UConn bracing for ‘deep cuts’ to sports and academics | Page 3 | The Boneyard

UConn bracing for ‘deep cuts’ to sports and academics

the entire premise pursued by Lew Perkins' insistence that we move to Div 1 football was to preserve our spot in the future football driven revenue of the major football conferences. Now that it is clear that is not happening, is it time to cut bait?
 
True, so could the millions spent on basketball, and every other sport though. So could cost of other non-sports extra curricular activities. The student rec center has a very low ROI as well.... well only if don't count it as making the college experience more attractive. Hey wait a minute that logic applies to sports as well, doesn't it?

Aren’t the students paying like 500 per semester in fees for it? That’s not an ROI?

Also gym is apparently a top 5 consideration for applying students.

The latter is similar to good fb and bb teams.
 
List of Sponsored Scholarship Sport @ UConn:

008.png


Ignore highlighted sports - it means nothing (just hyperlinks)
 
Aren’t the students paying like 500 per semester in fees for it? That’s not an ROI?

Also gym is apparently a top 5 consideration for applying students.

The latter is similar to good fb and bb teams.
I don’t know if it’s a hour away, as much as source of payment of ongoing expenses But my point was simply that the argument that football fans could be paid towards scholarships can be made about any other sports program or extracurricular activity. All of those things go into making a vibrant campus that is desirable to visit. The argument the poster I responded to was making was specious, in my opinion.
 
.500?! .500?! We can't even win a game! You're talking about .500?!

That's right - 500! You set a goal and hold the head coach's feet to the fire. If you caan't set a goal of reaching at least a .500 record, then what are you doing. Frankly, I do see Edsel as the savior. Fire him, get some one else in who may be able to bring the program to some level of respectability or drop the program.
 
.-.
I'm disappointed in Anthony's columns of late...both his sports and non-sports columns have taken quite the depressing, doom is us tone.
Bring it, I say. It will make the story of our resurgence all the sweeter.
 
the entire premise pursued by Lew Perkins' insistence that we move to Div 1 football was to preserve our spot in the future football driven revenue of the major football conferences. Now that it is clear that is not happening, is it time to cut bait?
That gets forgotten. If we didn't have FB, so the story went, we would lose our place at the table. Well we went and got football and lost our place anyway.
 

Any source on the numbers from the few years prior to 2019? The cuts to certain sports are inevitable. I just can’t help but look at that red herring that’s football and wonder if/when the line gets drawn. Don’t think it’s on the table now but if they have another 2-3 seasons of more of the same, then what?. I just don’t know what the long term goal of the program is, it’s eating money and there’s no clear path to being good again. Maybe a better way to phrase it is, how long has football been operating in the red and how long can it sustain that moving forward if the losses are significant? Genuine questions I have, maybe someone can help answer those for me.
 
Any source on the numbers from the few years prior to 2019? The cuts to certain sports are inevitable. I just can’t help but look at that red herring that’s football and wonder if/when the line gets drawn. Don’t think it’s on the table now but if they have another 2-3 seasons of more of the same, then what?. I just don’t know what the long term goal of the program is, it’s eating money and there’s no clear path to being good again. Maybe a better way to phrase it is, how long has football been operating in the red and how long can it sustain that moving forward if the losses are significant? Genuine questions I have, maybe someone can help answer those for me.

Mike Anthony seemingly laid out the path to where AD Dave is headed (which is why I listed the scholarship sports):

>>Cutting sports is the most drastic measure a university can consider. It’s what no one wants. Until it’s necessary. “And it’s one of the reasons why you’re not going to get too many athletic directors talking publicly about it,” Benedict said. “Yes. Is that something that I believe has to be looked at and discussed? I believe so. But that’s all I would be able to say at this point.”

I say do it. Don’t cut two sports to save about $1 million a year. Cut eight and save about $5 million a year.
And you’re halfway home.

What else? The Board of Trustees should accept a proposal to assign a reduced value to athletic scholarships, the athletic department’s greatest expense. “That will be part of our plan,” Benedict said. UConn, for instance, currently counts each out-of-state athletic scholarship the same as tuition for any out-of-state student, roughly three times the rate of in-state tuition. If that can be reduced — and it’s nothing more than a change in numbers and a budget transfer — the subsidy shrinks by another $4 million or so.

There. With a reduction to 16 sports, preserving the most high-profile teams, you’re just about at $10 million saved.<<

Would appear AD Dave has Jacobs and Anthony greasing the skids (for this round)...
 
