(05-28-2020 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

I hope the NCAA has that exact mentality. Nothing would cause them to totally dissolve faster.

Well it'd be a different NCAA once all the toxic elements left. Not the toothless gimp the P5 have created.

The organization called the NCAA has a $165M operating budget for its internal operating expenses. The NCAA also coordinates services (such as insurance and educational conferences) to the tune of $35M annually. The NCAA also distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to colleges and universities.

How does the NCAA earn all this money?

Basically, they have convinced Zion Williamson and other elite basketball youth...as well as Duke University and other elite basketball programs to play in their annual Tournament.

If folks honestly believe that there are hundreds of colleges that have a spare $1.1B annually (that they are willing to gift to maintain the current NCAA funding model), then there is a bridge that is looking for that same owner somewhere.

So how do you suggest funding the other 89 collegiate athletic Championships?

Keep going Yoko.

(05-28-2020 02:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Again, you are tripping. The NCAA at that point would be run by the left behinds and we say either you're in or you're out.

I hope the NCAA has that exact mentality. Nothing would cause them to totally dissolve faster.

Well it'd be a different NCAA once all the toxic elements left. Not the toothless gimp the P5 have created.

The organization called the NCAA has a $165M operating budget for its internal operating expenses. The NCAA also coordinates services (such as insurance and educational conferences) to the tune of $35M annually. The NCAA also distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to colleges and universities.

How does the NCAA earn all this money?

Basically, they have convinced Zion Williamson and other elite basketball youth...as well as Duke University and other elite basketball programs to play in their annual Tournament.

If folks honestly believe that there are hundreds of colleges that have a spare $1.1B annually (that they are willing to gift to maintain the current NCAA funding model), then there is a bridge that is looking for that same owner somewhere.

So how do you suggest funding the other 89 collegiate athletic Championships?

Keep going Yoko.

Well that's sort of the point of the breakaway. The schools participating will fund the ones they want to keep. They will leave it for those wanting the other ones to find a way to fund the ones they want to keep. Federal funds will be tighter. State funds will be tighter. Enrollment will be tighter. Loans will be tighter. The whole trend is going to be about cutting back at any level. Schools that want to keep sports are going to have to be more responsible for them whether they are in the NCAA at some level or in the breakaway.

Look it's a free country and associations are part of that freedom. But freedom does not include being forced to foot some other entities bills. And the sooner the country gets away from believing they should be able to force others to pay for their wants (and that is what sports are) the better off we all will be.

We have some social responsibility to provide for the availability of necessities (needs), we have no social responsibility to pay for anyone's wants, nor should we. It is fundamentally irresponsible to encourage anyone or any entity to pursue that which they cannot afford.

(05-27-2020 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 02:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Reading this article Dodd concludes a group of 90-100 schools in the breakaway, and specifically mentions the AAC schools as the leaders to come with the autonomy schools.

Dodd does mention 90-100, but he doesn't say the AAC are leaders to be included. He quotes an AAC official as saying the AAC has been adamant that it would go along, which means next to nothing as they won't have a say.

That said, if 90-100 do break, the AAC would surely be among them as well as the MW.

Very doubtful!

Oh i agree. I do not foresee.

There, I fixed it for you and it's accurate. I've not known you to foresee anything. I remember you denied the networks were behind realignment. I remember when you didn't think there was a coming drawdown in higher education that would close some schools and re-task and restructure others. Now there's not going to be any breakaway. You've been wrong so far so I accept your pronouncement as the perfect reverse barometer. I suppose one could be avoided should the right circumstances unfold, like WWIII.

1) The "networks" are not behind realignment, unless what you mean is that conferences think about realignment in part in terms of maximizing their media value, which is obvious. Sure, maybe at the G5 level the networks can use a heavy hand and dictate things, but they don't dictate to the SEC, B1G, PAC, etc.

2) If by this you mean the Coronavirus, well nobody, you included, predicted that.

I am cautious about making bold predictions because I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the big picture stuff. I don't think anyone outside of a few well-positioned elites at networks or conferences or the NCAA really do. So I regard my recognition of my limitations as a strength not a weakness.

As for a P5 break .... we shall see.

Thinking through the dynamics of a breakaway decision...

