Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="UConnJim, post: 1632312, member: 1559"] Careful with your analysis. The latest financials have said football, and men's and women's basketball make money after you allocate the Nike and conference revenues to each sport. Not all of the analysis that I have seen does this. (Men's hockey may be close to break even now with the move to HE, but I don't know the #s.) Also, there are two budget line items that don't necessarily show up in other schools' budgets: the cost of scholarships and student intramural and recreation costs. Let's first look at scholarship costs as it is included in some schools profit analysis and not in others. It is estimated that athletic scholarships cost UConn about $14 million per year. Of this, I estimate that $4 million+ of this expense is the difference between in-state and out-of state tuition costs (~$20k/year.) I view the $4 million additional out-of-state tuition cost as funny money that is an accounting matter, but others may want to include it. The McKinsey report (2011) on potential cost savings and revenue enhancements at UConn estimated that the UConn athletics budget includes $9 million of student fees and costs associated with student recreational services and intramurals. In other words, $9 million (in 2011) of the "athletics subsidy" was actually student fees used for student activities, not to subsidize intercollegiate athletics. (It does allow UConn to show a bigger athletic budget, which seems to be a positive in conference realignment.) And, it is estimated that the sports at UConn, outside of football, and men's and women's basketball lose $12 to $15 million per year. This is the problem at all schools, not just UConn. Title IX requires you to have equal men's and women's athletic scholarships which is an expense that generates little revenue. Non-revenue sports can be cut to reduce the subsidy. One other point. UConn is "required" to play basketball games at the XL Center. This hurts UConn's athletics budget by decreasing revenues and increasing expenses in comparison to playing games at Gampel. It's pretty clear that UConn plays at the XL Center for political and not financial reasons, but should UConn be subsidizing the XL Center? The above are the facts and show the UConn athletics finances are not as bad as Nelson says, but they still require a subsidy. The Big East money rolling off is another headwind, but that is why Benedict was hired as AD as he needs to figure out where to get more revenues. Probably the sport with the biggest upside from today, is football. Going forward, the team looks improved and the home schedule is improving with schools like BC, Syracuse, Virginia, and Missouri in the next few years. I think football attendance and revenues are set to improve going forward. And having a competitive football team is the only way to a possible P5 invite and increased revenues. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach