarked on a program to spend $200 million (no typo!) on athletic facilities. That DOES NOT include the football stadium. When done, NU will jump to near the top in athletic facilities. Given its tremendous academic reputation (top 14 in US News and #1 among the B1G) and these new facilities, if they lower their admission standards for athletes than can indeed become the Stanford of the Midwest ... something no other B1G school can do.
Yup. As a Northwestern fan it makes me really excited for the future. Great school, great non-revenue sports and just a red a purple line train away from my house. :P
-
They're still there, and still care, and still raise hell. They haven't been bought off or gone away.
And its not just liberal faculty members who are upset.
True. In my experience, it's the economists (those departments are hardly hotbeds of liberalism) who are most outspoken in their opposition to big-time athletics, particularly football. The truth is, faculty have very little say in how universities are run.
-
I agree. IMHO, the Badgers' football renaissance had to do with one thing - they started winning consistently.
Whatever the reason, I agree with this... which is assumed when I said that UW Football's rise in popularity was partially due to it being something of a proxy for the Packers. If UW had continued to suck throughout the 90s, it wouldn't have been seen as an alternative to Packer football. I don't think anyone can argue that there isn't demand for professional football in Wisconsin that exceeds the capacity of Lambeau; I'm simply saying that when that demand cannot be filled in Green Bay, people will look to Madison if UW can provide a competitive alternative.
Before the thread went off on a tangent, the point I was attempting to make was that UW's rise from the gutter to a level of popularity on par with the biggest names in the Big Ten is not a model that can be duplicated in Bloomington, Durham or Storrs simply by winning a couple conference championships or BCS bowl games; otherwise, why haven't IU, UCONN and Duke emulated UW by devoting the resources and making the changes necessary to get out of the cellar?
We know UCONN and IU - like most BCS universities - are losing money on their overall athletic programs every year (we could probably presume Duke is, too). I think it's safe to say that these three schools don't pull in anywhere near the "football money" that their conference counterparts do; however, it's hard to say exactly to what extent football puts them in the red because universities don't have a standard accounting procedure for individual sport expenses. All we know - according to standardized accounting - is that these schools are subsidizing their athletic programs with student fees, non-athletic university funds, state money, etc.
UCONN raised $63M from donations in 2013, with $8M in fundraising expenses, for a net of $55M. If UCONN is truly losing $17.5M/year maintaining its football program (i.e. it is coming out-of-pocket $17.5M/year), is "football money" making up 32% of their net fundraising to make the investment of football worthwhile?
Even the B?G and ACC teams with their rich TV contracts are subsidizing their athletics programs, but I agree that $10M/year to be in the B?G or ACC is a much better investment then spending $15M being in the AAC.
It would seem to me that dropping football would save $17.5M/year for UCONN, not to mention, they would keep a greater portion of their tourney shares if they joined the Big East. And since the Big East
I don't buy the whole notion of the "BCS Breakaway" in the context people place it in... BCS schools are looking for greater autonomy, not independence, and somewhere along the way, someone spun this into "ZOMG, the BCS schools are going to form their own league and the basketball schools are going to be screwwwwwwed." Still, the question boils down to what exactly is a basketball-centric school like UCONN (and to a lesser extent, IU and Duke, for example) chasing by keeping their football program alive, and more importantly, why? I'd love to see actual numbers because frankly, none of what I have seen makes any sense at all.
Where I'm going with this is that if losing $10-20M/year is strictly about conference affiliation, why not get IU, UCONN and Duke to drop football and join the Big East? They save some money and help create a powerhouse basketball conference having a depth of success and tradition with which no one can compete. But of course, that would be too simple of a solution.
-
We know UCONN and IU - like most BCS universities - are losing money on their overall athletic programs every year (we could probably presume Duke is, too). I think it's safe to say that these three schools don't pull in anywhere near the "football money" that their conference counterparts do; however, it's hard to say exactly to what extent football puts them in the red because universities don't have a standard accounting procedure for individual sport expenses. All we know - according to standardized accounting - is that these schools are subsidizing their athletic programs with student fees, non-athletic university funds, state money, etc.
UCONN raised $63M from donations in 2013, with $8M in fundraising expenses, for a net of $55M. If UCONN is truly losing $17.5M/year maintaining its football program (i.e. it is coming out-of-pocket $17.5M/year), is "football money" making up 32% of their net fundraising to make the investment of football worthwhile?
Even the B?G and ACC teams with their rich TV contracts are subsidizing their athletics programs, but I agree that $10M/year to be in the B?G or ACC is a much better investment then spending $15M being in the AAC.