Conference commissioners from the BIG, B12 and SEC have the easier job. Schools in those conferences are already fully engaged in building fan support and monetizing athletics. Ohio State, Texas and Alabama are the most successful athletic department models for their conference-mates. With the possible exception of Vanderbilt, these universities have sunk a lot into promoting athletics. These commissioners can focus on designing a future replacement to the current model.

The PAC is likely in an awkward, conflicted place. The PAC gets a lot of its athletic prestige outside of the revenue sports. Therefore, the PAC has more interest in continuing the NCAA-led status quo. If the financial windfall of a breakaway comes from basketball, the PAC is not well positioned to benefit. The basketball in the PAC has not been very good...for many years. The PAC also has two low revenue programs (WSU and OSU) that will likely struggle in the new environment. On the other hand, the PAC also has massive state universities that could flourish.

The ACC is in the cat-bird seat. It has lots of schools that would flourish financially from the breakaway. It’s also the P5 conference that was excluded from the Rose Bowl/Sugar Bowl bonanzas...having to settle for second tier (financially speaking) Orange Bowl. The ACC also has small privates (WFU and BC) that would likely struggle in the new paradigm.

The Big East is also hugely important for a breakaway. The investment and quality of basketball is outstanding in the Big East. The media payouts would be significantly higher if the Big East were an anchor conference.

(05-28-2020 03:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Dodd does mention 90-100, but he doesn't say the AAC are leaders to be included. He quotes an AAC official as saying the AAC has been adamant that it would go along, which means next to nothing as they won't have a say.

That said, if 90-100 do break, the AAC would surely be among them as well as the MW.

Very doubtful!

Oh i agree. I do not foresee.

There, I fixed it for you and it's accurate. I've not known you to foresee anything. I remember you denied the networks were behind realignment. I remember when you didn't think there was a coming drawdown in higher education that would close some schools and re-task and restructure others. Now there's not going to be any breakaway. You've been wrong so far so I accept your pronouncement as the perfect reverse barometer. I suppose one could be avoided should the right circumstances unfold, like WWIII.

1) The "networks" are not behind realignment, unless what you mean is that conferences think about realignment in part in terms of maximizing their media value, which is obvious. Sure, maybe at the G5 level the networks can use a heavy hand and dictate things, but they don't dictate to the SEC, B1G, PAC, etc.

2) If by this you mean the Coronavirus, well nobody, you included, predicted that.

I am cautious about making bold predictions because I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the big picture stuff. I don't think anyone outside of a few well-positioned elites at networks or conferences or the NCAA really do. So I regard my recognition of my limitations as a strength not a weakness.

As for a P5 break .... we shall see.

1. Is very clear and now widely accepted. They give the valuations, they write the checks, and the pay models are based upon what profits them. Then there is the common sense angle. Nobody woke up in the SEC and said Missouri, nor in the Big 10 and said Rutgers, nor in the ACC and said Louisville. All of those were network backed moves for purposes that suited the then needs of the networks.

2. The draw down in education I spoke of over 5 years ago and it's here and has nothing to do with COVID nice try at a deflection. It has everything to do with demographic shifts. And where you reside it has been palpable. The unforeseen COVID 19 crisis merely exacerbates it.

3. If you recognize your weaknesses why do you cite as a strength acknowledging the very networks you say are elite and know what is going on in one breath and deny their activity with another? As far as big picture things Quo it's all a matter of demographics and recognizing the most likely business responses to them. Most who have been in business in an executive position, or as one who supplies the data to executives know that how the relate to the data, while not uniform, is still rather predictable given knowledge of the other factors like revenue, strength of investments, etc.

I do think the COVID 19 issue is accelerating the acknowledgement and concern over lost basketball revenue. I think that's fair. But it was headed there anyway and the shortfalls from canceled classes due to the virus and the loss of basketball tourney revenue, especially cuts in credit payouts for games that transpired 6 years ago, has done a lot to grab universal attention and stand as a call for action so yes it is a catalyst. But, that is not what I was referring to in #2. That was purely shifts coming in higher ed due to aforementioned factors.

(05-28-2020 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:18 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hope the NCAA has that exact mentality. Nothing would cause them to totally dissolve faster.

Well it'd be a different NCAA once all the toxic elements left. Not the toothless gimp the P5 have created.

