I had to go work out so I can be fit like @sushiritto !
I do think football is the main driver of the value of the media deals, but of course all the athletes are important, and other sports bring in some revenues (but the vast majority are not profitable).
The sad thing is that if the remaining PAC4 can’t get into one of the remaining Power 4 conferences, or somehow bring the PAC back to life with revenues of $25M+ or so, they will have to cut sports. Cal’s athletic dept in particular is in bad shape (financially as well as strength and media appeal). Cal should keep riding Stanford’s coattails.
I also like Chip Kelly’s idea of separating Power 5 football out (so 66 teams or whatever), and not having conferences for them. And the rest of the teams at those schools stay in whatever conference they are in (but that doesn’t solve the PAC 4’s problems right now). This alignment could maximize future media deals too (because the conferences aren’t all competing with each other) and because I don’t think FOX and ESPN can keep giving the contracts they have been. But who knows?
Seems the ACC is going to vote again this weekend on bringing in some more schools…seeing Stanford, Cal, OSU, WSU all mentioned, as well as SMU. Time will tell where this is going.
Oregon State will have a really nice stadium - just finishing a $162 million renovation. Ouch. I hope the bondholders are paid off - I suspect they will be, even if the state has to dig into its coffers.
In general, two sports are revenue generating - football and men’s basketball. Those programs provide the financial support for the other athletic programs. In some instances a sport may generate enough income to be self-supporting (women’s volleyball or basketball) but not enough to support other programs.
It’s beautiful and spectacular, I visited in May and attended an event in the fancy schmancy booster meeting/party room (which is in the stadium). I love that school for many reasons. I am still optimistic they can stay in one of the remaining 4 conferences too, but maybe I am being too Pollyanna.
Yeah, I think they’re fluff or schedule filler if you will. It’s too bad schools don’t have each other’s backs - but they don’t. They had partners - and they walked out on them. Terrible.
I was looking for a list of profitable athletic programs vs. those running a deficit which I think is most.
I haven’t found it (yet) but this one might interest some folks. It’s third party but hopefully has solid reporting behind it. It’s which program at a school is most profitable. It doesn’t have those that don’t have to report.
#1 - UT football. Interesting, Bama football is only #11. The top basketball program is #46 UNC, which is lower than #40 UNC football.
There’s a lot I don’t understand about the workings big time college athletics. But, remember when Stanford was going to cut 11 sports a couple of years ago, and peeps went crazy? So, Stanford backtracked and reinstated those sports.
At the time they said something like boosters stepped up with money, and that some of those sports are self-funded now, but I have never seen those $ details. What does self-funded mean in this context? Does it mean the boosters raised so much money that the sport can continue indefinitely and need no money from the school? Is this a possible model for some schools/some sports?
They wouldn’t be playing in the MWC because MWC doesn’t have lacrosse. Before the PAC 12 had 6 teams to have a conference, the west coast schools formed a group to play in and that would have to happen again (although some schools like St. Mary’s have dropped lax and others like DU have joined other conferences-Big East). That is going to happen with schools that have changed conferences and those conferences don’t have all the sports previously offered too.
In Denver, Stanford is ‘the’ school that kids want to go to and many use athletics to get there. Golf, tennis, crew, swimming, women’s basketball are all top draws. A top football player may make a different choice if Stanford doesn’t have a conference to play in, but it hasn’t hurt ND over the years and I think Stanford could do it too. Golfers want to play where Tiger played.
Although Stanford FB is not ND FB in terms of its national draw, I agree Stanford could go independent for FB. But, also like ND, they need a conference and $ for all the other sports (ND gets about 1/3 the full ACC payout). Stanford may need to cut sports if their media $ decrease significantly.
This is all well and good, but again, potential Stanford recruits have other options, and some will take those other options if Stanford isn’t in a Power 5 level conference. Seems simple.
I agree many kids want to go to Stanford, but MANY aren’t able to use athletics (or academic prowess) to get there. A cursory check revealed Colorado graduates approximately 56,000 students/year, and on average seven or eight matriculate at Stanford each year.
I graduated from a top high school and the school everyone wanted to go to was Stanford (many had to settle for Pepperdine). Forty seven years later, it is still the top choice for Denver students and especially from my high school. Many get there by athletics.
Three Colorado athletes have signed a letter of intent to attend Stanford this fall. One is a football player. I’m sure he’s disappointed by what has transpired over the last few months. It’s the students who pay the price for the greed of the colleges, TV, and NCAA.
