- Joined
- Feb 8, 2016
- Messages
- 7,057
- Reaction Score
- 25,088
Connecticut taxpayers footing the athletic bills,UConn doing more with less 👍
Connecticut taxpayers footing the athletic bills,UConn doing more with less 👍
Just like at most big state schools.Connecticut taxpayers footing the athletic bills,
Strange reply. At other schools taxpayer funding is seen as a sign of state support and commitment to the AD. Why is it bad when UConn does it?Connecticut taxpayers footing the athletic bills,
Yes. S. Carolina subsidizes its athletic department with tax payer money as well. I think it was around $17Million this year. I live in Columbia and remember reading something about it, but can’t find it anywhere.Strange reply. At other schools taxpayer funding is seen as a sign of state support and commitment to the AD. Why is it bad when UConn does it?
They do nothing with more. Cocks.Yes. S. Carolina subsidizes its athletic department with tax payer money as well. I think it was around $17Million this year. I live in Columbia and remember reading something about it, but can’t find it anywhere.
By giving ESPN tax breaks so they can support P4 Conferences keeping UConn out.Connecticut taxpayers footing the athletic bills,
Would it be better to not have ESPN with its thousands of jobs, filling hotel rooms, paying property taxes on all of its physical assets, etc etc?By giving ESPN tax breaks so they can support P4 Conferences keeping UConn out.
Are those the only two choices? Asking for a friend.Would it be better to not have ESPN with its thousands of jobs, filling hotel rooms, paying property taxes on all of its physical assets, etc etc?
You might have read that In Fisk News to be that far off. South Carolina brought in 142 Milton in revenue. Tax payers added 1.08 million. UConn brought in 99 million. Taxpayers contributed 55 million.Yes. S. Carolina subsidizes its athletic department with tax payer money as well. I think it was around $17Million this year. I live in Columbia and remember reading something about it, but can’t find it anywhere.
Not sure what you mean/are implying but certainly like many things in life there are multiple scenarios.Are those the only two choices? Asking for a friend.
Your post suggests a false choice where either 1) the state of Connecticut subsidizes ESPN not withstanding the fact that ESPN has actively worked against UConn interest in realignment, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the state economy or 2) ESPN leaves the state abandoning it's very significant investment in facilities.Not sure what you mean/are implying but certainly like many things in life there are multiple scenarios.
No, you read something into my post that wasn't there. My sole point was regardless of ESPN blocking UConn's potential move to the ACC, it would be a stupid financial move by the state of CT to open the door for ESPN to leave the state. Clearly, CT administration after CT administration has come to the same conclusion.Your post suggests a false choice where either 1) the state of Connecticut subsidizes ESPN not withstanding the fact that ESPN has actively worked against UConn interest in realignment, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the state economy or 2) ESPN leaves the state abandoning it's very significant investment in facilities.
I very much doubt those are the only two choices.
You might have read that In Fisk News to be that far off. South Carolina brought in 142 Milton in revenue. Tax payers added 1.08 million. UConn brought in 99 million. Taxpayers contributed 55 million.
![]()
NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY
Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.sportsdata.usatoday.com
How exactly would the state of Connecticut be "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon all it's substantial infrastructure, satellite farm, etc. in your hypothetical?No, you read something into my post that wasn't there. My sole point was regardless of ESPN blocking UConn's potential move to the ACC, it would be a stupid financial move by the state of CT to open the door for ESPN to leave the state. Clearly, CT administration after CT administration has come to the same conclusion.
First of all, the figures in that article are from 2022. Second, UConn is trying to fund its AD at a big-boy level without benefit of P4 media revenue, which requires financial help from the state. Not sure why this needs to be explained to you, but thank you for your interest in UConn athletics. The taxpayers of Connecticut greatly appreciate your concern.You might have read that In Fisk News to be that far off. South Carolina brought in 142 Milton in revenue. Tax payers added 1.08 million. UConn brought in 99 million. Taxpayers contributed 55 million.
![]()
NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY
Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.sportsdata.usatoday.com
That ESPN would continue to move jobs and facilities out of CT if the state wasn't continuing to provide tax breaks.How exactly would the state of Connecticut be "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon all it's substantial infrastructure, satellite farm, etc. in your hypothetical?
Well, help me to understand it then. How do you imagine Connecticut "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon 18 buildings on 117 acres, including over 400,000 sq. ft. of production space? What actions by the state would cause ESPN to choose to undergo the enormous sense of replicating that elsewhere?No, you read something into my post that wasn't there. My sole point was regardless of ESPN blocking UConn's potential move to the ACC, it would be a stupid financial move by the state of CT to open the door for ESPN to leave the state. Clearly, CT administration after CT administration has come to the same conclusion.
I get that the cost of moving is very, very high for ESPN to move out lock, stock, and barrel out of Bristol but it could easily decide to over 10 years to greatly reduce Bristol given technology advancements, fully depreciated assets, etc. Smartly, ESPN has already diversified its physical footprint with studio/etc locations in NYC, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Seattle, and LA. ESPN International has locations in 11 countries across 6 continents. So, I'd say ESPN would hold more power than the state of CT at a negotiating table.No, you're missing my point. How do you imagine Connecticut "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon 18 buildings on 117 acres, including over 400,000 sq. ft. of production space? What actions by the state would cause ESPN to choose to undergo the enormous sense of replicating that elsewhere?
Could it "easily" decide to move? Could it easily replace its studios? Could it easily replace its satellite farm? Could it easily replace over 18 buildings? You and I may have a different definition of "easy."I get that the cost of moving is very, very high for ESPN to move out lock, stock, and barrel out of Bristol but it could easily decide to over 10 years to greatly reduce Bristol given technology advancements, fully depreciated assets, etc. Smartly, ESPN has already diversified its physical footprint with studio/etc locations in NYC, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Seattle, and LA. ESPN International has locations in 11 countries across 6 continents. So, I'd say ESPN would hold more power than the state of CT at a negotiating table.