I've read per game PROFIT (not revenue) anywhere from $2m to $8m, depending upon the opponent. But that isn't even that clear since the Big Ten shares ticket revenue.
I think Michigan's decision was first and foremost a business one- would they make more money if they scheduled a home game at the cost of $3 million (or maybe just $2 million if they didn't get a payday opponent, which given the timing would be unlikely).
Maybe I'm wrong and that Manuel's michigan connections combined with michigan's altruism combined to keep the game. Or other factors came into play as well- a chance for michigan to get northeast/new england exposure, a trial run for the big ten in new england.
Since the coverage of football is so bad by local journalists, I doubt we'll ever see a story like "How UConn kept the michigan game" which just leaves us to our speculation. Which is too bad, because if manuel was instrumental in keeping the game, that would be something for us to feel good about. It's not like we've had a bunch of great things happen on the football side lately, so you'd think positive stories would be of interest. Instead, we read into michigan's decision what we want to see- manuel was decisive or he was a potted plant.
Bottom line, keeping the michigan game, no matter the why, is great for the program. I just hope uconn hypes the heck out of it in the next two months.
that's one side of the equation. how much does michigan make for having 100K fans at a game. I'm guessing more than $3M.