It would seem to me that dropping football would save $17.5M/year for UCONN, not to mention, they would keep a greater portion of their tourney shares if they joined the Big East. And since the Big East
I don't buy the whole notion of the "BCS Breakaway" in the context people place it in... BCS schools are looking for greater autonomy, not independence, and somewhere along the way, someone spun this into "ZOMG, the BCS schools are going to form their own league and the basketball schools are going to be screwwwwwwed." Still, the question boils down to what exactly is a basketball-centric school like UCONN (and to a lesser extent, IU and Duke, for example) chasing by keeping their football program alive, and more importantly, why? I'd love to see actual numbers because frankly, none of what I have seen makes any sense at all.
Where I'm going with this is that if losing $10-20M/year is strictly about conference affiliation, why not get IU, UCONN and Duke to drop football and join the Big East? They save some money and help create a powerhouse basketball conference having a depth of success and tradition with which no one can compete. But of course, that would be too simple of a solution.
Interestingly, UConn got an $8mil donation this year to build a soccer facility from a former UConn soccer player. I don't think the American version of football had anything to do with this donation either.
-
Whatever the reason, I agree with this... which is assumed when I said that UW Football's rise in popularity was partially due to it being something of a proxy for the Packers. If UW had continued to suck throughout the 90s, it wouldn't have been seen as an alternative to Packer football. I don't think anyone can argue that there isn't demand for professional football in Wisconsin that exceeds the capacity of Lambeau; I'm simply saying that when that demand cannot be filled in Green Bay, people will look to Madison if UW can provide a competitive alternative.
Before the thread went off on a tangent, the point I was attempting to make was that UW's rise from the gutter to a level of popularity on par with the biggest names in the Big Ten is not a model that can be duplicated in Bloomington, Durham or Storrs simply by winning a couple conference championships or BCS bowl games; otherwise, why haven't IU, UCONN and Duke emulated UW by devoting the resources and making the changes necessary to get out of the cellar?
We know UCONN and IU - like most BCS universities - are losing money on their overall athletic programs every year (we could probably presume Duke is, too). I think it's safe to say that these three schools don't pull in anywhere near the "football money" that their conference counterparts do; however, it's hard to say exactly to what extent football puts them in the red because universities don't have a standard accounting procedure for individual sport expenses. All we know - according to standardized accounting - is that these schools are subsidizing their athletic programs with student fees, non-athletic university funds, state money, etc.
UCONN raised $63M from donations in 2013, with $8M in fundraising expenses, for a net of $55M. If UCONN is truly losing $17.5M/year maintaining its football program (i.e. it is coming out-of-pocket $17.5M/year), is "football money" making up 32% of their net fundraising to make the investment of football worthwhile?
Even the B?G and ACC teams with their rich TV contracts are subsidizing their athletics programs, but I agree that $10M/year to be in the B?G or ACC is a much better investment then spending $15M being in the AAC.
It would seem to me that dropping football would save $17.5M/year for UCONN, not to mention, they would keep a greater portion of their tourney shares if they joined the Big East. And since the Big East
I don't buy the whole notion of the "BCS Breakaway" in the context people place it in... BCS schools are looking for greater autonomy, not independence, and somewhere along the way, someone spun this into "ZOMG, the BCS schools are going to form their own league and the basketball schools are going to be screwwwwwwed." Still, the question boils down to what exactly is a basketball-centric school like UCONN (and to a lesser extent, IU and Duke, for example) chasing by keeping their football program alive, and more importantly, why? I'd love to see actual numbers because frankly, none of what I have seen makes any sense at all.
Where I'm going with this is that if losing $10-20M/year is strictly about conference affiliation, why not get IU, UCONN and Duke to drop football and join the Big East? They save some money and help create a powerhouse basketball conference having a depth of success and tradition with which no one can compete. But of course, that would be too simple of a solution.
In America today "real," major, significant, universities have big time football programs. The ONLY exception to that are the Catholic universities of the Big East where basketball is an acceptable substitute (lucky us) and some high-end academic schools like U of Chicago.
If you drop your football program, you are announcing you're a second class school. That is exactly how UAB is being viewed today ... especially in Alabama.
No one will ever want to openly say they are a lesser school by dropping football. That is why UAB is the first FBS school since 1995 to make this move.
Better to lose tons of money and field a football team than admit you're a second class school.
