Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HuskyHawk, post: 4654241, member: 1414"] Yeah, no. This is a myth. [B]It's marketing[/B]. It's intended to put the school in front of potential students, and to provide more appeal to those students who enjoy the experience. Only 20-30 schools make any money and most of them are barely profitable. The rest are trying to reduce the cost of this marketing expense. If not for this, nobody would do it. College football is a $4B a year business. Pepsico is $80B. A supply chain company in Pittsburgh called Armada is $4B. Walmart is $500B. As for "big business", it's not that big. It's tiny compared to the research grants these schools want and compared to what they rake in from students. Why did the ACC want BC? To make their schools more attractive to wealthy kids in New England who have good SAT scores and went to good high schools. It's also why the B1G wanted Rutgers and Maryland. Not really about athletics. The AD $ is nice too, but not the main reason. Guess what? It worked. New England kids are heading to ACC schools in much bigger numbers. Northeastern area kids heading to B1G schools in bigger numbers too. BC applications from out of state kids in ACC states went way up. That's what it's about. It's why Miami joined the Big East. This is good for UConn, except that the B12 schools likely know that they won't be all that appealing to kids in New England. What Benedict said the other day is the inverse of this, will kids from Iowa, KS, TX want to go to UConn? Or are they more appealing to kids in the Big East states? Part of UConn's problem is it's expensive as hell out of state. The ACC is a much better fit, because those growing areas are full of kids that might actually go to UConn. Benedict's answer to the ACC would be an instant yes. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach