Big East TV Deal with FOX, TNT, and NBC | Page 7 | The Boneyard

Big East TV Deal with FOX, TNT, and NBC

I don't think the tournament you have in mind makes that money. People would not have the same level of interest, especially as the Big 2 conferences would demand that 3/4 of each conference made the tournament. And it would be right after their conference tournaments?

You can see how unappealing this all is.
I agree with this. It would be the end of post season basketball at least as far as anyone caring about it. But that isn’t the same thing as whether they could do it or whether it would be more prestigious than the remaining NCAA member tournament. Of course the P4 could do it. And it would, rightly I think, be viewed as the “real” national championship. If the P4 decided to run their own basketball tournament, away from the NCAA, the NEWBIE would offer to clean the locker rooms if necessary to be allowed in. And the situation here is why although there are more non-P4 schools in the NCAA, they have zero leverage to stop the P4 from having there way. I mean now they want to reduce the number of bids to mid-majors. Even talk about eliminating auto bids for league champs. After all if the NEC doesn’t get a bid maybe Purdue would have lost to us twice! And wouldn’t you rather watch a 9-11 Rutgers play a 7-13 Iowa State anyway?
 
I think the $53M you mentioned is the subsidy amount the school gets.
The overall subsidy, with student fees taken into account, was $53 million in 2022 and $35.8 in 2023.
Whether it’s $50 million or $30 million, such subsidies are always going to be met with skepticism by factions of the tax-paying public. UConn athletics has, though, generated more money in recent years, capitalizing most recently on the success of the men’s basketball program, which generated $10.6 million in 2023.
Per the article, Football operated at a $14 million deficit in 2023. That’s all I had said.
I dont think anyone outside of UCONN itself really knows what the true financial picture of UCONN sports is. Yes UCONN pays an exorbitant amount to use the XL center, but it really is like an inter company expense. That amount goes from UCONN to the state of Ct that also happens to own UCONN.
I have no idea what these numbers use for the cost of athletic scholarships. Is it the advertised cost of tuition, room and board or is it the average tuition rate actually paid by students which is more like 60% of the advertised rate across all schools?
it is widely believe that athletic success [like national championships] translates into increased applications. Colleges across the Northeast are experience a decline in applications while UCONN is experiencing a significant increase. How does this translate into the numbers used in these analyses?
 
We are in a power conference

High School Reaction GIF
 
I think the $53M you mentioned is the subsidy amount the school gets.
The overall subsidy, with student fees taken into account, was $53 million in 2022 and $35.8 in 2023.
Whether it’s $50 million or $30 million, such subsidies are always going to be met with skepticism by factions of the tax-paying public. UConn athletics has, though, generated more money in recent years, capitalizing most recently on the success of the men’s basketball program, which generated $10.6 million in 2023.
Per the article, Football operated at a $14 million deficit in 2023. That’s all I had said.
I found the same article. I'd rather see the actual financials because the way they parse the numbers isn't particularly useful. For the time being let's use the $30 million institutional support number as a proxy for athletic department losses even if you were to eliminate the $14 million football deficit, that would be a $16 million remaining loss.

So no, if we eliminated football the athletic department would not be running at breakeven and certainly not at a surplus.

Solvency is a measure of assets versus liabilities which isn't particularly relevant to your hypothetical.

I think it's important to address the mythology that somehow football is putting the athletic department into the red. It's not.
 
.-.
I dont think anyone outside of UCONN itself really knows what the true financial picture of UCONN sports is. Yes UCONN pays an exorbitant amount to use the XL center, but it really is like an inter company expense. That amount goes from UCONN to the state of Ct that also happens to own UCONN.
The state of Connecticut pays the university of Connecticut, which then pays the CDRA, which still turns a deficit, which the state ends up paying.

Given that, why have the university pay anything? If it's all a Shell game why take CDRA losses off of their balance sheet and put them on the UConn athletic department? From the outside that makes it look like our athletic department is 1) inefficiently run and 2) not a stable partner for a potential addition to a power conference.

Instead, have UConn play there for ant no direct cost and share in both parking and concession revenues. This will result in the athletic departments profit and loss statement more accurately reflecting their profitability. The state can continue to subsidize the CDRA, but would write one check instead to them for the full amount instead taking a portion of the CDRA loss and subsidizing it through the university. We will continue to support the Hartford economy by playing games there, we will be better positioned for real alignment, the state can continue to support the patronage jobs of being a board member on the CDRA, in the massive losses they pile up and they will be more transparent to the public. Everybody wins.
 
I found the same article. I'd rather see the actual financials because the way they parse the numbers isn't particularly useful. For the time being let's use the $30 million institutional support number as a proxy for athletic department losses even if you were to eliminate the $14 million football deficit, that would be a $16 million remaining loss.

So no, if we eliminated football the athletic department would not be running at breakeven and certainly not at a surplus.

Solvency is a measure of assets versus liabilities which isn't particularly relevant to your hypothetical.

I think it's important to address the mythology that somehow football is putting the athletic department into the red. It's not.
It generates no revenue so yes if it did, we would get closer to a balanced budget. But to say it doesn’t contribute to the deficit is wrong.
 
I found the same article. I'd rather see the actual financials because the way they parse the numbers isn't particularly useful. For the time being let's use the $30 million institutional support number as a proxy for athletic department losses even if you were to eliminate the $14 million football deficit, that would be a $16 million remaining loss.

So no, if we eliminated football the athletic department would not be running at breakeven and certainly not at a surplus.

Solvency is a measure of assets versus liabilities which isn't particularly relevant to your hypothetical.

I think it's important to address the mythology that somehow football is putting the athletic department into the red. It's not.
MBB is helping put UConn in the red too. They lost 4 million in FY2023
 
.-.
One of the first things you learn as a financial analyst is that financial statements don't tell the real story. You have to look closely at allocated expenses and in many cases restate them and reallocate them. I once worked for a business that applied a flat overhead rate to product lines which made a small product line look unprofitable so they sold the product line. Then they figured out there really was very little overhead actually used by the product line and it was actually very profitable. They changed their cost accounting after that and made a better effort to determine actual overhead costs per product line.

UConn's athletic accounting has many bad assumptions although I think they have been making adjustments. Think about this. If you recruit an athlete from CT, UConn says the scholarship cost is x. If the student is from out of state, the scholarship cost is 2x (+/-). Does that really make sense? Things like student intramurals, etc fall under the athletic budget. There are many other examples I could site, but we have gone through this many times before. The biggest revenue opportunity for UConn is from football and that requires turning around performance. And, ultimately, an invite to the P4 and higher revenues will come from having respectable football.
 
UConn basketball brings the University and state enormous amounts of cash.
That's great. The basketball teams contributed 10MM to the AD budget deficit in FY2023. WBB recruiting had the same recruiting expenses as the football team.
 
.-.
One of the first things you learn as a financial analyst is that financial statements don't tell the real story. You have to look closely at allocated expenses and in many cases restate them and reallocate them. I once worked for a business that applied a flat overhead rate to product lines which made a small product line look unprofitable so they sold the product line. Then they figured out there really was very little overhead actually used by the product line and it was actually very profitable. They changed their cost accounting after that and made a better effort to determine actual overhead costs per product line.

UConn's athletic accounting has many bad assumptions although I think they have been making adjustments. Think about this. If you recruit an athlete from CT, UConn says the scholarship cost is x. If the student is from out of state, the scholarship cost is 2x (+/-). Does that really make sense? Things like student intramurals, etc fall under the athletic budget. There are many other examples I could site, but we have gone through this many times before. The biggest revenue opportunity for UConn is from football and that requires turning around performance. And, ultimately, an invite to the P4 and higher revenues will come from having respectable football.
Sincere thanks for your post. But I have been waiting 60 years for this university to have a respectable football program. I’m still waiting. Yes, entry into a P4 would solve many financial problems but even with 2 elite basketball programs we will never get a whiff of a P4 due to the football. Someone needs to tell me how that’s going to happen.
 
It generates no revenue so yes if it did, we would get closer to a balanced budget. But to say it doesn’t contribute to the deficit is wrong.
Yes, that would be wrong, but that's not what you said, right?

What you said was we have two choices to achieve solvency, either drop football or join the P4.

My reply was to say a you're not really talking about solvency and B if you're talking about breakeven or profitability the athletic department operates at a loss with or without football.

The Boneyard is a bad place to try moving the goal posts.

IMG_3005.jpeg

It's OK, you got confused about solvency, and you really didn't have a good handle on the athletic departments finances. It's all good.
 
MBB is helping put UConn in the red too. They lost 4 million in FY2023
And yet the same posters who talk about shutting down football never talk about shutting down men's basketball. I mean if profitability is the criteria, then I guess they should be making the argument for both sports.

Golly, now that I think about it, the entire university doesn't turn a profit without state subsidy. I guess we should shutter the place.
 
Yes, that would be wrong, but that's not what you said, right?

UConn Football generates millions in revenue annually - it just doesn’t currently generate enough revenue to cover expenses. There is a difference.

Win and they will come…
Much better phased than what I posted. Simply put, it’s not self sustaining.
 
.-.
Yes, entry into a P4 would solve many financial problems but even with 2 elite basketball programs we will never get a whiff of a P4 due to the football. Someone needs to tell me how that’s going to happen.
Suggest you read the Conference Realignment board.
 
One of the first things you learn as a financial analyst is that financial statements don't tell the real story. You have to look closely at allocated expenses and in many cases restate them and reallocate them. I once worked for a business that applied a flat overhead rate to product lines which made a small product line look unprofitable so they sold the product line. Then they figured out there really was very little overhead actually used by the product line and it was actually very profitable. They changed their cost accounting after that and made a better effort to determine actual overhead costs per product line.

UConn's athletic accounting has many bad assumptions although I think they have been making adjustments. Think about this. If you recruit an athlete from CT, UConn says the scholarship cost is x. If the student is from out of state, the scholarship cost is 2x (+/-). Does that really make sense? Things like student intramurals, etc fall under the athletic budget. There are many other examples I could site, but we have gone through this many times before. The biggest revenue opportunity for UConn is from football and that requires turning around performance. And, ultimately, an invite to the P4 and higher revenues will come from having respectable football.
You have athletics budget accounting totally reversed.

The goal is to hide the amounts sunk into athletics from the parents of non-athlete students. Many people have thought the idea was to hide athletic costs.

As for your question about the recruited athlete from Connecticut versus elsewhere being accounted for differently, the answer to your question is YES it does make sense, since the expenditure for both students are closer to the tuition cost for the out of stater. The in-stater is supposedly subsidized, but as subsidies drop, the perverse incentive is created for schools to admit out of staters more easily into the school than vice versa.

It used to be that the goal of each department was to nurture as many students as possible into majors so that the department would be rewarded. Those days are long past at many schools since in-state students are considered losses to the bottom line. And they are.

Here are some of the major things hidden by the schools so others can't understand the costs associated:

1. Debt on stadium and facilities building. For instance, U. Michigan has bonded over $450m in the last decade on the stadium and arenas. The debt is held and accounted for by the university, not the AD. Penn State is considering $750m bond deal for stadium improvements right now.

2. Branding. All royalties are considered athletics income. I know athletics drive branding, but even at schools with no big time athletics, kids are going to buy hoodies with, for instance, NYU on the front.

3. Donations. It's been proven that many people that donate to universities do not realize that their donations are earmarked for athletics. For instance, they surveyed people who gave large $$ at a social event at the Longhorn Club at U. Texas. Most of the donors were unaware they were giving money to sports and not U. Texas.

If you really want to compare the cost of football, it would be interesting to see how much, say, Villanova spends on sports versus UConn. I know UConn has a lot more sports and spends a lot more for that reason, but I've seen athletic budgets at mid-majors skyrocket once football was added. Schools went from losing $10m to losing $35m overnight.

The colleges really are doing their best to hide these costs from parents, who seem largely unaware they are subsidizing sports each year with considerable amounts of money. Worse, if you're heavy on student loans, the student will end up paying for sports for the next 20 yrs.

The national media never discusses budgets when they make arguments for student athletes getting paid. If they did, there would be a national outcry. I have to think that someone is going to break this story now that athletes are getting paid a huge amount of money while students are subsidizing the AD at so many P4 schools. Especially with the price of tuition these days. This is a story that's just sitting on the T waiting for a little league reporter to knock it through the infield.
 
Sincere thanks for your post. But I have been waiting 60 years for this university to have a respectable football program. I’m still waiting. Yes, entry into a P4 would solve many financial problems but even with 2 elite basketball programs we will never get a whiff of a P4 due to the football. Someone needs to tell me how that’s going to happen.
Win
 
And yet the same posters who talk about shutting down football never talk about shutting down men's basketball. I mean if profitability is the criteria, then I guess they should be making the argument for both sports.

Golly, now that I think about it, the entire university doesn't turn a profit without state subsidy. I guess we should shutter the place.
Even D3 schools lose money on sports, the Ivy leagues lose money.

So, to answer this question, there is a difference between losing a LOT of money and losing some money.
 
UConn is in a really tough spot here.

The state has cut funding and it has forced academic departments to downsize. This will have an adverse impact on education there.

The AD is not being asked to cut at the same time that the AD deficit is several times larger than the deficit at any of the schools inside the university...? Well this is a problem. And this problem will only get worse, in terms of optics, when it's understood that the school is now paying athletes huge amounts of money.

The best thing for UConn basketball was the outside NIL structure, because no one could complain.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,181
Messages
4,555,950
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom