UConn athletic department deficit reached $42 million in 2019 with a decline in ticket sales and league revenue

[UConnJim]

why do we blame the FB coach only? Marketing and sales still has to sell and cultivate ticket sales. It’s hard, but you can’t tell me they didnt leave sales on the table.

You have to sell and compete for customers.

At every school, poor on-field performance leads to declining attendance. Could sales and marketing have done a better job? Of course, but there are only so many times over the years sales can push a poor product onto customers without pushback. Eventually, the customer won't respond to a positive marketing message for a bad product. Happens all the time in business, just ask anyone in sales. When UConn was winning, it was easy to find people to go to games when you had extra tickets. The last few years? Nobody wants to go.

 

[Husky25]

I don’t disagree with you. the accounting cost is not real. Especially the scholarship money. In theory, it doesn’t cost anything to give a scholarship. Professors Will still teach,food in dorm will still be served. The costs won’t adjust if those scholarships are eliminated.

It is creating revenue for one department by creating an expense in another department. Accounting at its finest, but $18 million isn’t tangible tax payer money. That is what is frustrating about the narrative.

Typically, things are done like this so you can show a loss. Il

Mr. Putterman is a reporter. His response to this retweet indicates (to me, at least) there is an agenda and it might be fair to question whether the misdirection (for lack of better word) was intentional. Boneyard-level fans take it upon themselves to perhaps dig a little deeper. The general public forms an opinion by what they are fed, which is apparent in the tweeted responses.

Mr. Putterman does say that he has written in the past about some of the budget games, but that is nowhere near good enough given the average attention span of the general public. I think a reminder would have balanced the facts and clarified the message.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Mr. Putterman is a reporter. His response to this retweet indicates (to me, at least) there is an agenda and it might be fair to question whether the misdirection (for lack of better word) was intentional. Boneyard-level fans take it upon themselves to perhaps dig a little deeper. The general public forms an opinion by what they are fed, which is apparent in the tweeted responses.

Mr. Putterman does say that he has written in the past about some of the budget games, but that is nowhere near good enough given the average attention span of the general public. I think a reminder would have balanced the facts and clarified the message.

I can't speak for others and motivations.

The FCS is not an option. It would lose even more money than what is happening now. All it does is cut coach salaries and reduces schollie cost from 85 to 65 with no upside in revenue. It's stupid.

I don't understand the drop to FCS crowd.

 

[businesslawyer]

A lot of this is bookkeeping.

However, that can't mask the fact that our lack of success in mens hoops and football hurts revenues. Attendance is down, but the cost of tickets is probably down by an even higher percentage. I bought tickets from the box office for $8 for the WSU game. The seats were not much worse than when I had season tickets in Hartford from '06 to '10, and those seats cost me $30 or $35, before adjusting for inflation. Some of this is effecting all schools, but a lot of this is down to losing.

Basketball will recover and drive revenue up, although while I'm confident we will be better than the last 4 years none of us know what the ceiling really is. Football, however, is another story. I remain hopeful and supportive, but nothing has changed my belief from the moment we went independent that I don't see how we can keep football going as an independent for very long.

 

[JohnFSilver]

A lot of this is bookkeeping.

However, that can't mask the fact that our lack of success in mens hoops and football hurts revenues. Attendance is down, but the cost of tickets is probably down by an even higher percentage. I bought tickets from the box office for $8 for the WSU game. The seats were not much worse than when I had season tickets in Hartford from '06 to '10, and those seats cost me $30 or $35, before adjusting for inflation. Some of this is effecting all schools, but a lot of this is down to losing.

Basketball will recover and drive revenue up, although while I'm confident we will be better than the last 4 years none of us know what the ceiling really is. Football, however, is another story. I remain hopeful and supportive, but nothing has changed my belief from the moment we went independent that I don't see how we can keep football going as an independent for very long.

The biggest issue is technology. Apps and second-hand market place have become so efficient a marketplace that buying direct at full price doesn't make sense. I think people, reflexively, go to the secondary market for their tickets.

Just another technological disrupter out there. Exchange of tickets is easier. This is issue is something all sports have had to deal with.

 

[Dooooooomed]

Do most schools factor athletic scholarships into their AD budgets or are we the oddball one here?

 

[Husky25]

I can't speak for others and motivations.

The FCS is not an option. It would lose even more money than what is happening now. All it does is cut coach salaries and reduces schollie cost from 85 to 65 with no upside in revenue. It's stupid.

I don't understand the drop to FCS crowd.

That's the problem. The perception of the Drop-To-FCS Crowd is their reality and articles that do not accurately reflect actual reality (for whatever reason) will not remotely affect their perception. It reinforces it, and responding, "I hear you," is tacit agreement with the FCS crowd.

 

[UConnJim]

The biggest issue is technology. Apps and second-hand market place have become so efficient a marketplace that buying direct at full price doesn't make sense. I think people, reflexively, go to the secondary market for their tickets.

Just another technological disrupter out there. Exchange of tickets is easier. This is issue is something all sports have had to deal with.

A minor factor. Try buying tickets on an app to a sold out event that people want to go to. Prices are sky high. When the product is bad, it is easy to buy tickets on an app for below cost. The product is more important than the app.

 

[CL82]

In 2014, the football team brought in $5.2 million in ticket sales and $2.1 million in donations. UConn went 2-10 with a home slate of BYU, Stony Brook, Boise St., Temple, UCF, Cincinnati, and SMU. In my opinion, if UConn starts winning, football revenues will rebound sharply.

If they win, consistently, people will come to games. That is a lot of potential revenue.

 

[huskymedic]

Do most schools factor athletic scholarships into their AD budgets or are we the oddball one here?

Required expense reporting to NCAA annually:

 

[Bongo Fury]

Do most schools factor athletic scholarships into their AD budgets or are we the oddball one here?

I don’t view this as a loss but as a decline in potential profit. A matter of how you report imo.

 

[Exit 4]

Mr. Putterman is a reporter. His response to this retweet indicates (to me, at least) there is an agenda and it might be fair to question whether the misdirection (for lack of better word) was intentional. Boneyard-level fans take it upon themselves to perhaps dig a little deeper. The general public forms an opinion by what they are fed, which is apparent in the tweeted responses.

Mr. Putterman does say that he has written in the past about some of the budget games, but that is nowhere near good enough given the average attention span of the general public. I think a reminder would have balanced the facts and clarified the message.

Putterman doesn't particularly care for UConn football and he's not at all aware of how his "reporting" can shape and direct the situation in this relatively small media market fishbowl. I would prefer he was an objective UConn fan and reporter rather than the reality which is that he is a Northwestern guy stuck learning the sports media trade by reporting on UConn football.

 

[gtcam]

If they win, consistently, people will come to games. That is a lot of potential revenue.

If it was the only culprit I would agree but there is so much more involved
In the heyday of the OBE, was the UConn athletic department turning a profit?
I don't know but my guess is no

 

[Husky25]

Putterman doesn't particularly care for UConn football and he's not at all aware of how his "reporting" can shape and direct the situation in this relatively small media market fishbowl. I would prefer he was an objective UConn fan and reporter rather than the reality which is that he is a Northwestern guy stuck learning the sports media trade by reporting on UConn football.

As a consumer of a beat reporter's content, I don't need him to be a UConn fan. Only objective.

 

[Exit 4]

As a consumer of a beat reporter's content, I don't need him to be a UConn fan. Only objective.

Then you can't be too bothered by his flip FCS comment.

In college sports I'd rather have homers that know when to selectively pull the lever to buck the administration. This is sports afterall, not politics, not economics, not hard science.

 

[Husky25]

Then you can't be too bothered by his flip FCS comment.

Sure I can. It's not objective.

 

[BlueandOG]

Says in the article in 2021 it will start getting better, which would make sense since that is when travel savings and increased TV revenue will be realized. I have updated the spreadsheet for the increase in donations and from an earlier critique changed it from an annualized calculation to a NPV analysis. UConn will come out ahead, it just won't be realized overnight.

It's very good reporting by HC and Putterman, but don't get too caught up in the headline.

Always open to comments and critiques on how to improve this.

Great work on this! Thank you!

 

[Exit 4]

Sure I can. It's not objective.

Um, so the mere mention of FCS in light of the deficits and the attendance declines presents some sort of bias? Am I missing something bigger Putterman has said on this subject in the past?

 

[pepband99]

I can't speak for others and motivations.

The FCS is not an option. It would lose even more money than what is happening now. All it does is cut coach salaries and reduces schollie cost from 85 to 65 with no upside in revenue. It's stupid.

I don't understand the drop to FCS crowd.

This is why Putterman's simplistic interpretation is so dangerous, though (whether intentional or not)

From the strict accounting perspective, a drop to FCS significantly lowers expenses, based on a dropping of scholarships. It's even worse when you can guess that a corresponding number of women's scholarships go away too, as they're 20 less against Title 9.

