Revenues generated by D1 teams

[tower912]

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2011/10/14/louisville-kentucky-among-top.html

If I read this correctly, MU generated the most revenue of any basketball-only school.   (Though it could be argued that Duke and IU are almost basketball-only)    
I wish there was a breakdown on how the revenue was generated.    What % is BEast/ESPN money, what % is ticket sales, tourney payouts, etc.?
       Going to page 2, it appears that G-town, X and Dayton all generate roughly equal amounts of revenue.  It appears they are the next 3 highest basketball only schools.    When the dust settles, I am relatively confident we will end up playing X and UD twice a year. 

[ErickJD08]

I hate to beat a dead horse here but I didn't know these numbers.  I am really not sure why we don't have a football program.  Are we the number one basketball only revenue school because we are awesome?  Or is it because we are the only show in town?  I am just not sure how our basketball program couldn't prop up a football program for the first few years it gets off the ground.  And have a football program can (or at least could have) helped us with this realignment crap.

[foreverwarriors]

  I am just not sure how our basketball program couldn't prop up a football program for the first few years it gets off the ground.  And have a football program can (or at least could have) helped us with this realignment crap.

And then what props up the rest of the athletic teams?

[tower912]

And to beat the dead horse with an answer, it will take 9 figures, possibly starting with a 2, not 8 figures, starting with a 13, to even start the conversation. 

[brewcity77]

It's not the startup money for football that's the problem. What about the other 100 Title IX scholarships. Then where do you put a stadium? The nearest unused real estate to campus is the Park East freeway. There are just too many other problems even if you do have the startup money.

[tower912]

More interesting is Xavier and Dayton.   Two A-10, Catholic universities that manage to be in the top 30 of revenue generated.   This gives me reason to believe that after the shakeout is over and we are  (more than likely) in a basketball only conference, we will still be OK.    These are two schools (along with G-town, ranked just ahead of both) that we want to be involved with.  

[LON]

I hate to beat a dead horse here but I didn't know these numbers.  I am really not sure why we don't have a football program.  Are we the number one basketball only revenue school because we are awesome?  Or is it because we are the only show in town?  I am just not sure how our basketball program couldn't prop up a football program for the first few years it gets off the ground.  And have a football program can (or at least could have) helped us with this realignment crap.

But you're going to do it anyway?

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

It's not the startup money for football that's the problem. What about the other 100 Title IX scholarships. Then where do you put a stadium? The nearest unused real estate to campus is the Park East freeway. There are just too many other problems even if you do have the startup money.

Precisely. Somebody should ask Peter Wilt how easy it is to get a stadium built on that site.

[ErickJD08]

And to beat the dead horse with an answer, it will take 9 figures, possibly starting with a 2, not 8 figures, starting with a 13, to even start the conversation. 

If that is the case, then I understand.  I don't believe MU would have to front the whole thing but oh well.

[tower912]

The real estate purchasing, stadium and practice facility construction costs alone land in that area.   Here is an example:      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCF_Bank_Stadium      
There is no point to building a stadium on farmland 40 minutes from campus, so we would be talking about urban real estate.    
   Now this assumes we start as a D1 football school.   Remember, there cannot be more than one division separating sports, so we would have to start at 1-AA level.    Check out the construction costs for an 18K seat high school stadium in Texas.    And they don't have the land issues we would, as the district as owned the property since 1995.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texas-60-million-high-school-football-stadium/

It's not like we are going to be able to snag public funding, either.  IMO, the only way to get past some of these hurdles is to build a time machine, go back 50 years, and convince the 1961 powers that be that football is in their best interest.  

[ErickJD08]

The real estate purchasing, stadium and practice facility construction costs alone land in that area.   Here is an example:      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCF_Bank_Stadium      
There is no point to building a stadium on farmland 40 minutes from campus, so we would be talking about urban real estate.    
   Now this assumes we start as a D1 football school.   Remember, there cannot be more than one division separating sports, so we would have to start at 1-AA level.    Check out the construction costs for an 18K seat high school stadium in Texas.    And they don't have the land issues we would, as the district as owned the property since 1995.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texas-60-million-high-school-football-stadium/

It's not like we are going to be able to snag public funding, either.  IMO, the only way to get past some of these hurdles is to build a time machine, go back 50 years, and convince the 1961 powers that be that football is in their best interest.  

Don't think I am arguing with you about this.  I just think we could (not now obviously) get funding from the city and other entities for this sort of thing.  With all the talk about wanting a team, I would like that if MU even investigated the opportunity further than a Google search, someone would be writing about it.  And I haven't heard anything of the such.  I am forced to think that Marquette hasn't taken a serious look at starting a program. 

Again, OH WELL.  I think a time machine to 2003 would have been far enough back to get financing from private and public entities. 

[bricklayer]

Don't think I am arguing with you about this.  I just think we could (not now obviously) get funding from the city and other entities for this sort of thing.  With all the talk about wanting a team, I would like that if MU even investigated the opportunity further than a Google search, someone would be writing about it.  And I haven't heard anything of the such.  I am forced to think that Marquette hasn't taken a serious look at starting a program. 

Again, OH WELL.  I think a time machine to 2003 would have been far enough back to get financing from private and public entities. 

That would be after we kill Hitler in late 1920's, right?  I mean, if we're serious about this we've got to do this right.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

  Again, OH WELL.  I think a time machine to 2003 would have been far enough back to get financing from private and public entities. 

Nope. For all of the reasons previously stated, nope.

[GGGG]

http://www.anonymouseagle.com/2011/9/20/2437616/marquette-football-undefeated-since-1960-and-staying-that-way

This pretty much sums up why this will never happen.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

As a point of reference, UConn got the land to build the stadium for free thanks to a land donation from Pratt & Whitney.  It was their old unused airfield 5-10 minutes from Downtown Hartford.  It knocked the cost the state had to kick in to build the stadium down immensely.

[Clam Crowder]

If we had football we would be worse off with conference realignment. DUKE and INDIANA are NOT basketball only, and I don't understand why anyone would attempt to make that argument. Just because their football sucks does not mean that they don't take in the costs that occur because the program exists. Of Basketball ONLY schools we have the highest revenue, and that is because we are probably one of the best programs out there without football, plain and simple. It doesn't seem very hard to believe to me. We are not going to have football at Marquette...the scholarships, the cost of construction, and the cost of adding a whole new program is not going to be worth it when the conferences are finally done realigning. For all of you who want it, keep dreaming.

[tower912]

jhags, the point of my OP was to point out we were the highest among basketball-only schools, something to proud of and remember as we go forward.   I did a poor job of fleshing that out.   

[Clam Crowder]

I wasn't indicating anything wrong with what you wrote lol it was where the post was heading that was foolish. Football is not going to happen here

[tower912]

We agree.

[Brewtown Andy]

http://www.anonymouseagle.com/2011/9/20/2437616/marquette-football-undefeated-since-1960-and-staying-that-way

This pretty much sums up why this will never happen.

[avid1010]

If that is the case, then I understand.  I don't believe MU would have to front the whole thing but oh well.

I think we could have stadium, all the money to support the program, etc... and it still wouldn't help.  You don't just start a football team and become BCS eligble.  Look at how well Nova's program has done, and where they are...

[muhs03]

If we had football we would be worse off with conference realignment. DUKE and INDIANA are NOT basketball only, and I don't understand why anyone would attempt to make that argument. Just because their football sucks does not mean that they don't take in the costs that occur because the program exists. Of Basketball ONLY schools we have the highest revenue, and that is because we are probably one of the best programs out there without football, plain and simple. It doesn't seem very hard to believe to me. We are not going to have football at Marquette...the scholarships, the cost of construction, and the cost of adding a whole new program is not going to be worth it when the conferences are finally done realigning. For all of you who want it, keep dreaming.

+1 Preach it.
Nevermind some of the fans here that love to rip on UW football when they get upset or have a bad year. I dont wonder if those same people would support MU football during the tough times (which would easily outnumber the good times). For me, personally, I would never support MU football. I love UW games...the road trip, the atmosphere, the student section, the HUGE state-wide following...etc. MU football would always operate under a VERY large shadow in the state and would ooze small-time, just like Nova (in relation to Penn State). I wouldnt donate so much as a single penny towards a fball program.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2011/10/14/louisville-kentucky-among-top.html

If I read this correctly, MU generated the most revenue of any basketball-only school.   (Though it could be argued that Duke and IU are almost basketball-only)    

You could argue that IU is olympic sports only.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Only UK ($198,147) and Texas ($148,783) spend more per player than Marquette ($143, 792). Now you could argue that MU should have more elite results, but 6 straight years of NCAA money with a 7th likely seems to show the ROI is worth it. More-so:

• Dick Strong purportedly pays Buzz's salary and provides the use of chartered plane for recruiting
• MU has higher recruiting expense as it needs to draw nationally as the nearby pool is less.  Yet, MU has to be a prime hoops palace for the student-athletes.
• Football doesn't siphon off excess hoops profits.  Talk about unjust, but Louisville hoops brings in $26mm but they only spend $9.1m or only $93,417 per hoops player.  So, 65% of revenues go elsewhere.  Why is football driving the bus on conference realignment?
• Buzz's salary is higher than the vast majority of Division 1 schools' total basketball revenues.  
• I4 spends $91,374 per player, granted the home recruiting pool is fertile, and the new practice facility is now open. Yet, how is this an elite job if the spending is not commensurate?

[GGGG]

• I4 spends $91,374 per player, granted the home recruiting pool is fertile, and the new practice facility is now open. Yet, how is this an elite job if the spending is not commensurate?

My first thought was that in-state recruits lower tuition costs...assuming that the cost of the grant-in-aid is included.

But seeing schools like Kansas are only marginally more expensive, my guess is that it is an apples to organges thing.  For instance, MU has to rent the Bradley Center for home games.  I4 has its own areana.  But that doesn't address UK.

Hard to tell.