The fears of our AD getting left behind are overblown
- Thread starter cellocgg
- Start date
geordi
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,255
- Reaction Score
- 3,247
There has always been a sense on this board that the football program is bleeding money. I certainly don't have access to the specific budget figures of the athletic department, but I wonder if that is true. The athletic department budget is @ $95M. That's generally comparable to most big-time universities. We are not over-spending in comparison to other top universities so much as underperforming in generating revenue. The shortfall now is being made up by state subsidies. What the state government wants is to reduce the subsidies so they can waste money on other political items which is where the pressure is coming from. Even if we were to join the Big 12 or ACC, we'd get more money, but it would only reduce the deficit by perhaps 50%.
My point is that dropping football would probably reduce the expenditures of the athletic department, but it also reduce some revenue as well. Ticket sales, merchandise, tv contracts, etc. I know those are not a match but it would not solve the 'operating deficit' of the overall department unless we also dropped a major number of non revenue producing sports as well. Remember, there are only about two dozen colleges in the country whose athletic department operate in the black.
The revenue raised by the Alabamas, Ohio States, Texases, Floridas, etc., not only underwrites football costs, but more importantly, it funds other non revenue producing sports. We don't have that luxury (and for lots of reasons). I also believe, though, that many other colleges will be in a similar situation long term. When you look at the trend of moving to two major college conferences (the Big 10 and SEC) and look at the whole concept of conference realignment generally, it's all related to money. Once they have the money in their control, they don't need universities to sponsor them. They can use the money that used to fund non revenue sports to build their own empires.
We'll just be watching the Tuscaloosa Crimson Tide, the Ann Arbor Wolverines, The Athens Bulldogs, and the Gainesville Gators. Go Storrs Huskies!
My point is that dropping football would probably reduce the expenditures of the athletic department, but it also reduce some revenue as well. Ticket sales, merchandise, tv contracts, etc. I know those are not a match but it would not solve the 'operating deficit' of the overall department unless we also dropped a major number of non revenue producing sports as well. Remember, there are only about two dozen colleges in the country whose athletic department operate in the black.
The revenue raised by the Alabamas, Ohio States, Texases, Floridas, etc., not only underwrites football costs, but more importantly, it funds other non revenue producing sports. We don't have that luxury (and for lots of reasons). I also believe, though, that many other colleges will be in a similar situation long term. When you look at the trend of moving to two major college conferences (the Big 10 and SEC) and look at the whole concept of conference realignment generally, it's all related to money. Once they have the money in their control, they don't need universities to sponsor them. They can use the money that used to fund non revenue sports to build their own empires.
We'll just be watching the Tuscaloosa Crimson Tide, the Ann Arbor Wolverines, The Athens Bulldogs, and the Gainesville Gators. Go Storrs Huskies!
shizzle787
King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2015
- Messages
- 12,877
- Reaction Score
- 22,579
Basketball breaks even at UConn and football loses about 13 million per year. Our deficit overall is closer to 35 million.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
- Messages
- 2,349
- Reaction Score
- 5,710
I would stay away from the MAC. Even so. the MAC, PAC2. and some other assorted teams may want to merge.
.-.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2020
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction Score
- 978
Can you elaborate on the Creighton approach? How is this different than most other high level basketball programs in this era? The top 5-7 players will get paid.
The last year of reporting (22-23) football lost about $14M; men's basketball lost $3M and women's basketball lost $6M (source). They technically reported a profit of $3M for the athletic department, but that's with a $30M Subsidy from the university.
In the last full year that UConn kept all of its conference revenues in the AAC (17-18), football lost about $8M; men's basketball lost $5M and women's basketball about $3M.
About $3M in football's losses is the difference in the cost of the scholarships for the bigger roster (if you eliminated that, both football & men's basketball lost the same amount of money in that final AAC year; basketball's situation has improved, football has gotten worse.
UConn funds basketball at the top of division 1 regardless of conference. It funds football at the upper end of G5 level.
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 46,832
- Reaction Score
- 40,175
All those numbers are pre-House settlement. Football is about to get a lot less profitable at every school. Unfortunately, most of those other schools we want to compete with have a lot more football revenue than we do.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,111
- Reaction Score
- 15,915
MAC scares me. Football is fine, but with the portal and nil that league is like a minor league for the P4.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,251
- Reaction Score
- 11,456
I still think its better than Independent.
IF we could do football-only in MAC, AND the exit fee wasn't too bad, I'd pull the trigger today.
I think being a part of a conference where you can build rivalries is important in college football especially
.-.