First of all I said women's and men's basketball. When you add in Hurley's raise, combined it about equals the loss of football, which has 4 times as many athletes.Sportico’s Intercollegiate Finance Database
In 2023 men's bball made ~$10.6mill in revenue and had operating expenses of ~$13.8mill. that's a net loss of ~$3.2million.
In 2023 football made ~$6mill in revenue and had operating expenses of ~$20mill. that's a net loss of ~$14million!!!!
You think the fact that football lost less money per player makes up for the fact that it lost ~$11mill more than men's bball??? No. Saying UConn has the best men's bball program in the country and the worst football program in the country isn't bias its fact, and funding the best men's bball program in the country is well worth all the intangible benefits it brings to the school/state. Football only brings embarrassment.
The added benefit of cutting football is cutting 6 of the 12 women's sports (volleyball, swimming, crew, cross country, tennis, lacrosse). In 2023 non-revenue women's sports were a net loss of ~$18mill. So cutting football (~$14mill) and half the women’s sports (~$9mill) would have saved the school ~$23mill in 2023...
Starting next year the men's bball program will need to use about half its annual revenue (~$5mill) to pay players rather than cover operating expenses but the program will also be earning an extra ~$2mill per year from the new BE tv deal.
So... while it will cost the school a couple mill more per year to fund men's bball, it's still well worth it for all the intangible benefits. Continuing to fund men's (and women's) bball will also be affordable if the school starts saving over $20mill/year by cutting football and 6 women's sports.
i really hope UConn gets into the big12 or ACC but if we dont get into either by 2025 when revenue sharing starts then the school needs to sacrifice football and half its women's sports to save the remaining sports (bball, soccer, hockey, track, baseball/softball, golf/field hockey).
Regardless, the point is you said give basketball their revenue to cover the cost. Fact is that basketball does not have some revenue to cover the increased cost while in the Big East and they will be more in the hole when paying players. It is simply not sustainable in the Big East, even when cutting a huge swath of the athletic department like you want to.
The Big 12 payout will soon be 5 times that of the Big East and over $50 million. If you dumped $20 million a year into football for 4 years to get it up to snuff for the Big 12, then after two years in the full Big 12, that $80 million would be paid off and we would be making $40 million a year more than in the Big East. Even with the increased $20 million a year spent on football, that is $20 million a year net more to pay basketball than in the Big East.
Any way you look at it, investing in football to get into the Big 12 helps generate revenue for the basketball team and will make them more competitive financially. Cutting football and remaining in the Big East hurts basketball and puts them at a disadvantage.