Big East TV Deal with FOX, TNT, and NBC | Page 8 | The Boneyard

Big East TV Deal with FOX, TNT, and NBC

nelsonmuntz said:
It appears the answer to this is "no". Every thread on the Boneyard about the Big East or UConn finances has to turn Apocalyptic.
Expand ...
Rightly so, though. We're still adrift. I think it will go away if we get pulled in to the lifeboat.
 
Waquoit said:
Rightly so, though. We're still adrift. I think it will go away if we get pulled in to the lifeboat.
Expand ...

Wait, UConn has a revenue problem? Really? When did this happen?

Fun fact: EVERY REGULAR POSTER ON THIS BOARD GETS THAT UCONN HAS A REVENUE PROBLEM. Some of us just choose not to rain misery on every thread.
 
.-.
jostar1 said:
What is your point?
Expand ...
We love our women’s team
almost as much as we love our men’s . However from zn objective business
prospective. Just pretend they‘re three different productd you produce.
X is a great product but in a market that’s limited
Y another great product with a larger market but also limited
Z is in the huge market however the quality of our product has restricted our potential market share
if I were a consulting firm hired by a company concerned with ROI , increasing the quality of Z would be a top priority.

X. Men’s basketball
Y. Women’s basketball
Z Footbzll
 
AZHuskiePop said:
We love our women’s team
almost as much as we love our men’s . However from zn objective business
prospective. Just pretend they‘re three different productd you produce.
X is a great product but in a market that’s limited
Y another great product with a larger market but also limited
Z is in the huge market however the quality of our product has restricted our potential market share
if I were a consulting firm hired by a company concerned with ROI , increasing the quality of Z would be a top priority.

X. Men’s basketball
Y. Women’s basketball
Z Footbzll
Expand ...

People continue to confuse revenue and profit.

X and Y have very low overhead and manageable costs (even post-House), and are general profitable when done at a high level.

Z has a huge overhead cost that just got a lot worse with the House Settlement. Many major conference programs were already losing money on Z before their costs went up $20 million/season with House.
 
upstater said:
"What do the numbers say? According to the National Science Foundation, per student state support for higher education in Connecticut — when adjusted for inflation —decreased from $16,075 in 2001 to $12,344 by 2021. That is a decline of 23 percent."
Expand ...
That doesn't mean the state cut funding.
 
upstater said:
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.
Expand ...
What's the cut off line in your view? Because if it's millions of dollars then we ought to terminate both men and women's basketball in addition to football.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Wait, UConn has a revenue problem? Really? When did this happen?

Fun fact: EVERY REGULAR POSTER ON THIS BOARD GETS THAT UCONN HAS A REVENUE PROBLEM. Some of us just choose not to rain misery on every thread.
Expand ...
I answered the question you asked. If you don't like the answer, go yell at someone else.
 
So we should jeopardize our basketball team’s success by having our teams travel all over the country.. have to recruit players for a southern conference while we are a north east school.. and to top it off..play our conference championship in Kansas… for what?.. more money.. we might have the greatest men’s basketball team in the history of college basketball now.. why take the chance and throw it a way
 
.-.
upstater said:
From where it was. Yes.

ctexaminer.com

UConn Put Onus on Academics as $70M Shortfall Leaves No Easy Answers

Haven’t subscribed yet? Click here to subscribe. CT Examiner is just $20 a year. A one-month trial subscription is just $5. And if you want to unsubscribe? That’s online and […]
ctexaminer.com ctexaminer.com
Expand ...
I thought the "cut" was merely not maintaining the subsidies that the state provided during Covid? Terminating subsidies which were designed to support the university during the pandemic isn't a cut.

Full disclosure though, I didn't click on the link I'm just working from memory, but I will later.
 
Luna said:
So we should jeopardize our basketball team’s success by having our teams travel all over the country.. have to recruit players for a southern conference while we are a north east school.. and to top it off..play our conference championship in Kansas… for what?.. more money.. we might have the greatest men’s basketball team in the history of college basketball now.. why take the chance and throw it a way
Expand ...

Because businesses that lose money are unsustainable.

What is very clear is that the numbers coming from the university are NOT reliable. They are a choice the university has made. They in no way reflect the actual value of athletics in general, or athletics at a national championship level in particular, represent to the university.
 
