I'm attempting JRsec's challenge.

We all know football and men's basketball are currently the only sports at most schools which turn a profit. Can baseball join them? Currently there are 301 D1 programs.

The consensus is that baseball is a major expense. I'd like to believe with ESPN broadcasting the entire NCAA Tournament on its networks or online - combined with the creation of the SEC, Pac-12 and Big Ten networks over the past five years or so - that one day baseball can become a money generator. Baseball is still considered a major professional sport; no reason it can't be labeled the same at the college ranks. Found this piece from a couple years back.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kai-sato/b...50606.html

This past season, ESPN set a record for airing 151 regular season games, meaning that more college baseball games were broadcast in 2013 than ever before.

This milestone comes in the wake of ESPN having committed $500 million in 2011 for the rights to broadcast the CWS (and other college sports championships) through the 2023-24 season.

Whatcha think?

I think so. It is at some schools like LSU already. I believe ECU breaks even and some years has made money from the program.

Yes, there is a weather element. There's also the matter of priorities.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/..._lost.html

Kent State had $107,162 in baseball operating expenses in 2010-11, according to finances reported to the U.S. Department of Education. Stony Brook spent $132,013. The rest of this year's CWS field: Florida ($1,038,144), Arkansas ($772,659), Florida State ($772,659), South Carolina ($680,995), UCLA ($456,889) and Arizona ($450,740).

The 11 Big Ten schools playing baseball averaged $348,232 in operating expenses in 2010-11. Ice hockey, a popular Northern sport, averaged $829,127 in operating expenses by the five Big Ten hockey schools.

You get what you pay for. Unless you don't.

That's what makes Omaha's latest chapter of Moneyball so fascinating.

West Virginia's coach proposed a scheduling change to account for the not so ideal weather conditions northern teams face.

http://baseballnews.com/epitome-of-being...-baseball/

Schools like Texas and LSU do pretty well with baseball financially.

(05-20-2015 02:10 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  West Virginia's coach proposed a scheduling change to account for the not so ideal weather conditions northern teams face.

http://baseballnews.com/epitome-of-being...-baseball/

Randy Mazey Wrote:Global warming has accelerated over the past 10 years to the point where the world’s climates have been completely reversed. What used to be warm weather climates are now cold weather climates and vice versa.

In general, no. For the SEC, yes. Largely because of the SEC Network. (The Big Ten suffers because of weather, and so does half of the PAC).

UConn built their football program from FCS to the near-ACC levels by riding the coattails of UConn basketball. They just had to get every guy wearing a UConn jersey and a Patriots or Giants cap, and they were in business. SEC baseball would follow the same strategy. Like the GAtors? Like baseball? You'll like Gators baseball.

The SEC Network is on basic cable, so SEC baseball games are readily available.
SEC fans know how to find the SEC NEtwork, it's not like trying to remember what channel TruTV is once a year.
After conference basketball ends, the SEC Network basically has nothing to show but SEC baseball.

And of course, the weather benefits southern schools vs northern schools. In fact, based on quality-of-life, I'd expect the SEC to start recruiting competitively against the minor league draft. If you're a hotshot 18 year old senior, would you rather spend 3 years as a varsity SEC athlete in College STation, TX--or as a minor league chump riding busses in Texarkana and Round Rock?

The Big Ten suffers because of the weather and the climate, and so does the PAC. It just does. Nobody from Tennessee retires to Indiana. We could see a "virtuous cycle" with SEC baseball, which you're not going to see in the PAC because they've only got 4 teams in really good-weather baseball areas.

My thing about not wanting to change the schedule isn't because "that's the way it has always been done." It's more about concerns that the northern p5 schools will use their name, tradition, wealth and other factors to drive us "outsiders" away from national relevancy in baseball just like they mostly have in football, men's basketball, softball, women's basketball and volleyball. The p5 already boasts numerous advantages over FCS and non-football conferences in prestige, financial resources, national exposure, higher level recruits, etc. Not to mention that you all will be providing FCOA, whereas us poor Big West folks are not.

I wonder what West Virginia's coach would say to that.

I would like to think that Tulane could monetize baseball if they wanted to. It's the one program they have (outside of good women's sports) that is respectably good. They have tradition and are in Louisiana - a baseball-friendly state.

from my perspective johnbragg, it's about priorities. The northern schools - mostly looking at you Big Ten, UConn, Cincy, BC and Notre Dame - could easy pour money into facilities, coaching and recruiting for baseball if they wanted to and offset the weather disadvantage somewhat (or pay us southerners and west coasters to come to their humble abode). Especially now with the financial windfall of the CFP. But they all seem so intent on putting every penny of revenue into football that there's nothing to invest for baseball.

Again, it's my perspective so if I am mistaken I will gladly admit it.

(05-20-2015 02:46 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I would like to think that Tulane could monetize baseball if they wanted to. It's the one program they have (outside of good women's sports) that is respectably good. They have tradition and are in Louisiana - a baseball-friendly state.

Tulane, UCF, East Carolina, USF, Memphis - I'm guessing those are decent locales to work with.

The AAC also signed a tv deal with CBS Sports recently to broadcast baseball games. They only showed seven or so regular season games this year but that should go up in 2016. It'll be interesting to see if the added exposure can do anything for generating revenues

(05-20-2015 02:35 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  In general, no. For the SEC, yes. Largely because of the SEC Network. (The Big Ten suffers because of weather, and so does half of the PAC).

UConn built their football program from FCS to the near-ACC levels by riding the coattails of UConn basketball. They just had to get every guy wearing a UConn jersey and a Patriots or Giants cap, and they were in business. SEC baseball would follow the same strategy. Like the GAtors? Like baseball? You'll like Gators baseball.

The SEC Network is on basic cable, so SEC baseball games are readily available.
SEC fans know how to find the SEC NEtwork, it's not like trying to remember what channel TruTV is once a year.
After conference basketball ends, the SEC Network basically has nothing to show but SEC baseball.

And of course, the weather benefits southern schools vs northern schools. In fact, based on quality-of-life, I'd expect the SEC to start recruiting competitively against the minor league draft. If you're a hotshot 18 year old senior, would you rather spend 3 years as a varsity SEC athlete in College STation, TX--or as a minor league chump riding busses in Texarkana and Round Rock?

The Big Ten suffers because of the weather and the climate, and so does the PAC. It just does. Nobody from Tennessee retires to Indiana. We could see a "virtuous cycle" with SEC baseball, which you're not going to see in the PAC because they've only got 4 teams in really good-weather baseball areas.

The Big Ten has their own network and televised 21 games this year. Granted, all but one were broadcast in April and May, and it's not ESPN's darling. BUT - the regional exposure is there and can be expanded upon.

(05-20-2015 02:46 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  My thing about not wanting to change the schedule isn't because "that's the way it has always been done." It's more about concerns that the northern p5 schools will use their name, tradition, wealth and other factors to drive us "outsiders" away from national relevancy in baseball just like they mostly have in football, men's basketball, softball, women's basketball and volleyball. The p5 already boasts numerous advantages over FCS and non-football conferences in prestige, financial resources, national exposure, higher level recruits, etc. Not to mention that you all will be providing FCOA, whereas us poor Big West folks are not.

I wonder what West Virginia's coach would say to that.

As you pointed out above, all they have to do is spend as much on baseball as they do on ice hockey.

Oregon didn't even have baseball until after Oregon State won back-to-back national titles, but they used their money to build a contending program from nothing, in a place that doesn't have the winter weather of Arizona or SoCal. Any Big Ten school can easily afford to do the same.

If any of those schools are still playing and training in facilities that haven't been updated in 30 years or more, and still paying their coach one-fourth (or less) of what Oregon pays Horton, then they're just whining. Put the money into the program and improve it.

An equally big challenge would be overcome the growing disinterest in baseball in general, especially among the younger generations. It'll be hard to grow the college version when there are fewer people watching and playing the game at all levels.

I like the idea. There isn't much to do over the summer. I would rather go to college baseball games than minor league games.

There are exceptions to the rule in baseball, ice hockey, women's basketball, even wrestling and lacrosse where some teams actually make money. But I think by and large, college baseball will never be a true revenue sport, though given their value of live content for conference networks and outlets like ESPNU, CBS Sports, etc, I think it can become a revenue neutral sport, where it pays for itself. Some schools will make money from it, just like some do in other sports, but I think systemwide, that is not probable.

(05-20-2015 03:11 PM)prp Wrote:  An equally big challenge would be overcome the growing disinterest in baseball in general, especially among the younger generations. It'll be hard to grow the college version when there are fewer people watching and playing the game at all levels.

Yeah, that too. I like college baseball a lot, but I don't see how you're going to get massive numbers of students and alums to start attending games if they are not already college baseball fans, unless a team suddenly becomes a CWS regular or they already have an LSU-sized fan base. And unless you start drawing LSU-sized crowds paying significant ticket prices, the revenue ceiling is low, which means that chasing revenue is not a solid reason to invest more. There are only about 30 teams today averaging above 2,000/game in reported home attendance.

(05-20-2015 03:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  There are exceptions to the rule in baseball, ice hockey, women's basketball, even wrestling and lacrosse where some teams actually make money. But I think by and large, college baseball will never be a true revenue sport, though given their value of live content for conference networks and outlets like ESPNU, CBS Sports, etc, I think it can become a revenue neutral sport, where it pays for itself. Some schools will make money from it, just like some do in other sports, but I think systemwide, that is not probable.

Hockey is rather profitable even with only 3000 / game. The B1G network supposedly gives each hockey program $2 mill. Penn State has turned a significant profit, probably only leaving Ohio St in the red.

(05-20-2015 03:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  As you pointed out above, all they have to do is spend as much on baseball as they do on ice hockey.

Oregon didn't even have baseball until after Oregon State won back-to-back national titles, but they used their money to build a contending program from nothing, in a place that doesn't have the winter weather of Arizona or SoCal. Any Big Ten school can easily afford to do the same.

If any of those schools are still playing and training in facilities that haven't been updated in 30 years or more, and still paying their coach one-fourth (or less) of what Oregon pays Horton, then they're just whining. Put the money into the program and improve it.

Cal baseball was on the chopping block until millions poured in to save it. NorCal isn't exactly the warmest climate out there yet you manage.

(05-20-2015 03:48 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 03:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  There are exceptions to the rule in baseball, ice hockey, women's basketball, even wrestling and lacrosse where some teams actually make money. But I think by and large, college baseball will never be a true revenue sport, though given their value of live content for conference networks and outlets like ESPNU, CBS Sports, etc, I think it can become a revenue neutral sport, where it pays for itself. Some schools will make money from it, just like some do in other sports, but I think systemwide, that is not probable.

Hockey is rather profitable even with only 3000 / game. The B1G network supposedly gives each hockey program $2 mill. Penn State has turned a significant profit, probably only leaving Ohio St in the red.

If true, that means the B1GN pays its hockey programs as much as ESPN gives each member of the AAC for multiple sports......including football.