Last edited:
Mike Anthony seemingly laid out the path to where AD Dave is headed (which is why I listed the scholarship sports):

>>Cutting sports is the most drastic measure a university can consider. It’s what no one wants. Until it’s necessary. “And it’s one of the reasons why you’re not going to get too many athletic directors talking publicly about it,” Benedict said. “Yes. Is that something that I believe has to be looked at and discussed? I believe so. But that’s all I would be able to say at this point.”

I say do it. Don’t cut two sports to save about $1 million a year. Cut eight and save about $5 million a year.
And you’re halfway home.

What else? The Board of Trustees should accept a proposal to assign a reduced value to athletic scholarships, the athletic department’s greatest expense. “That will be part of our plan,” Benedict said. UConn, for instance, currently counts each out-of-state athletic scholarship the same as tuition for any out-of-state student, roughly three times the rate of in-state tuition. If that can be reduced — and it’s nothing more than a change in numbers and a budget transfer — the subsidy shrinks by another $4 million or so.

There. With a reduction to 16 sports, preserving the most high-profile teams, you’re just about at $10 million saved.<<

Would appear AD Dave has Jacobs and Anthony greasing the skids (for this round)...
Yeah I think your correct about that last piece, greasing the skids so to speak. Cutting certain sports you outlined was inevitable even before Covid with how much their costs ballooned, now more people are focusing on it. So I get how they get to $10 million, that’s the immediate plan. Thank you for sharing that.

I just keep wondering what happens with football. I’d love to see what the numbers look like revenue wise from like 2011-to future projections. They’re 30-79 since that time and since Edsall came back, they’re 6-30. How much longer can they do that? Maybe they’ve been in the red for that long, but it seems to be getting worse. idk, again I’m not following football as closely as many others here. I just see the numbers and the product on the field and it’s not pretty. Not advocating for cutting the football team, but when it comes to a deep conversation about cuts, football needs to have a very detailed, outlined plan as to how they improve those numbers and what the trajectory of the program. Is .500 and a bowl game the expectation? Or is it schedule big P5 teams for buy games to simply keep the program afloat? The future schedules look pretty good, but what do they do if they go 6-30 again the next 3 years? Just things I keep coming back to.
 
.-.
“Football lost $13.3 million last year.” Yikes.... doesn’t take a genius to see that’s not sustainable. I get the independent route, buy games, new TV contract etc to make that gap up. I just still wonder what the end goal is and how they close the gap. People who follow football more than me, can you outline how they get into the green again? Or at least break even? And is basketball currently going to be the only non revenue generating sport? It’s just staggering to see the numbers actually outlined. Somethings gotta give at some point.
Apparently, to the blind on this board, those of us who understand math are "village idiots." Football at the University of CT from a financial standpoint right now is an absolute liability. No one can refute that. And it is completely non-competitive, has been for years and is clearly direction-less. So what do we keep it around for? The P5 game of musical chairs has been played for the better part of a decade and we are still standing. Does anyone really think that is going to change anytime soon? Unfortunately, this is now becoming about business, plain and simple. Do I wish football worked? Of course. But the undeniable truth is hasn't, we are now in a non-football league and it's time to cut the cord and be financially responsible. For the football supporters, give me evidence why the plug shouldn't be pulled. What does it do for the University or the athletic program now except lose money?
 
Apparently, to the blind on this board, those of us who understand math are "village idiots." Football at the University of CT from a financial standpoint right now is an absolute liability. No one can refute that. And it is completely non-competitive, has been for years and is clearly direction-less. So what do we keep it around for? The P5 game of musical chairs has been played for the better part of a decade and we are still standing. Does anyone really think that is going to change anytime soon? Unfortunately, this is now becoming about business, plain and simple. Do I wish football worked? Of course. But the undeniable truth is hasn't, we are now in a non-football league and it's time to cut the cord and be financially responsible. For the football supporters, give me evidence why the plug shouldn't be pulled. What does it do for the University or the athletic program now except lose money?
As a casual fan, I view it differently than someone whose following the program closer. It’s one thing to run a major deficit and be a decent team. If they had a large deficit but had steady 6-6 or 7-5 type seasons the past few years, decent crowds, good enthusiasm around the program etc there’s justification for the cost. Could justify it for branding, overall entertainment for the state, things like that. But right now, it’s about as low as it can get, it’s irresponsible to continue running up that large of a deficit with that product and being one of the worst teams in cfb during that time.