CL82 said:
I thought the "cut" was merely not maintaining the subsidies that the state provided during Covid? Terminating subsidies which were designed to support the university during the pandemic isn't a cut.

Full disclosure though, I didn't click on the link I'm just working from memory, but I will later.
Expand ...
It's both. The state is both cutting funding and there is no more Covid relief.
 
CL82 said:
What's the cut off line in your view? Because if it's millions of dollars then we ought to terminate both men and women's basketball in addition to football.
Expand ...
Let's not talk about UConn, because when your university is cutting $70m in academic courses & departments, you should be looking at everything.

$10-$15m is what I imagine Ivy Leagues lose on sports. So, that's what you should be shooting for.

If the state wants to explicitly fund a $40m loss, then you can and should maintain all your sports, but this is hard to do when you're in huge cutting mode for the academic side.
 
upstater said:
$10-$15m is what I imagine Ivy Leagues lose on sports. So, that's what you should be shooting for.
Expand ...
Why? We lack their massive endowments and they lack our state subsidy. Seems like an apple to oranges comparison.
 
.-.
upstater said:
It's both. The state is both cutting funding and there is no more Covid relief.
Expand ...
OK so let's agree that not continuing to provide pandemic relief after the end of a pandemic isn't a cut.

Regarding the remainder, are you saying that it is it not least level with pre-pandemic funding?
 
CL82 said:
Why? We lack their massive endowments and they lack our state subsidy. Seems like an apple to oranges comparison.
Expand ...
I think we're losing the plot of the conversation here.

I was asked how much of a loss is reasonable. I only mentioned the Ivies because I knew what they lose.

You could cite the losses at any number of colleges of all stripes, endowments or not, and argue whether they are sustainable. The point is that the will to cut massive losses DOES NOT mean someone is advocating for the elimination of all losses.
 
CL82 said:
OK so let's agree that not continuing to provide pandemic relief after the end of a pandemic isn't a cut.

Regarding the remainder, are you saying that it is it not least level with pre-pandemic funding?
Expand ...
Yes, it is not.

They are well below where they should be.

In 2010, UConn received 235.5m from the state.

The proposal for 2025 was 219.6m from the state.

UConn had requested 300m.

If the state subsidy had kept increasing at the rate of inflation from 2010, it would have been at 325m.

This is why the school is reporting a 70m deficit from what they had planned. I'm assuming 10m of that shortfall was made up for in other ways (i.e. 300m - 220m from the state = 80m deficit, and the school announced plans to cut departments to make up a 70m shortfall).

I did not know that the state legislature approved a bill for a huge increase in funding last month. I didn't see that reported here. Just found it when I did a search.

ctmirror.org

Opinion: UConn budget cuts would hinder school, and CT, success

It is impossible for UConn to be a world-renowned university if it is forced to bear devastating budget reductions.
ctmirror.org ctmirror.org
 
upstater said:
I think we're losing the plot of the conversation here.

I was asked how much of a loss is reasonable. I only mentioned the Ivies because I knew what they lose.

You could cite the losses at any number of colleges of all stripes, endowments or not, and argue whether they are sustainable. The point is that the will to cut massive losses DOES NOT mean someone is advocating for the elimination of all losses.
Expand ...
I think we did lose the plot of the conversation.

After a poster suggested that we should cut football to "achieve solvency" I pointed out that men's in women's basketball lose money as well. You then posted to say there is a difference between a sport losing a little money and a lot of money and I asked Where is the point of between acceptable and unacceptable losses in your view.

Your reply was "$10-$15m is what I imagine Ivy Leagues lose on sports. So, that's what you should be shooting for." And I asked why should the Ivy League be the standard for us given that there are dramatic institutions between the endowment and sources of fund things for each institution.

So yeah we did get off-topic because the ivy league doesn't seem particularly relevant and you moved from a per sport analysis, I think, two an athletic department as a whole figure.

Again, if the notion is we can only support things that make a profit, then universities shouldn't offer athletics at all. Similarly states shouldn't subsidize universities at all because they're not making a profit on their own. That doesn't make sense, does it? That's usually a good indication of a red herring argument.
 
