2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,837 
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Jan 17, 2019 13:08:45 GMT -8
Wonder what will happen when Geno retires? Apparently winning championships doesn't pay bills...... Some excerpts from the article "UConn athletic department in 2018: generated $40 million in revenue, spent $81 million in expenses"The athletic department incurred $80,905,645 in expenses in 2018, down slightly from 2017, while generating $40,418,969 in revenue, also down from 2017. The school’s sports programs were once again heavily subsidized by the university, receiving more than $8.5 million in student fees and more than $30 million in additional institutional support. : Though the vast majority of Division I athletic departments operate at a loss, UConn’s deficit has become particularly extreme. A USA Today analysis of data from 2016-17 found that the school’s athletic department received the highest university subsidy (about $42 million) of any Division I public institution : The biggest individual team culprit of the UConn athletic department’s 2018 deficit was the school’s football program, which lost $8.7 million. Additionally, men’s basketball lost about $5 million, women’s basketball lost about $3.1 million and the rest of the school’s sports lost about $22.3 million among them. While I really enjoy college sports, especially the Beavers, I wish Universities could keep the spirit but exert some fiscal control...... I will resist the temptation to blame the 'ucks and uncle phil, but I bet that didn't help the "arms race". Go Beavers! |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jan 17, 2019 14:00:40 GMT -8
UConn took a big gamble and lost. They thought that by spending like a Power 5 program, they would get one of the Power 5 conferences to pick them up. If it had worked, then most of that deficit would have disappeared. Unfortunately, in what was likely the last round of expansion, the ACC picked Pitt and Louisville over UConn, while the Big 12 and Big 10 stood pat. So now they are screwed, stuck in the AAC with no realistic chance of making it into a "real" conference. They are stuck with Power 5 expenses and Mid-Major revenues.
Colorado State made the same sort of bet when they spent $250,000,000(!!!) for a new football stadium - they are praying that the Big12 finally adds a 12th team. BYU is also standing in line, but in their case they probably have the resources to survive indefinitely as a football independent and WCC member.
As for the rest of the AAC and MWC, a third of the schools have delusions of advancement - perpetually touching the donors to finance the stadium, coliseum, or super-coach that they hope will lead them to the Power 5. The other two-thirds are grateful to not be in the Sun Belt.
|
|
|
|
Post by believeinthebeavs on Jan 17, 2019 14:03:43 GMT -8
Interesting read. Bringing in less than half of what they spend? Sounds like the federal government
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jan 17, 2019 14:35:32 GMT -8
Wonder what will happen when Geno retires? Apparently winning championships doesn't pay bills...... Some excerpts from the article "UConn athletic department in 2018: generated $40 million in revenue, spent $81 million in expenses"The athletic department incurred $80,905,645 in expenses in 2018, down slightly from 2017, while generating $40,418,969 in revenue, also down from 2017. The school’s sports programs were once again heavily subsidized by the university, receiving more than $8.5 million in student fees and more than $30 million in additional institutional support. : Though the vast majority of Division I athletic departments operate at a loss, UConn’s deficit has become particularly extreme. A USA Today analysis of data from 2016-17 found that the school’s athletic department received the highest university subsidy (about $42 million) of any Division I public institution : The biggest individual team culprit of the UConn athletic department’s 2018 deficit was the school’s football program, which lost $8.7 million. Additionally, men’s basketball lost about $5 million, women’s basketball lost about $3.1 million and the rest of the school’s sports lost about $22.3 million among them. While I really enjoy college sports, especially the Beavers, I wish Universities could keep the spirit but exert some fiscal control...... I will resist the temptation to blame the 'ucks and uncle phil, but I bet that didn't help the "arms race". Go Beavers! Sux 2 B UCon. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jan 17, 2019 17:15:55 GMT -8
"As of February, Storrs-based undergraduates paid a $1,914 annual fee to the university, of which $434 went toward athletics."
So those free tickets to the games aren't all that free . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jan 17, 2019 17:32:23 GMT -8
More: www.courant.com/sports/hc-sp-uconn-attendance-and-revenue-struggles-20180710-story.html"women’s basketball creeps up on the program in terms of per-game revenue, making about $200,000 less than football." That sounds pretty good for WBB, until you read: "The [football] team pulled in $2.66 million in revenue from its six home games last year, but after expenses only netted $815,691. Two games (Holy Cross and East Carolina) saw UConn operating with a net loss. The article does its best to obfuscate - I'm not sure whether the reporter is a homer or is just really bad at math - but UConn is in really deep trouble. For a football team to *lose* money on a game is unbelievable. And for a WBB to lose money while selling 10k tickets per game at (I calculate) roughly $20/seat is just as hard to fathom. Clearly they have zero hope of ever getting close to break-even. And at some point the students are going to rebel over the $400+ they each pay to not have to attend games. |
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Jan 18, 2019 5:54:55 GMT -8
Some of the athletic department expenses are over the top. Some of these teams just cater way too much to the coaches/players.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbuttebeaver80 on Jan 18, 2019 8:07:57 GMT -8
"As of February, Storrs-based undergraduates paid a $1,914 annual fee to the university, of which $434 went toward athletics." So those free tickets to the games aren't all that free . . . Students paid more than just the $434. The ADs deficit had to be made up by some form of revenue, and the most controllable revenue source is undergraduate tuition. So what wasn’t covered by fees was almost certainly covered by higher tuition, thanks to the AD. Unfortunately, most public university athletic departments operate at a deficit. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 18, 2019 9:43:25 GMT -8
"As of February, Storrs-based undergraduates paid a $1,914 annual fee to the university, of which $434 went toward athletics." So those free tickets to the games aren't all that free . . . The same thing happens here. Student fees cover tickets. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jan 18, 2019 9:55:52 GMT -8
Most Power 5 schools operate at a small deficit, like ours, but the deficit isn't real. For example, the AD is charged full price for all the acholarships, as though the marginal cost of adding one more student was really that amount. (God bless Ed Ray for ending that little accounting fiction at OSU.) There are many other accounting tricks, and the upshot is that every Power Five school is at least breaking even, except for Rutgers, probably Minnesota, and maybe one or two others.
But you get past the P5 schools and the situation is very different. Every AAC school listed in the USA Today database is running a nominal deficit of at least 40% of the AD budget. Their real deficits at all these schools is surely in the eight digits. They are all chasing the dream of getting into a Power 5 conference - none of them ever will - and spending whatever they think it takes to get there.
The problem isn't "Big-Time College Athletics". It's small-time schools trying to chase that particular rainbow. It's completely irrational, fed by manic donors and their basic innumeracy. Every major sports league has about 30 teams - enough to cover the country, not so many that markets get over-saturated and teams under-exposed. College sports roughly doubles that number - which is why only about half the P5 schools are really profitable. The demand for college sports is already more than met by the current P5 members - the economics won't change no matter how much UConn, Tulsa, or UCF spend on their programs. It's not a conspiracy - it's the simple laws of supply and demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by albanianbeav on Jan 19, 2019 2:13:38 GMT -8
I may be wrong on this, but I’d be willing to bet most universities understand they need to have athletics to help draw students. You can divvy up the overall university revenue/expenses any way you wish, but I believe at least football and basketball contribute positively to the bottom line. Without them, they would see enrollment drop and/or have to reduce tuition. I do think the draw of sports is dwindling with the younger generation though, and obviously some schools spend way more than they need to chase tv dollars. But I also think they are chasing tv exposure, which gets their brand in front of more eyes and helps create the perception that they are a cool school to attend, which equates to more students. Think of athletics as a major marketing campaign/expense for the school to bolster enrollment. Tuition is where the real money is.
Am I way off on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverboilermaker on Jan 19, 2019 10:58:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 19, 2019 12:38:19 GMT -8
|
|