I feel like they basically like 3-4 years to either: become a winning program consistently making bowl games and not worry about the deficit they run up, or be bad but have a neutral cost to the program. They can’t have another 3-4 year run of what just happened at that cost, because people will call for action if that happens. I’m hoping it works out, used to love going to games. But at a certain point, somethings gotta give there.
 
Last edited:
The only thing that'll save the football program is bringing in an elite coach and staff to work a miracle turnaround. That would take money we don't have. THE END.
 
Where does there operating budget come from then. Does the legislature subsidize OOS tuition as well as in state?

The state subsidy doesn't cover the whole amount, so it all depends on how you look at it. Look at the Florida schools where OOS is in line with expenditures. Specifically, look at UofF. The rest of the budget includes revenue from research ($938m a year) and revenue from the endowment ($1.85b x 7% a year = $130m). That's over a billion right there, the majority of the budget. Tuition and state subsidy is a slice of that.

I'm reading the posts here and many people are of the opinion that the high tuitions are due to bloat.

I'll point out a few things:

1. Administrative costs over the last couple of decades have skyrocketed from 1% of the budget to between 7-10%. That's ridiculous. BUT, it doesn't explain the 1,000%+ tuition increase.

2. Tenured full-time faculty at top institutions have dropped from 75%+ two decades ago to -20% today. The vast majority of classes are taught by part-timers earning less than minimum wage.

3. Total expenditures (overall budget) is keeping pace with inflation. Not outpacing inflation. & this is being managed at a time when the school is spending on facilities, new technology which is ridiculously costly, and super high rises in employee health plans. Clearly, instruction is being slashed to be able to afford the rest.

4. So why are prices rising so fast? Consider these numbers: In 1990, the state of Florida spent $8,294 (# is adjusted for inflation to compare with 2010 dollars) per full-time student. 20 years later, it spent $6,150 per full-time student in real dollars.

5. In 1990, 56% of the U. of Florida's budget was covered by the state. In 2010, that number had dropped to 30%. I'm sure it has gotten worse in the last decade, as that has been the trend nationwide.

True but are you charged more than the student brings in?

Yes, the entirety of the tuition goes to the college. Our goal is to keep that head count aligned with our salaries and benefits.

Or alternatively, the school could simply not count athletes toward the OOS cap.

Of course it could. Many colleges already do. But the schools like UConn that operate units like a business (i.e. money-in/money-out of each unit) try to maintain a standard that is easily explicable to all units.

I'm just not a fan of inflated inter-department charges. It is, in my view deceptive accounting. I feel the same way about the cost to UConn for the use of the Rent or the XL Center.

My take on all this has always been that, even at the schools that are supposedly making a profit, the true budget is obfuscated in a way that withholds the truth from the real customers, the parents and students. In other words, ADs lose a lot more money than they show. If you listen to Jay Bilas, this is being done to hide the profits from the student athletes. But I disagree entirely. The actual losses are diminished and kept hidden so that the parents don't realize a huge chunk of that sports & recreation fee (now between $1k and $2k) goes to subsidize the AD. If parents really dug in there and realized their kid might finish with $5-7k in loans that is pure athletic subsidy, they might have a problem with it. I've read articles where U. Michigan and U. Texas owe half a billion dollars in loans for athletic facilities. The payments for these loans were not being made by the AD. But by the academic side. U. Michigan's AD just started defraying some of the cost of these loans for the first time within the last few years. But the Stadium was redone over 15 years ago, and the cost never appeared on the AD's balance sheet.
 
Apparently, to the blind on this board, those of us who understand math are "village idiots." Football at the University of CT from a financial standpoint right now is an absolute liability. No one can refute that. And it is completely non-competitive, has been for years and is clearly direction-less. So what do we keep it around for? The P5 game of musical chairs has been played for the better part of a decade and we are still standing. Does anyone really think that is going to change anytime soon? Unfortunately, this is now becoming about business, plain and simple. Do I wish football worked? Of course. But the undeniable truth is hasn't, we are now in a non-football league and it's time to cut the cord and be financially responsible. For the football supporters, give me evidence why the plug shouldn't be pulled. What does it do for the University or the athletic program now except lose money?
Then cut women’s basketball, all soccer, baseball, softball, diving, track and field, hockey and every other “money losing sport”. It’s fascinating how one is the problem but the others aren’t. Cut the work force by 5% and you’d save 42.5 million a year...and probably few would notice other than the tenored professors teaching 2 classes a semester. Also, eliminate the Intergovernmental charges and the problem goes away.
 