There are plenty of ways for schools to cut costs, they just don’t have the political will to do it, yet. Schools have not changed their business models in decades. It is time. I would start merging schools across state lines, because there could be massive administrative savings from doing so.
 
.-.
upstater said:
It's both. The state is both cutting funding and there is no more Covid relief.
Expand ...
If I remember correctly, state funding is up, but the COVID funding is going away. The COVID funding was not supposed to be used to increase spending on new positions, but to maintain spending or for one time things. Many town school districts took their COVID funding and increased spending and now they are "cutting" positions that were funded with the one time COVID boost. It is incredible when people were told the COVID spending was one time, but they increased permanent spending without thinking it through.
 
CL82 said:
Do you have a link to those figures?

The total net loss for the athletic department was well in excess of the $13 million you tribute to Football. I know for the 2022 budget the total deficit was approximately $53 million.
Expand ...
$13.8 million of which was money to Ollie. The deficit was $35 million this past year.
 
upstater said:
This is why the school is reporting a 70m deficit from what they had planned.
Expand ...
I mean, I guess you can have a deficit from your budgetary goals, but that's traditionally not how that term is used. Traditionally a deficit is an operational shortfall.


upstater said:
In 2010, UConn received 235.5m from the state.

The proposal for 2025 was 219.6m from the state
Expand ...
I have to wonder why the author of the opinion piece randomly chose to compare 2010 to 2025. Was the 2010 block grant increase to cover specific needs? I don't know how useful those two data points are without seeing what the funding is every year and making comparisons. To data points randomly 15 years apart just seems to ripe for manipulation.
 
superjohn said:
$13.8 million of which was money to Ollie. The deficit was $35 million this past year.
Expand ...
Yep, and I feel like it was in the mid-40s prior to the Ollie payoff. So an improvement is definitely happening, whether or not it is enough, is a different question.
 
CL82 said:
I think we did lose the plot of the conversation.

After a poster suggested that we should cut football to "achieve solvency" I pointed out that men's in women's basketball lose money as well. You then posted to say there is a difference between a sport losing a little money and a lot of money and I asked Where is the point of between acceptable and unacceptable losses in your view.

Your reply was "$10-$15m is what I imagine Ivy Leagues lose on sports. So, that's what you should be shooting for." And I asked why should the Ivy League be the standard for us given that there are dramatic institutions between the endowment and sources of fund things for each institution.

So yeah we did get off-topic because the ivy league doesn't seem particularly relevant and you moved from a per sport analysis, I think, two an athletic department as a whole figure.

Again, if the notion is we can only support things that make a profit, then universities shouldn't offer athletics at all. Similarly states shouldn't subsidize universities at all because they're not making a profit on their own. That doesn't make sense, does it? That's usually a good indication of a red herring argument.
Expand ...
I'm not making that last argument.

I think some losses are acceptable.

I just gave a number of $10-15m.

There are schools like West Virginia that are decimating themselves academically while maintaining a huge athletics deficit.

This is the position you don't want. But given UConn's financial troubles prior to the legislature's increase, this was territory that UConn was entering.

Something has to give.

Uconn is very near the point of being unable to fulfill its whole reason for being. It's at 26% out of state residents at this point. As it moves into that 30%+ space with ever increasing tuition, it really begins to act as more of a private university with state residents unable to access it.
 
CL82 said:
I mean, I guess you can have a deficit from your budgetary goals, but that's traditionally not how that term is used. Traditionally a deficit is an operational shortfall.



I have to wonder why the author of the opinion piece randomly chose to compare 2010 to 2025. Was the 2010 block grant increase to cover specific needs? I don't know how useful those two data points are without seeing what the funding is every year and making comparisons. To data points randomly 15 years apart just seems to ripe for manipulation.
Expand ...
??

That's not a budgetary goal.

It's a budgetary need.

This is why they were cutting every department by 15-20%.

The block grant was at $240.6m in 2016.

It dipped to $200m in 2018 and it flattened ever since then.

During and after the pandemic, it stayed flat but they added federal funds which took the overall funding gov't subsidy closer to $300m in the last several years.

However, at the same time, the university experienced severe financial distress with a huge fall in revenues.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,171
Messages
4,555,710
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom