(07-02-2019 11:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (07-02-2019 10:25 AM)bullet Wrote: (07-01-2019 12:23 PM)usffan Wrote: (07-01-2019 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: (07-01-2019 09:40 AM)usffan Wrote: Since it's been coming up in a few threads, seems timely to repost (I know this was posted some time ago, but I couldn't find the thread with it) USA Today's compilation of athletic budgets for the 2016-17 year:
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
where "Total Allocated" includes "The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school. The transfer amount cannot exceed the sum of student fees and direct institutional support that the department receives from the school. (Under NCAA reporting rules, any additional money transferred to the school cannot be considered part of the department’s annual operating revenues or expenses.)"
Even two years ago, UConn was the most subsidized athletic program among all reporting schools (almost exclusively public schools - private schools are not required to report this) - to the tune of >$42MM and roughly 50% of their total athletic budget. Only 5 other schools were subsidized > $30MM. Makes a pretty compelling case that something needed to stop.
By the way, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that being in the P5 is some magical path to making these go away. Virginia, Rutgers ($33MM!), Minnesota, Maryland, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah all have more than $10MM in subsidies/state support. But there's no escaping notice that every AAC, MWC and MAC school also receives at least $10MM as well. In 2019 with greater attention being paid to student debt, this will eventually get scrutinized and is almost certainly unsustainable.
USFFan
Contained within this report is the reason for the distinction between the G5 and the P5. P5=<20% subsidy. G5=>25% subsidy. And off the P5 schools only 3 or 4 had a subsidy > 10%. Athletic fees for students accounted for a good portion of those subsidized under 5% and I think they must have been the ones highlighted in red.
*cough* Rutgers *cough*
USFFan
Because the "egalitarian" Big 10 has Rutgers making a quarter of what the 12 earliest members are making, Rutgers is really not far ahead of the G5 in conference revenue. With the new contract, the AAC probably catches up until Rutgers gets closer to full membership in the Big 10.
Yes, Rutgers and Maryland are probably on that list because they have been getting a slight fraction of the B1G payouts.
Starting with next year, they will be raking in the full $55m share, so the need for subsidies will be gone.
But there is an old truism in administration, that once a tax is in place, it's hard to get rid of, so it will be interesting to see what they do about those subsidies.
First the Big 10 made 54 million and they have escalators as well so perhaps the Maryland and Rutgers share will be 55 when they get a full share but it could be a little bit more.
Second, if we move to any kind of pay for play the profits go down slightly and the overhead goes up. I still think that schools which are heavily subsidized are poorly positioned moving forward, even within the Big 10. Will the extra 25 million or so help them? Sure! But what are the deficits they are running now? I think Maryland makes it, I'm not so sure about Rutgers.
And yes, I look for the next decade to slowly winnow out a reasonable % of FBS programs. FCS programs can operate on much much less and I'm sure they'll suffer casualties due to declining enrollment, fewer recruits to pull from, and higher costs. But there are going to be some FBS programs that drop back down to FCS levels and some that may simply pull the plug on football.
I look for these not to be located in the Southeast and Texas. But I do expect some FBS programs in the Southeast and Texas drop down a level.
Whether for their image, or in some other more direct pay for play, I look for significant contraction in the FBS. USF and UCF I don't see dropping down. Houston, East Carolina, Memphis, Cincinnati, Brigham Young, etc, I fully expect to see hang around.
If they want a seat at the big table then their goals should be these: 50,000 minimum attendance, 90 million in total revenue generated, and relatively competitive facilities. They are in high viewer areas of the South where football players are still in good supply.
The greatest thing hurting these kinds of schools are not Florida and Florida State and Miami. They are FIU and FAU, and FAMU, and others who broke into the FBS. Competition for donors and eyeballs are too divided within a relatively small region of Florida and this impedes the development of the programs with the most on the ball. Texas suffers the same. Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia to a much lesser degree even though they have the same kind of competition those population bases are older than those in Florida and the brand loyalty has been locked in longer.
I wouldn't be surprised if by 2030 we had 80 or so FBS programs. And none of this takes into consideration a major downturn in the economy which IMO is just a matter of time. We are already in the longest running Bull market and a few weeks ago the FED and ECB were beginning to question the veracity of the ledger sheets of the entities who back them up. That has been partially responsible for the run up in precious metals.
Should we suffer a major correction, suffer a recession, or have a lock down due to tariffs which globally bring a downturn the abandonment of football at smaller institutions could certainly be accelerated to levels that would surprise many on this board.
It may be just past my lifetime, but contraction in the P5 to four dozen or so schools is also likely IMO.