-
Whatever the reason, I agree with this... which is assumed when I said that UW Football's rise in popularity was partially due to it being something of a proxy for the Packers. If UW had continued to suck throughout the 90s, it wouldn't have been seen as an alternative to Packer football. I don't think anyone can argue that there isn't demand for professional football in Wisconsin that exceeds the capacity of Lambeau; I'm simply saying that when that demand cannot be filled in Green Bay, people will look to Madison if UW can provide a competitive alternative.
Before the thread went off on a tangent, the point I was attempting to make was that UW's rise from the gutter to a level of popularity on par with the biggest names in the Big Ten is not a model that can be duplicated in Bloomington, Durham or Storrs simply by winning a couple conference championships or BCS bowl games; otherwise, why haven't IU, UCONN and Duke emulated UW by devoting the resources and making the changes necessary to get out of the cellar?
We know UCONN and IU - like most BCS universities - are losing money on their overall athletic programs every year (we could probably presume Duke is, too). I think it's safe to say that these three schools don't pull in anywhere near the "football money" that their conference counterparts do; however, it's hard to say exactly to what extent football puts them in the red because universities don't have a standard accounting procedure for individual sport expenses. All we know - according to standardized accounting - is that these schools are subsidizing their athletic programs with student fees, non-athletic university funds, state money, etc.
UCONN raised $63M from donations in 2013, with $8M in fundraising expenses, for a net of $55M. If UCONN is truly losing $17.5M/year maintaining its football program (i.e. it is coming out-of-pocket $17.5M/year), is "football money" making up 32% of their net fundraising to make the investment of football worthwhile?
Even the B?G and ACC teams with their rich TV contracts are subsidizing their athletics programs, but I agree that $10M/year to be in the B?G or ACC is a much better investment then spending $15M being in the AAC.
It would seem to me that dropping football would save $17.5M/year for UCONN, not to mention, they would keep a greater portion of their tourney shares if they joined the Big East. And since the Big East
I don't buy the whole notion of the "BCS Breakaway" in the context people place it in... BCS schools are looking for greater autonomy, not independence, and somewhere along the way, someone spun this into "ZOMG, the BCS schools are going to form their own league and the basketball schools are going to be screwwwwwwed." Still, the question boils down to what exactly is a basketball-centric school like UCONN (and to a lesser extent, IU and Duke, for example) chasing by keeping their football program alive, and more importantly, why? I'd love to see actual numbers because frankly, none of what I have seen makes any sense at all.
Where I'm going with this is that if losing $10-20M/year is strictly about conference affiliation, why not get IU, UCONN and Duke to drop football and join the Big East? They save some money and help create a powerhouse basketball conference having a depth of success and tradition with which no one can compete. But of course, that would be too simple of a solution.
I think you kind of answered your own question. With varying accounting standards and lousy government surveys that don't capture the true revenue and expenses of an athletic department, how can you actually draw any conclusions? Maybe if you combine all of the line items that are impacted by athletics and create a true P/L, athletics is a break even venture at a lot of schools. Plus, a lot of schools have booster clubs that control funds that aren't controlled by the universities. I think FSU boosters have about $150m fund, for example.
And really, look no further than private schools that play football. If BC can sponsor 30+ varsity sports, why do large public schools struggle to break even with far less programs? I've mentioned this before -- Im friends with some auditors that consult a few schools. They have told me it's impossible to get a true look at the AD numbers--it would require a lot of work and access they don't have.
-
Call me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that UConn, IU or Duke would lose $17.5M/yr in donations if they dropped football. At MSU, UW, any SEC school, sure... but not at an FBS school that lives and breathes basketball.
As someone else mentioned, conference membership would also be added to those losses. If Indiana dropped football and the $17.5 they lose (assuming that is the figure), they would also lose the what, $45 million they are projected to get when the conference signs a new media deal? The football program may operate at a loss, but that more than makes up for it. Same goes for losing SEC programs ($20.9M/year) and ACC ($17.1M/year) programs. Sure, you operate at a loss, but the combination of donations, media dollars, and other factors more than offset those lost costs.
-
As someone else mentioned, conference membership would also be added to those losses. If Indiana dropped football and the $17.5 they lose (assuming that is the figure), they would also lose the what, $45 million they are projected to get when the conference signs a new media deal? The football program may operate at a loss, but that more than makes up for it. Same goes for losing SEC programs ($20.9M/year) and ACC ($17.1M/year) programs. Sure, you operate at a loss, but the combination of donations, media dollars, and other factors more than offset those lost costs.
Assuming your figures are accurate, there is a pretty clear case for the Big Twelethirfourteen and SEC. The AAC is more of a wash.