At what cost is it viable? WCBB article about Louisville

[DefenseBB]

I found this on MSN today.
Why Louisville women's basketball loses money despite a slew of wins

Interesting but still a bit disturbing at the money mentioned. I would love to see all its sports net (revenue vs. expenses) as I am sure many of the other non-revenue sports are not given 1/10 th of this money. While a huge WCBB fan, I find this money excessive across the board. How none of the supposed leaders can actually quantify spending this amount is also concerning.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I found this on MSN today.
Why Louisville women's basketball loses money despite a slew of wins

Interesting but still a bit disturbing at the money mentioned. I would love to see all its sports net (revenue vs. expenses) as I am sure many of the other non-revenue sports are not given 1/10 th of this money. While a huge WCBB fan, I find this money excessive across the board. How none of the supposed leaders can actually quantify spending this amount is also concerning.

Quantify they can----Justify, ????? However, give me 22 trillion and I can justify spending every penny (honestly??).

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I was preparing a legthy critical report and cost analysis, with videos and music, which would revolutionize income generating in WCBB and now you have scooped me!!! For shame @DefenseBB.

 

[oldude]

My only comment is that how a University accounts for revenues and costs will dictate just how profitable an individual sport is, and each University’s accounting process is a little different.

So if Louisville receives millions of dollars from KFC for arena naming rights or from a shoe company for all their teams to wear a particular clothing brand, how much of that revenue is allocated to WBB?

 

[Vowelguy]

Louisville economics have always been shady. The men’s boards had more detail on that. Specifically the boondoggle of the Yum Center.

 

[DefenseBB]

My only comment is that how a University accounts for revenues and costs will dictate just how profitable an individual sport is, and each University’s accounting process is a little different.

So if Louisville receives millions of dollars from KFC for arena naming rights or from a shoe company for all their teams to wear a particular clothing brand, how much of that revenue is allocated to WBB?

I am not sure I understand your point. In Louisville’s case, virtually all the Adidas money was going to Pitino, but let’s play it out: Top P5 School’s average $15-25 million per year. Most P5 schools have 20+ sports so yes, the accounting is a necessary evil, but even under the best of circumstances WCBB is not getting $3.9 million to offset their losses, even a $1 million allocation would be extreme.

At some point the schools and the NCAA needs to actually operate like a business and especially at the state schools like Connecticut. As much as I like watching the Huskies WCBB, I don’t want to subsidize their athletic department due to their stupidity and lack of fiscal responsibility.

One of the other points mentioned in the article was how many people actually viewed the Finals 3.6 million but yet no money is distributed to the Women’s teams vs. the Men’s teams. I assume this is driven by the larger TV contract and strong attendance in all rounds vs. the women whose attendance at the Regional sites is hit or miss, the ESPN contract is a mere pittance that both attendance/tv can’t cover all the schools travel, hotel and meals.

Thus, this is just another reminder that fans need to reel in their expectations of what WCBB is in the grand scheme of national consciousness and in money.

 

[oldude]

I am not sure I understand your point. In Louisville’s case, virtually all the Adidas money was going to Pitino, but let’s play it out: Top P5 School’s average $15-25 million per year. Most P5 schools have 20+ sports so yes, the accounting is a necessary evil, but even under the best of circumstances WCBB is not getting $3.9 million to offset their losses, even a $1 million allocation would be extreme.

At some point the schools and the NCAA needs to actually operate like a business and especially at the state schools like Connecticut. As much as I like watching the Huskies WCBB, I don’t want to subsidize their athletic department due to their stupidity and lack of fiscal responsibility.

One of the other points mentioned in the article was how many people actually viewed the Finals 3.6 million but yet no money is distributed to the Women’s teams vs. the Men’s teams. I assume this is driven by the larger TV contract and strong attendance in all rounds vs. the women whose attendance at the Regional sites is hit or miss, the ESPN contract is a mere pittance that both attendance/tv can’t cover all the schools travel, hotel and meals.

Thus, this is just another reminder that fans need to reel in their expectations of what WCBB is in the grand scheme of national consciousness and in money.

My point is that some schools view the revenue for a particular team based solely on direct ticket and and direct tv dollars for games.

There are other income streams that are sometimes allocated to the Athletic Department’s overall budget, but are not specifically allocated as revenue for individual teams. These revenue streams can include shoe money, arena naming rights, merchandise sales, alumni donations and even vending sales at games. I’m not exactly sure how Louisville accounts for these revenues, which makes it difficult to compare the profitability of Louisville WBB to another WBB program like UConn.

 

[wire chief]

Thanks for posting

 

[UcMiami]

Accounting for university athletic departments is a HUGE rat's nest. MD and Rutgers specifically jumped to the Big10 because their athletic programs had created tens of millions of dollars of debt in various boondoggles and CViv was the only high visibility coach at Rutgers that wasn't covered in controversy. (Yeah, I know there is another thread on her, but that is three players in over 15 years - most men's programs are lucky if they do not have issues with three players over a single year.)

Very few P5 schools with all their TV revenues break even and those that do one year often don't the next year.

I think it would be very hard to look at Uconn WCBB and say that the positive publicity generated year in and year out was not easily worth $5M for both the university and the state in general. I suspect the same is true for a number of the other major programs.

Bottom line, with the coaching, training, and facilities costs, it is very difficult for a WCBB team to break even with the small revenue stream, but the positive PR and 'good will' generated really makes at least some of them well worth it.

 

[brownale]

How many college sports have free admission and/or little or no attendance? These should be relegated to intramural status. Players and coaches that really love the sport can still participate, just not at an intercollegiate level.

 

[UcMiami]

How many college sports have free admission and/or little or no attendance? These should be relegated to intramural status. Players and coaches that really love the sport can still participate, just not at an intercollegiate level.

So ... you would relegate swimming, track and field, ice hockey, crew, etc. to intramural activities which would have a disastrous effect on the USA world and Olympic teams. College non-revenue sports are a vital part of the development of athletes for national teams.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

1 - Yes, college sports accounting is somewhat subjective and different from school to school - that said, the essentials of the article are certainly accurate.

2 - As someone said / sort of asked above, the "non-revenue" sports do not get anywhere near the funding put against WBB. Check out the salaries for the coaching staffs in those sports, at some point. Also the limitations on total scholarships imposed by the NCAA (these are not head count sports, like WBB, players do not necessarily get "full rides"). And check out travel by bus - much more common than in WBB.

3 - As has often been noted - very few athletic programs are making an over-all profit, never mind WBB.

 

[brownale]

1 - Yes, college sports accounting is somewhat subjective and different from school to school - that said, the essentials of the article are certainly accurate.

2 - As someone said / sort of asked above, the "non-revenue" sports do not get anywhere near the funding put against WBB. Check out the salaries for the coaching staffs in those sports, at some point. Also the limitations on total scholarships imposed by the NCAA (these are not head count sports, like WBB, players do not necessarily get "full rides"). And check out travel by bus - much more common than in WBB.

3 - As has often been noted - very few athletic programs are making an over-all profit, never mind WBB.

What happens if college football goes south due to concussions concerns or some other calamity?

 

[mbr33ct]

I was preparing a legthy critical report and cost analysis, with videos and music, which would revolutionize income generating in WCBB and now you have scooped me!!! For shame @DefenseBB.

View attachment 39846

What ever happened to Powerpoint Presentations?

 

[UcMiami]

What happens if college football goes south due to concussions concerns or some other calamity?

At some point perhaps one of these new leagues in football may well become the new minor league for the NFL - lots of kids on scholarship for college football should probably be playing 'semi-pro' and forgetting about classes. At some point that could change the nature of the college competition.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

At some point perhaps one of these new leagues in football may well become the new minor league for the NFL - lots of kids on scholarship for college football should probably be playing 'semi-pro' and forgetting about classes. At some point that could change the nature of the college competition.

Sadly, I suspect that is correct.

 

[brownale]

At some point perhaps one of these new leagues in football may well become the new minor league for the NFL - lots of kids on scholarship for college football should probably be playing 'semi-pro' and forgetting about classes. At some point that could change the nature of the college competition.

Uc is correct. Colleges will not want to assume the liability of long term sports injuries (mainly concussions in football). Football will continue only under a branch of the NFL, if at all. Other contact sports could also be affected. If this comes to pass, does anyone see a path for funding college sports.

 

[Bigboote]

From the article:

"While Louisville’s men’s basketball program reported media rights revenues of $3,384,597 last season, that revenue stream does not exist for the women’s program. Though the last two Women’s Final Fours have sold out, the NCAA makes no distribution to those schools or conferences that participate in the women’s tournament."

I'm not sure what "that revenue stream. . ." means. Does it mean that no (or few) WBB teams receive any TV revenue, or just that it's not $3 million? Also, I'm very surprised that there is no TV revenue for the teams from the NCAA playoffs. I'd be shocked if it weren't for the fact that it's the NCAA we're talking about.

 

[HuskyMJ]

Instead of paying a women's basketball coach $1,000,000 why can't they pay them $500,000 and use the extra $500,000 to increase salaries of other non revenue sports? There are head coaches of non revs who make like $100k. I get the disparity for football and men's basketball but I don't think women's basketball coach should be making 5x as much as say the softball coach.

 

[bennyskid]

The WBB coach is paid 5x what the softball coach is paid because the exposure WBB gets is (more than) 5x the exposure that softball coach gets. It's like saying, "I don't get why Rolex pays Wimbledon (more than) 5x what they pay the Serbia Open."

 

[HuskyMJ]

The WBB coach is paid 5x what the softball coach is paid because the exposure WBB gets is (more than) 5x the exposure that softball coach gets. It's like saying, "I don't get why Rolex pays Wimbledon (more than) 5x what they pay the Serbia Open."

Maybe it depends on the school but WBB is not the most popular non revenue sport at all schools. In some parts of the country softball and volleyball get a lot of attention and are on TV a lot.

 

[j66kicker]

I'm not sure what "that revenue stream. . ." means. Does it mean that no (or few) WBB teams receive any TV revenue, or just that it's not $3 million? Also, I'm very surprised that there is no TV revenue for the teams from the NCAA playoffs. I'd be shocked if it weren't for the fact that it's the NCAA we're talking about.

I'm pretty sure the women's NCAA tournament TV revenue just goes to partially offset the money the NCAA loses putting on the whole tournament - a pretty costly production, especially since they rent our arenas which don't sell out and pay for all team tournament travel. The rest of the women's losses have to be made up by the men's tournament revenues. I'm sure there is nothing left over to distribute back to the schools.

The men's NCAA tournament is way over 90% of the NCAA's total revenues (the NCAA gets no revenue from football - that goes directly to the conferences and schools).

 

[bballnut90]

Maybe it depends on the school but WBB is not the most popular non revenue sport at all schools. In some parts of the country softball and volleyball get a lot of attention and are on TV a lot.

This is correct.....women's basketball coaches are paid disproportionately more than other non-revenue sports. I'm guessing this is because it simply looks bad if men's coaches are all making over a million/year while women's coaches are making just a couple hundred thousand per year, especially if the women's coach is better than the men's. IIRC, UT always made sure Pat Summitt was the top paid coach at Tennessee out of respect even though men's basketball made more money for the school. I'm not sure if she paved the way for women's basketball coaches to be paid so much, but the end result is that the women's coaches are paid more at most schools than they deserve from an economic standpoint.

Here are 2 examples of where women's basketball coaches are making more than coaches of non-revenue sports when in reality, they shouldn't be:

Wisconsin-Jonathan Tsipis makes about double what volleyball coach Kelly Sheffield makes. Wisconsin hasn't had a winning season under Tsipis and averaged 3700 fans per game last year. Wisconsin volleyball is a consistent top 10 team that has made 7 straight Sweet 16s under Sheffield and sells out every match (over 7000/game in a facility that's much cheaper to operate).

Nebraska-John Cook (legendary volleyball coach who has won 4 titles and led Nebraska to 4 straight Final Fours) is making $675k/year for Nebraska. Volleyball has sold out every match for the past 18 years at over 8000 fans per game. The women's basketball coach, Amy Williams, is in her 2nd year and makes $627k/year. Women's basketball draws about half of what volleyball does and runs at a much greater profit loss.