UConn Thoughts on the BEast

[Tugg Speedman]

Breakdown of revenues and expenses for athletic programs

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Uconn is number 48 on the list

[forgetful]

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.

[Benny B]

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).

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Texas Western]

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.

[chapman]

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

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Texas Western]

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.

[Atticus]

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.

[bamamarquettefan]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Texas Western]

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.

[Texas Western]

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

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.

[tower912]

UAB is on the table. 

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[cj111]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Atticus]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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.