.-.
When I was in college many moons ago, I proposed making all of the state universities branches of UConn. Western would be UConn-Danbury, Southern would be UConn-New Haven, Central would be UConn-New Britain, and Eastern would be UConn-Willimantic. There's got to be some synergy in purchasing, administration etc.
 
When I was in college many moons ago, I proposed making all of the state universities branches of UConn. Western would be UConn-Danbury, Southern would be UConn-New Haven, Central would be UConn-New Britain, and Eastern would be UConn-Willimantic. There's got to be some synergy in purchasing, administration etc.

Absolutely.

Makes too much sense to actually happen.
 
So it begins...

I hope that any plan:

1) changes the way the school accounts for the cost of scholarships. Charging the full out of state amount isn't an accurate reflection of cost. Virtually no one actually pays that rate; and

2) looks very hard the rental cost of campus facilities owned by the State of Connecticut. We are subsidizing the losses of the CDRA.

Number 2 is key.
 
Caronimo ...... aren’t you one of the many posters that said UConn would never move to the Big East ?

The reality is that football provides a terrible return on the University’s investment, and impairs its image.

The many- many millions of dollars used to subsidize UConn football could be used to expand financial aid to UConn students, offer merit scholarships for exemplary students, or a number of other ways to expand the academic footprint of UConn.
I don't think so?.... but you can go look at my history of posts and see if you want... If I said that then I must have had a few DIPA's that day
 
I see what you are saying. It's an excellent point. But it all depends on the actual price charged for out of state.

Some school's OOS tuition is still below the expenditure per student.

It varies widely.

But again you're going to run into the initial problem I laid out. All other units account for it in the same way. When my department brings in an out-of-state Masters student who pays far more for tuition than we spend on him/her, we don't keep the profit. The college does. It would be nice if we did!

& then, some states have a hard cap on the number of out of state students allowed. They preserve seats for in-staters by law. This means that, if athletic departments did not reimburse the academic side fully, every out-of-state athlete on scholarship is essentially a missed opportunity to profit from a a student willing to pay 50k.

And then, there's the final consideration. The academic side in the vast vast majority of cases subsidizes the entire athletic department, which makes this conversation moot.

Check this out:

University of Michigan OOS tuition: 49,350
University of Connecticut OOS tuition: 38,098
UConn students from New England: 23,424
USF: 17,324
UCF: 20,980
Florida St.: 21,683

Inter-departmental accounting is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UConn atheistic deficit is large as reported. Because it’s a university wide number.

Michigan is clearly making a ton of money on OOS students. I doubt that their cost is any higher than Florida State’s.
 
.-.
Inter-departmental accounting is irrelevant to the issue of whether the UConn atheistic deficit is large as reported. Because it’s a university wide number.

Michigan is clearly making a ton of money on OOS students. I doubt that their cost is any higher than Florida State’s.

Since university governance falls under the purview of all interested parties (i.e. you have people from all units involved in decision-making), then it's important for administration to maintain standards. This is why it's done using similar methods. As I wrote in an earlier post, however, I think the losses are almost always understated in order to hide them from the customers really footing the bill: parents and students.

Here's U. Michigan's expenditure-per-student:

Michigan gets much less subsidy from the state (14%) than Florida does (30%), which explains the very high tuition: General Fund Budget Snapshot | U-M Public Affairs

In order to figure out the expenditure per student, I would look at how much tuition contributes to the budget. Tuition at Michigan accounts for 73% of the budget. That means that expenditure per student is tuition + 27% of the budget. At Florida, it is only 18% of the budget. This is an enormous difference.

Using my method for Florida, I take the average tuition paid by both OOS students (16% of total) and IS (84%), and I get an average tuition per student of $9,945. This means you're almost at $50k expenditure, but then you take financial aid into account. It's 4% of the total budget at Florida, so remove $2k from expenditure.

At Michigan, 50% of the students are out of state. So the average tuition is $32,300. 3x as much as U. Florida's. But it's 73% of the budget. So the total expenditure per student would be $45,000. But financial aid is 12%, so the actual expenditure is reduced to $39,600. That's $10k less than the charge for out of state tuition.

The big difference between both schools is that 50% of Michigan students are OOS, while only 16% of Florida students are. This accounts for the wide disparity in the fiscal health of both schools.

Michigan also spends a ridiculous 14% of its budget on administration. 30 years ago the national average was 1% at state universities.

The sweet spot for a discerning parent would be to find out the expenditure for instruction (ie. remove administration and the other perks). You can do this by looking at each school's reports to the US Dept. of Ed. It tells you exactly how much is spent in each area. I looked at this a while ago as we were sizing up schools. It's enlightening if you believe that your kid will get a better education at schools that spend more on instruction. You do have to account for how scientific research tends to cause administrative bloat, but by and large, I would want more resources in instruction for an undergraduate student.
 
Since university governance falls under the purview of all interested parties (i.e. you have people from all units involved in decision-making), then it's important for administration to maintain standards. This is why it's done using similar methods. As I wrote in an earlier post, however, I think the losses are almost always understated in order to hide them from the customers really footing the bill: parents and students.

Here's U. Michigan's expenditure-per-student:

Michigan gets much less subsidy from the state (14%) than Florida does (30%), which explains the very high tuition: General Fund Budget Snapshot | U-M Public Affairs

In order to figure out the expenditure per student, I would look at how much tuition contributes to the budget. Tuition at Michigan accounts for 73% of the budget. That means that expenditure per student is tuition + 27% of the budget. At Florida, it is only 18% of the budget. This is an enormous difference.

Using my method for Florida, I take the average tuition paid by both OOS students (16% of total) and IS (84%), and I get an average tuition per student of $9,945. This means you're almost at $50k expenditure, but then you take financial aid into account. It's 4% of the total budget at Florida, so remove $2k from expenditure.

At Michigan, 50% of the students are out of state. So the average tuition is $32,300. 3x as much as U. Florida's. But it's 73% of the budget. So the total expenditure per student would be $45,000. But financial aid is 12%, so the actual expenditure is reduced to $39,600. That's $10k less than the charge for out of state tuition.

The big difference between both schools is that 50% of Michigan students are OOS, while only 16% of Florida students are. This accounts for the wide disparity in the fiscal health of both schools.

Michigan also spends a ridiculous 14% of its budget on administration. 30 years ago the national average was 1% at state universities.

The sweet spot for a discerning parent would be to find out the expenditure for instruction (ie. remove administration and the other perks). You can do this by looking at each school's reports to the US Dept. of Ed. It tells you exactly how much is spent in each area. I looked at this a while ago as we were sizing up schools. It's enlightening if you believe that your kid will get a better education at schools that spend more on instruction. You do have to account for how scientific research tends to cause administrative bloat, but by and large, I would want more resources in instruction for an undergraduate student.

As it turns out I’m college shopping right now for my soon to be HS senior. Most likely private schools though. Is there reason to believe the resources for instruction are higher at smaller private schools? It’s an assumption but I don’t know if the evidence backs it up.
 
As it turns out I’m college shopping right now for my soon to be HS senior. Most likely private schools though. Is there reason to believe the resources for instruction are higher at smaller private schools? It’s an assumption but I don’t know if the evidence backs it up.

Every school is different. Many private schools are top heavy administratively. Many private schools spend a much smaller amount on each student than public schools. Consider: if 40-50% of the budget is financial aid, and tuition funds a huge amount of the budget (80%), then of course the expenditure per student is going to be much lower. That might not matter though if the school puts almost al of that lower expenditure toward instruction. At places like Michigan or Florida, only 60% goes toward instruction.

Here's a link for you: The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
 
I just hope my daughter's school doesn't cut her aid package or she's transferring back to CT
 
Anything UConn has in swimming, track and field, cross country, or golf needs to go first.

As a northeast school these should be the priorities.

Men's and Women's soccer
Field Hockey
Men's and Women's hockey
Baseball
Softball
Men's and Women's basketball
Football
Volleyball

From there start adding sports as able. Sorry, not sorry, but no one thinks of UConn for the sports I listed above.
Baseball and softball are priorities? Seriously? They play for the first 2 months in Florida and Arizona then in miserable conditions until the last 2 weeks of the year. Yeah we’ve had a little success in baseball but not that much in all seriousness. Softball has been dreadful forever. Baseball hasn't been to Omaha since the 1970s.

Plus we really shouldnt take the Big East as our model. Those are all modest sized regional private mostly Catholic schools. The only thing we have in common is basketball.

if it were up to me though I’d drop the whole department to D3 and sponsor more sports not fewer. Turn The basketball center into the student gym. Build statues to Geno and Calhoun and name some award after them.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,207
Messages
4,556,908
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom