Link

According to this article: (Yes, I noticed the Iowa State logo)
Michigan and Ohio State made significant profits.
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska made modest profits
Penn State looks like they made a slight profit.
Illinois, Michigan State, Minnesota, Purdue and Wisconsin all lost money.
Maryland and Rutgers had MAJOR red ink.
Northwestern is not listed.

Half of the conference is operating in the RED!

Maryland and Rutgers had reduced shares so their numbers may not be as bad as it looks. However, Michigan State and Wisconsin loosing money when they had the benefit of Maryland and Rutgers getting reduced shares?

I thought that this was going to be a half-baked proposal to drag Cornell into the B1G, but was pleasantly surprised when it ended up being about a bunch of B1G schools losing money.

This stuff is all just accounting. Most programs aren't trying to turn a profit. I don't think this is a viable way to determine the health of a program.

It's understandable that Maryland and Rutgers lost money - this is for 2013-14 - but those other Big Ten teams don't make sense with all that BTN revenue.

No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

(04-20-2015 05:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

If you consider Rutgers major...they have been and continue to bleed taxpayer money.

(04-20-2015 05:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

False. For the vast majority of the schools in Div1, college athletics programs are a drain on the university. I'm not a huge fan of setting up hypotheticals based on a dichotomy, because they tend to be overly simplistic. However, going "all in" on college athletics may actually be one of those "either/or" propositions that has some merit. Either a university focuses more on academics and either puts the bare minimum needed to sustain athletics or outright eliminates significant portions of the AD or it goes all in on athletics and puts a lot of resources towards building athletics and allow your academic side to either stagnate or fall behind vs its peers due a focus on athletics.

Frankly with the costs of attendance going up and fewer families being able to afford college without taking on significant debt loads, something is going to give. In fact, expect a number of things to give. Honestly, I think college athletics are going to decline overtime. People used to view college more as an "experience", as a way to "expand your minds" and to "continue the HS spirit" where you show your school pride and develop connections to "school spirit". That chapter is almost over IMHO. People are beginning to see college more as a means to an end. It's becoming much more of a transactional relationship. Simply put, you determine what you think is the maximum amount of debt you are willing to shoulder, do the cost/benefit analysis and then pick the school that best aligns with your goals. Hint: for the vast majority of students out there who are OBJECTIVELY college material, that school will be in your backyard. Only the best and brightest will go out of state to find a school that best matches your plan. Most kids are at the mercy of their place of birth as to where they will go to school. Granted, that's not all that bad because most of the 50 states have good choices that are reasonable. OH has OSU and UC, PA has Pitt and PSU, Indiana has IU and Purdue and MI has UM and MSU, and plenty of other states have very solid state schools. That doesn't include the lesser known state schools that are very good options for those students who are focused on becoming teachers, associate degree tracks or vocational schools.

This is not rocket science. These close college connections that make athletics such a roaring success are not going to be there over the long term. Add in the revelations coming to us about concussion syndrome in CFB and the prognosis dims further. Add in the declining participation rates in youth football due to concerns over long term injuries and it will continue to add up. More and more factors are building that will result in a decline in athletics overall. IN REALITY, THAT'S NOT A BAD THING.

(04-20-2015 05:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

Rutgers has been losing money big time for many years. This is not a numbers game by accountants. This is an ongoing issue that NJ and many affiliated with Rutgers have complained about for years.

I agree with your overall point, but there are some schools that totally screw up the money issue: Rutgers, Maryland to name two.

(04-20-2015 06:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 05:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

False. For the vast majority of the schools in Div1, college athletics programs are a drain on the university.

No. No they're not.

I readily admit I totally forgot about Rutgers and Maryland, but that is far from the vast majority.

I understand you can massage the numbers. These numbers are different from the ones reported to the Equity in Athletics database. I think they are interesting for 2 reasons.

1 - the numbers in this article were obtained through the freedom of information act so the massaging should be minimal.
2 - with "the BTN printing money," I would have expected all of the schools, except Maryland and Rutgers, would show significant profits.
3 - The numbers are for 2013/14 so they include the "bump in attendance" for the first year in the B1G that we see endless posts about.

Edit: added #3

(04-20-2015 09:16 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 05:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

False. For the vast majority of the schools in Div1, college athletics programs are a drain on the university.

No. No they're not.

I readily admit I totally forgot about Rutgers and Maryland, but that is far from the vast majority.

If there were NO athletics at all anywhere, would Maryland and Rutgers be better off?

(04-20-2015 10:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 09:16 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 05:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

False. For the vast majority of the schools in Div1, college athletics programs are a drain on the university.

No. No they're not.

I readily admit I totally forgot about Rutgers and Maryland, but that is far from the vast majority.

If there were NO athletics at all anywhere, would Maryland and Rutgers be better off?

Unless you're saying you think Maryland and Rutgers are representative of the "vast majority" of all colleges, the answer to your question is irrelevant to my comment.

(04-20-2015 10:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 09:16 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 05:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  No major athletic department is bleeding money, even if the "numbers" say otherwise.

False. For the vast majority of the schools in Div1, college athletics programs are a drain on the university.

No. No they're not.

I readily admit I totally forgot about Rutgers and Maryland, but that is far from the vast majority.

If there were NO athletics at all anywhere, would Maryland and Rutgers be better off?

Unless you're saying you think Maryland and Rutgers are representative of the "vast majority" of all colleges, the answer to your question is irrelevant to my comment.

Do the "vast majority" of all colleges make exceptions for athletics? I'm gonna say yes.

The original remark was that athletics are "a drain" on schools, referring to finances. Are you talking about admissions exceptions?

(04-20-2015 02:49 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Link

According to this article: (Yes, I noticed the Iowa State logo)
Michigan and Ohio State made significant profits.
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska made modest profits
Penn State looks like they made a slight profit.
Illinois, Michigan State, Minnesota, Purdue and Wisconsin all lost money.
Maryland and Rutgers had MAJOR red ink.
Northwestern is not listed.

Half of the conference is operating in the RED!

Maryland and Rutgers had reduced shares so their numbers may not be as bad as it looks. However, Michigan State and Wisconsin loosing money when they had the benefit of Maryland and Rutgers getting reduced shares?

1) How do you make "slight" profit with a 100,000+ seat football stadium?
2) LOL @ Maryland

(04-20-2015 11:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 02:49 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Link

According to this article: (Yes, I noticed the Iowa State logo)
Michigan and Ohio State made significant profits.
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska made modest profits
Penn State looks like they made a slight profit.
Illinois, Michigan State, Minnesota, Purdue and Wisconsin all lost money.
Maryland and Rutgers had MAJOR red ink.
Northwestern is not listed.

Half of the conference is operating in the RED!

Maryland and Rutgers had reduced shares so their numbers may not be as bad as it looks. However, Michigan State and Wisconsin loosing money when they had the benefit of Maryland and Rutgers getting reduced shares?

1) How do you make "slight" profit with a 100,000+ seat football stadium?
2) LOL @ Maryland

Simple - you get yourself sanctioned by the NCAA and the Big Ten withholds a whole bunch of revenue (this was 2013-14 data, so PSU was still being punished).