<p>UCB, at most Big 10 schools, the athletic program finances itself. At Michigan, it runs in the black. Obviously, that will not be the case with a newly formed program, but even then, it will not cost the university too much money. I think it is worth it.</p>
<p>^ Uh huh…and financial performance is often tied to having winning sports programs. If UChicago decided to restart its big athletics program, it would likely take many, many years of investment before it could be self-sustaining.</p>
<p>I agree UCB, but you are forgetting a little factor…the alums. I am sure there are litterally hundreds, if not thousands of very wealthy alums who would gladly donate millions for the formation of an athletics program. Again, I do not deny that the university would have to bear some costs initially, but the costs would be relatively insignificant compared to the overall wealth of the university and the rewards of having an athletics program.</p>
<p>^ Is Northwestern self-sustaining? UChicago would probably look to NU as a model…then consider how many years alums will want to see an upstart Chicago team be massacred by the “Legends and Leaders” likes of Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn State…then seriously reconsider that decision and focus on other priorities.</p>
<p>UCB, Northwestern’s Basketball and Football program are in the Black…BIG TIME! Together, they are over $10 million in the black. I am fairly certain that those two programs easily sustain the rest of its athletic programs. It has nothing to do with winning. Being part of the Big 10 automatically brings in television and Bowl game money worth tens of millions of dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>those two programs do not sustain the rest of northwesterns athletic department. generally speaking, whenever a school reports identical revenues and expenses to the ope (where, i assume, your numbers originate) that school is using institutional funds to subsidize the schools operating loss. northwesterns numbers are identical.</p>
<p>further, the numbers reported to the ope do NOT include capital expenses. debt service on a $200 million football stadium is excluded, for example, despite it being a clear (and significant) athletic expense. penn state serviced over $14 million in athletically-related debt last year in addition to having other capital expenses… none of which were included in the schools ope bottom line.</p>
<p>the reality is that the only athletic departments come close to paying for themselves are those that fill 80,000 seat football stadiums seven times each fall. everybody else loses money.</p>
<p>Erica, how is Bucknell voting on the PL football scholarship issues? Are you siding with the “no” votes of Georgetown and Lafayette? Or the “yes” votes of Fordham, Lehigh and Colgate?</p>
<p>erica, I am not sure I agree with your math. Penn State football posted $44 million in profits last year. Even if its capital expenses were $20 million, we are still talking about $20 million+ profits. </p>
<p>Northwestern posted profits of $8.3 million for football and $5.6 million in basketball for the year 2009-2010. </p>
<p>[For</a> Longhorns, Money Grows on Football Program Instead of Trees – NCAAFB FanHouse](<a href=“http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/30/for-longhorns-money-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/]For”>http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/30/for-longhorns-money-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/)</p>
<p>[How</a> profitable is your favorite college basketball team? - Mar. 18, 2010](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm]How”>http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm) </p>
<p>That’s $14 million of profits between those two programs. Of course, as we all know, all other athletic teams actually lose money. However, $14 million goes a long way in covering the loses of the rest of the athletics department. I agree that Northwestern’s athletic department does not turn a profit… it may not even break even. But I do not think it is such a drain on institutional resources. Even if an athletics department costs a university $5-$10 million/year, the benefits far outnumber the drawbacks. What can a university do with $10 million/year? Endow 10 faculty members? Provide aid to an additional 50 students annually? That’s peanuts compared to the benefits of having a full blown athletic program…particularly one that belongs to in the Big 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Slightly exaggerated. Figures I’ve seen indicate all the Big Ten schools generate a small athletic department surplus, except Northwestern and Minnesota which are at or very close to break-even. In part that’s because the conference splits the take on football and basketball broadcast revenues, football bowl revenues, NCAA basketball tournament revenues, and the earnings of the Big Ten Network. In addition, many Big Ten schools generate millions of dollars in revenue from corporate sponsorships (e.g., they’re paid to have their teams wear Nike- or Adidas-labeled uniforms and shoes) and licensing royalties (clothing and paraphernalia manufacturers must pay to use the team name, color schemes, logos, etc.). Putting buns on the seats is still a big money-maker, but paid attendance typically represents less than half of a Big Ten athletic department’s revenue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not universally true. Hockey generates a surplus at Minnesota and Wisconsin and is now probably close to break-even at Michigan, maybe even in the black this year given the smashing success of last weekend’s “Big Chill at the Big House” which put 113,000 spectators in the stands, by far the most ever for a hockey game. Michigan projects hockey will bring in about $1 million MORE in ticket sales than basketball this year. Not much television money in hockey, though.</p>
<p>im pretty sure bucknell is voting in favor of scholarships, more to keep the league intact than anything else.</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>my math is fine. the data you are citing comes from the ope reports i mentioned. northwestern claimed something like $48 million in athletic department operating expenses in its most recent filing. its reported revenues were identical, which means that at best northwestern was breaking even BEFORE capital expenditures and debt carriage were included.</p>
<p>either way, those two programs come nowhere close to ‘easily sustaining’ (as you initially claimed) the rest of the athletic department any way you cut it.</p>
<p>whether losing, say, $10 million per year is worth the benefits of being in the big ten is a different question altogether. </p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>again, not all expenditures are being counted. in fact, it is explicit in the instructions for ope filings that not all expenditures are supposed to be reported. so while i am sure there are exceptions to the ‘80,000’ rule (and due to media contracts those exceptions are almost certainly in the big ten and sec), i stand by it as an easy way of dividing the types of athletic departments that really do pay for themselves from those that dont.</p>
<p>mind you, i am not saying that athletic departments SHOULD pay for themsleves. athletics at chicago is already losing money, after all. as are the model un and mock trial teams. its the question of what an appropriate institutional subsidy looks like that is ultimately relevant.</p>
<p>Patriot league article</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/sports/ncaafootball/14scholarships.html?ref=sports[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/sports/ncaafootball/14scholarships.html?ref=sports</a></p>
<p>New logo sucks, division names are even worse, gawwww. </p>
<p>I do not like where the Big Ten is headed under Jim Delany.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m not relying on the ope filings exclusively. Michigan, for example, publishes fairly detailed athletic department budgets that include capital expenditures and debt service. </p>
<p>At many schools debt service is not an especially big-ticket expenditure item. The Michigan athletic department’s debt service, for example, was stable at a relatively modest $2.5 million/year (out of an athletic budget in the $90-$100 million range), until it jumped to $10 million/year beginning in 2010, mainly to pay for a costly $250 million renovation of Michigan Stadium—of which a little over $100 million was already paid for by alumni contributions, corporate sponsorships, and money the athletic department had previously set aside for capital improvements out of previous years’ operating surpluses. But that rehab work also bumped up football revenue sharply, because they’re now able to bring in so much additional revenue from premium seating—almost enough to offset the increased debt service. So the net cost to the athletic department budget from a $250 million stadium renovation is about $1 million a year, and one expects even that gap will be wiped out as they adjust ticket prices and premium-seating fees.</p>
<p>Published reports at Minnesota say the central administration’s subsidy of their athletic department now stands at about $2.3 million/year, down from $5-6 million/year a few years ago (much of which went to buy out fired coaches and replace them with new, more expensive substitutes). I’d say a $2.3 million operating loss on a roughly $80 million operating budget is “close to break-even.” </p>
<p>I don’t think any school in the Big Ten subsidizes its athletic department to the tune of anywhere near $10 million/year.</p>
<p>JD invented the BTN which is the envy of every other conference. He also has helped the BT get the best bowl tie-ins around and tons of ESPN coverage. Adding PSU and NU looks like a winner too.</p>
<p>
Cal recently had to subsidize its athletic program by about $9 million/year. The Chancellor thought no more than $5 million/year was sustainable going forward…end result was cutting baseball, women’s lacrosse, and men’s and women’s gymnastics. This decision was made before new revenue could be realized by a renegotiated Pac-12 media contract and IMO reflects a major Cal administration failure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps. You are correct, I recant my previous statement. </p>
<p>However, I still don’t like this new direction the Big Ten is taking/leading, into the era of super conferences.</p>
<p>The most successful athletics departments generate income. However, most athletic departments cost the university some money, up to $10 million/year. But like I said, I believe that even $10 million is worth it considering the benefits of having an entire athletics department.</p>
<p>
It’s all about more money.</p>
<p>
This is like poor public school districts eliminating after-school music and arts programs. Real sad to see that happening to Cal. I’m sure they can raise the extra $4M a year in no time if they just appeal to the alumni.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know, but I still don’t like it.</p>
<p>After failing to bring in Texas or Notre Dame, I think Nebraska was a save-face kind of move. </p>
<p>Whatever, I guess if the 16 team super conferences lie ahead, the Big Ten might as well lead the way.</p>