The much more interesting question - details on the expenses that go right to CRDA?

 

[CL82]

If it was the only culprit I would agree but there is so much more involved
In the heyday of the OBE, was the UConn athletic department turning a profit?
I don't know but my guess is no

I actually think it may have been. I remember that both MBB and WBB used to be in the black. I'm not 100% sure on FB but when it was selling out the Rent, it probably was as well. Add to that the OBE media deal and it is pretty likely it was in the black, or if not it was close.

 

[ZooCougar]

The biggest issue is technology. Apps and second-hand market place have become so efficient a marketplace that buying direct at full price doesn't make sense. I think people, reflexively, go to the secondary market for their tickets.

Just another technological disrupter out there. Exchange of tickets is easier. This is issue is something all sports have had to deal with.

I know MLS uses SeatGeek to distribute tickets to STHs. And STHs sell their tickets on SeatGeek. UConn needs a partnership like that.

 

[CL82]

Says in the article in 2021 it will start getting better, which would make sense since that is when travel savings and increased TV revenue will be realized. I have updated the spreadsheet for the increase in donations and from an earlier critique changed it from an annualized calculation to a NPV analysis. UConn will come out ahead, it just won't be realized overnight.

It's very good reporting by HC and Putterman, but don't get too caught up in the headline.

Always open to comments and critiques on how to improve this.

Do you have a link to the travel expense #. That's higher than the numbers I remember them talking about.

 

[Irishfan]

In 2014, the football team brought in $5.2 million in ticket sales and $2.1 million in donations. UConn went 2-10 with a home slate of BYU, Stony Brook, Boise St., Temple, UCF, Cincinnati, and SMU. In my opinion, if UConn starts winning, football revenues will rebound sharply.

Seven home games, a 40,000 seat stadium, and 125,000 alumni that live in the state of Connecticut equate to a net revenue of $3.3 million. That seems unreasonable.

 

[CL82]

Football, however, is another story. I remain hopeful and supportive, but nothing has changed my belief from the moment we went independent that I don't see how we can keep football going as an independent for very long.

That was my initial impression BL, but I was heartened by the announced schedule and the interest we are getting. I still do not know if will work, but I feel better about it.

 

[Storrs South]

Do you have a link to the travel expense #. That's higher than the numbers I remember them talking about.

The travel expense has often been cited as between $1.5-$2 million annually, which is being accounted for between 2020 to 2032 (12 years) and discounted back.

Here's one source of where the $2 million per year comes from: Fasano calls for UConn Foundation to fund school’s move from AAC to Big East

The exercise is not to show the Big East contract is better than the AAC, but rather that a market participant in UConn's situation is better off going to the Big East than staying put since these types are savings are exclusive to UConn and only UConn in the AAC.

 

[CL82]

The travel expense has often been cited as between $1.5-$2 million annually, which is being accounted for between 2020 to 2032 (12 years) and discounted back.

Here's one source of where the $2 million per year comes from: Fasano calls for UConn Foundation to fund school’s move from AAC to Big East

The exercise is not to show the Big East contract is better than the AAC, but rather that a market participant in UConn's situation is better off going to the Big East than staying put since these types are savings are exclusive to UConn and only UConn in the AAC.

Got it. I couldn't reconcile the $2M figure to the $13M one. I understand why you took that approach.

 

[Husky25]

Um, so the mere mention of FCS in light of the deficits and the attendance declines presents some sort of bias? Am I missing something bigger Putterman has said on this subject in the past?

Yes. Read @JohnFSilver 's response to my first post in this thread.

Dropping to FCS does not materially costs while having a drastic effect on revenue.

 

[BlueMAB]

I don’t view this as a loss but as a decline in potential profit. A matter of how you report imo.

Revenues.

Other than that you are correct.

 

[ZooCougar]

We can’t live and die by tickets sold. We need sponsorship revenue. I think the Big East and playing better more high profile opponents will help with that.

 

[Storrs South]

Got it. I couldn't reconcile the $2M figure to the $13M one. I understand why you took that approach.

The original calculation that you may have seen was annualized, but someone here pointed out it didn't accurately account for time value of money so I changed it to compared between now and the end of the AAC deal in terms of total money in today's dollars. So while they are not receiving $2 million a year, the net effect is $2 million less spent on planes that more positively affect UConn's balance sheet and/or could be used elsewhere.