The organization called the NCAA has a $165M operating budget for its internal operating expenses. The NCAA also coordinates services (such as insurance and educational conferences) to the tune of $35M annually. The NCAA also distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to colleges and universities.

How does the NCAA earn all this money?

Basically, they have convinced Zion Williamson and other elite basketball youth...as well as Duke University and other elite basketball programs to play in their annual Tournament.

If folks honestly believe that there are hundreds of colleges that have a spare $1.1B annually (that they are willing to gift to maintain the current NCAA funding model), then there is a bridge that is looking for that same owner somewhere.

So how do you suggest funding the other 89 collegiate athletic Championships?

Keep going Yoko.

Well that's sort of the point of the breakaway. The schools participating will fund the ones they want to keep. They will leave it for those wanting the other ones to find a way to fund the ones they want to keep. Federal funds will be tighter. State funds will be tighter. Enrollment will be tighter. Loans will be tighter. The whole trend is going to be about cutting back at any level. Schools that want to keep sports are going to have to be more responsible for them whether they are in the NCAA at some level or in the breakaway.

Look it's a free country and associations are part of that freedom. But freedom does not include being forced to foot some other entities bills. And the sooner the country gets away from believing they should be able to force others to pay for their wants (and that is what sports are) the better off we all will be.

We have some social responsibility to provide for the availability of necessities (needs), we have no social responsibility to pay for anyone's wants, nor should we. It is fundamentally irresponsible to encourage anyone or any entity to pursue that which they cannot afford.

No, you're right. But let's be clear, this is not about survival of the the P5. You're not hanging onto a cliff with the rest of college athletics suspended from a rope around your waste and it's either cut the rope or fall with them. This is about greed. Which wouldn't bother me except the plan is to destroy the best sporting event of the year.

So, like I said. Keep going Yoko. Kill that golden goose. Solid plan.

(05-27-2020 11:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Dodd contradicts himself. A 100 school breakaway is not a P5 breakaway.

There will be a true P5/P6 (hoops) break, or nothing.

Bet on nothing.

That's just quibbling over semantics.

I wouldn't call the fate of 30 - 35 schools "semantics", LOL.

As for the rest of it, I don't see the P5 breaking away. I think the networks would tell them that a Big Dance without the small fry would be considerably less valuable. If the P5 really want more of that hoops money, they can threaten to leave and force the NCAA to cough up a greater share to them.

We shall see.

(05-28-2020 02:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  So how do you suggest funding the other 89 collegiate athletic Championships?

Keep going Yoko.

Who says there's even interest in keeping that charade up? No one other than the US Olympic Team will care if men's or women's water polo vanishes. I don't know where the cut off line will be, but we can make an informed guess by grouping the sports.

Men's team sports
1 Football
2 Basketball
3 Baseball
4 Soccer
5 Wrestling
6 Ice Hockey
7 Lacrosse
8 Volleyball
9 Water Polo

Men's individual sports
1 Track (outdoor)
2 Track (indoor)
3 Cross country
4 Swimming & diving
5 Golf
6 Tennis
7 Wrestling

Women's team sports
1 Basketball
2 Soccer
3 Volleyball
4 Softball
5 Rowing
6 Lacrosse
7 Field Hockey
8 Ice Hockey
9 Beach Volleyball
10 Water Polo

Women's individual sports
1 Track (outdoor)
2 Track (indoor)
3 Cross country
4 Swimming & diving
5 Golf
6 Tennis
7 Gymnastics




Potentially Revenue Positive at least sometimes:
- Football
- M/W Basketball
- Baseball

Low overhead and lower revenue loss:
- M/W golf
- M/W tennis
- M/W soccer
- M/W volleyball

Highly regional/niche .... who knows:
- M/W lacrosse
- Wrestling

Luxury item ... requires its own facilities just for itself with large teams that don't make money:
- M/W ice hockey
- Softball
- Gymnastics
- Water Polo
- Swimming & Diving
- Rowing
- Beach Volleyball
- Field Hockey (does NOT require its own facilities, but the rest applies)

If you want to inflate your numbers and "look good" for offering "a bunch" of sports, this is essentially one program that counts as SIX teams:
- M/W Indoor Track, M/W Outdoor Track, M/W Cross Country

(05-28-2020 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 11:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Dodd contradicts himself. A 100 school breakaway is not a P5 breakaway.

There will be a true P5/P6 (hoops) break, or nothing.

Bet on nothing.

That's just quibbling over semantics.

I wouldn't call the fate of 30 - 35 schools "semantics", LOL.

As for the rest of it, I don't see the P5 breaking away. I think the networks would tell them that a Big Dance without the small fry would be considerably less valuable. If the P5 really want more of that hoops money, they can threaten to leave and force the NCAA to cough up a greater share to them.

We shall see.

Well you flopped the analysis of that one. The breakaway would have the benefit of more completely monetizing hoops, but the catalyst is a closed football division for which the networks are willing to pay much more than even the SEC's new deal would get. But we'll see is right for now. But I challenge you to read up on Thompson. He doesn't toss words around carelessly.

(05-28-2020 03:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  So how do you suggest funding the other 89 collegiate athletic Championships?

Keep going Yoko.

Who says there's even interest in keeping that charade up? No one other than the US Olympic Team will care if men's or women's water polo vanishes. I don't know where the cut off line will be, but we can make an informed guess by grouping the sports.

Men's team sports
1 Football
2 Basketball
3 Baseball
4 Soccer
5 Wrestling
6 Ice Hockey
7 Lacrosse
8 Volleyball
9 Water Polo

Men's individual sports
1 Track (outdoor)
2 Track (indoor)
3 Cross country
4 Swimming & diving
5 Golf
6 Tennis
7 Wrestling

Women's team sports
1 Basketball
2 Soccer
3 Volleyball
4 Softball
5 Rowing
6 Lacrosse
7 Field Hockey
8 Ice Hockey
9 Beach Volleyball
10 Water Polo

Women's individual sports
1 Track (outdoor)
2 Track (indoor)
3 Cross country
4 Swimming & diving
5 Golf
6 Tennis
7 Gymnastics




Potentially Revenue Positive at least sometimes:
- Football
- M/W Basketball
- Baseball

Low overhead and lower revenue loss:
- M/W golf
- M/W tennis
- M/W soccer
- M/W volleyball

Highly regional/niche .... who knows:
- M/W lacrosse
- Wrestling

Luxury item ... requires its own facilities just for itself with large teams that don't make money:
- M/W ice hockey
- Softball
- Gymnastics
- Water Polo
- Swimming & Diving
- Rowing
- Beach Volleyball
- Field Hockey (does NOT require its own facilities, but the rest applies)

If you want to inflate your numbers and "look good" for offering "a bunch" of sports, this is essentially one program that counts as SIX teams:
- M/W Indoor Track, M/W Outdoor Track, M/W Cross Country

Women's Bowling would fall below gymnastics on the prestige scale but is relatively low cost.

(05-28-2020 03:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 02:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  So how do you suggest funding the other 89 collegiate athletic Championships?

Keep going Yoko.

Who says there's even interest in keeping that charade up? No one other than the US Olympic Team will care if men's or women's water polo vanishes. I don't know where the cut off line will be, but we can make an informed guess by grouping the sports.


Potentially Revenue Positive at least sometimes:
- Football
- M/W Basketball
- Baseball

Low overhead and lower revenue loss:
- M/W golf
- M/W tennis
- M/W soccer
- M/W volleyball

Highly regional/niche .... who knows:
- M/W lacrosse
- Wrestling

Luxury item ... requires its own facilities just for itself with large teams that don't make money:
- M/W ice hockey
- Softball
- Gymnastics
- Water Polo
- Swimming & Diving
- Rowing
- Beach Volleyball
- Field Hockey (does NOT require its own facilities, but the rest applies)

If you want to inflate your numbers and "look good" for offering "a bunch" of sports, this is essentially one program that counts as SIX teams:
- M/W Indoor Track, M/W Outdoor Track, M/W Cross Country

One thing that sticks out:
Grouping Baseball/WBB with FB/MBB and relegating Men's Hockey to the lowest category when Men's hockey is a bigger money generator than both Baseball/WBB.

(05-28-2020 03:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Dodd does mention 90-100, but he doesn't say the AAC are leaders to be included. He quotes an AAC official as saying the AAC has been adamant that it would go along, which means next to nothing as they won't have a say.

That said, if 90-100 do break, the AAC would surely be among them as well as the MW.

Very doubtful!

Oh i agree. I do not foresee.

There, I fixed it for you and it's accurate. I've not known you to foresee anything. I remember you denied the networks were behind realignment. I remember when you didn't think there was a coming drawdown in higher education that would close some schools and re-task and restructure others. Now there's not going to be any breakaway. You've been wrong so far so I accept your pronouncement as the perfect reverse barometer. I suppose one could be avoided should the right circumstances unfold, like WWIII.

1) The "networks" are not behind realignment, unless what you mean is that conferences think about realignment in part in terms of maximizing their media value, which is obvious. Sure, maybe at the G5 level the networks can use a heavy hand and dictate things, but they don't dictate to the SEC, B1G, PAC, etc.

2) If by this you mean the Coronavirus, well nobody, you included, predicted that.

I am cautious about making bold predictions because I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the big picture stuff. I don't think anyone outside of a few well-positioned elites at networks or conferences or the NCAA really do. So I regard my recognition of my limitations as a strength not a weakness.

As for a P5 break .... we shall see.

As early as 2005, Bush #43 had concerns about the potential for a world-wide pandemic, albeit not Covid-19 specifically. He was motivated to develop a remedial action plan after reading a book about the 1918-19 "Spanish" flu. In response to concerns about the emergence of Ebola and other novel diseases, the Obama administration later established the Global Health and Biodefense unit in 2015 to operate under the auspices of the National Security Council. The Obama administration also prepared a detailed action plan to guide our nation's response in the event of a global pandemic. That office was disbanded and the action plans were scrapped by our current administration.

As George Santayana famously observed, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

(05-28-2020 04:28 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 03:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Very doubtful!

Oh i agree. I do not foresee.

There, I fixed it for you and it's accurate. I've not known you to foresee anything. I remember you denied the networks were behind realignment. I remember when you didn't think there was a coming drawdown in higher education that would close some schools and re-task and restructure others. Now there's not going to be any breakaway. You've been wrong so far so I accept your pronouncement as the perfect reverse barometer. I suppose one could be avoided should the right circumstances unfold, like WWIII.

1) The "networks" are not behind realignment, unless what you mean is that conferences think about realignment in part in terms of maximizing their media value, which is obvious. Sure, maybe at the G5 level the networks can use a heavy hand and dictate things, but they don't dictate to the SEC, B1G, PAC, etc.

2) If by this you mean the Coronavirus, well nobody, you included, predicted that.

I am cautious about making bold predictions because I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the big picture stuff. I don't think anyone outside of a few well-positioned elites at networks or conferences or the NCAA really do. So I regard my recognition of my limitations as a strength not a weakness.

As for a P5 break .... we shall see.

As early as 2005, Bush #43 had concerns about the potential for a world-wide pandemic, albeit not Covid-19 specifically. He was motivated to develop a remedial action plan after reading a book about the 1918-19 "Spanish" flu. In response to concerns about the emergence of Ebola and other novel diseases, the Obama administration later established the Global Health and Biodefense unit in 2015 to operate under the auspices of the National Security Council. The Obama administration also prepared a detailed action plan to guide our nation's response in the event of a global pandemic. That office was disbanded and the action plans were scrapped by our current administration.

"Your government in action..."

I strongly advise against trying to make this thread a link to politics. I let Col Hanks post stand with reservations of what it might lead to, but anyone who continues to take it in that direction will do so at their own peril. That aspect of discussion may be held in the Spin Room.

(05-28-2020 04:26 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  One thing that sticks out:
Grouping Baseball/WBB with FB/MBB and relegating Men's Hockey to the lowest category when Men's hockey is a bigger money generator than both Baseball/WBB.

Have to consider how much it costs to operate each Division I sport.

The NCAA has a chart of the median cost per FBS school per year to operate each sport, for fiscal year 2016. This is a link to the PDF file containing that chart.

Here are a few of those median expenses per school per year:

Football $17,307,000

Men's Basketball $6,147,000
Women's Basketball $3,165,000

Men's Ice Hockey $2,837,000
Women's Ice Hockey $2,068,000

Baseball $1,819,000
Softball $1,230,000

Men's Lacrosse $1,672,000
Women's Lacrosse $1,297,000

Ice hockey is the third most expensive men's sport (after football and basketball) and the second most expensive women's sport (after basketball). The median cost for men's ice hockey is over $1 million/year more than baseball, which is itself expensive relative to many other D-I sports.

The median net loss per year for a men's ice hockey program is $1.02 million (about the same as baseball) and $1.65 million for women's ice hockey (about twice as much as softball).

Whether it's baseball, softball, hockey, or any other sport, if a sport doesn't make a net profit per year for a particular school, then it's a non-revenue sport at that school, not a revenue sport.

(05-28-2020 06:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 04:26 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  One thing that sticks out:
Grouping Baseball/WBB with FB/MBB and relegating Men's Hockey to the lowest category when Men's hockey is a bigger money generator than both Baseball/WBB.

Have to consider how much it costs to operate each Division I sport.

The NCAA has a chart of the median cost per FBS school per year to operate each sport, for fiscal year 2016. This is a link to the PDF file containing that chart.

Here are a few of those median expenses per school per year:

Football $17,307,000

Men's Basketball $6,147,000
Women's Basketball $3,165,000

Men's Ice Hockey $2,837,000
Women's Ice Hockey $2,068,000

Baseball $1,819,000
Softball $1,230,000

Men's Lacrosse $1,672,000
Women's Lacrosse $1,297,000

Ice hockey is the third most expensive men's sport (after football and basketball) and the second most expensive women's sport (after basketball). The median cost for men's ice hockey is over $1 million/year more than baseball, which is itself expensive relative to many other D-I sports.

The median net loss per year for a men's ice hockey program is $1.02 million (about the same as baseball) and $1.65 million for women's ice hockey (about twice as much as softball).

Whether it's baseball, softball, hockey, or any other sport, if a sport doesn't make a net profit per year for a particular school, then it's a non-revenue sport at that school, not a revenue sport.

Baseball in the SEC is clearly #3 and at most schools is a revenue sport. I'm holding two tickets for the first event in the SEC to be called off by the COVID Virus and they are Auburn baseball tickets.

When Connecticut and Tennessee started operating in the Red those were the last two women's basketball programs to operate in the black so Women's hoops turned red across the country. I have no doubt but what Big 10 hockey is profitable but it doesn't translate to any other conference. A few softball programs in the SEC have hit the black in the ledger sheet but far from the majority.

It's Football, massive gap, Basketball which is almost as profitable and almost as well attended as the ACC (average to average), and baseball which is really only rivaled at about half of the ACC schools and many of the PAC and Big 12 schools, and some smaller West Coast and Texas schools. But this is precisely why one size can't fit all and each sport needs to be taken independent of others. The idea is to give every school a chance to showcase and profit more efficiently from what they do best.

The sport that the NCAA does not sponsor that makes money is college rodeo. The College Finals Rodeo is always sold out.

(05-28-2020 07:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The sport that the NCAA does not sponsor that makes money is college rodeo. The College Finals Rodeo is always sold out.

(05-28-2020 07:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 06:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 04:26 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  One thing that sticks out:
Grouping Baseball/WBB with FB/MBB and relegating Men's Hockey to the lowest category when Men's hockey is a bigger money generator than both Baseball/WBB.

Have to consider how much it costs to operate each Division I sport.

The NCAA has a chart of the median cost per FBS school per year to operate each sport, for fiscal year 2016. This is a link to the PDF file containing that chart.

Here are a few of those median expenses per school per year:

Football $17,307,000

Men's Basketball $6,147,000
Women's Basketball $3,165,000

Men's Ice Hockey $2,837,000
Women's Ice Hockey $2,068,000

Baseball $1,819,000
Softball $1,230,000

Men's Lacrosse $1,672,000
Women's Lacrosse $1,297,000

Ice hockey is the third most expensive men's sport (after football and basketball) and the second most expensive women's sport (after basketball). The median cost for men's ice hockey is over $1 million/year more than baseball, which is itself expensive relative to many other D-I sports.

The median net loss per year for a men's ice hockey program is $1.02 million (about the same as baseball) and $1.65 million for women's ice hockey (about twice as much as softball).

Whether it's baseball, softball, hockey, or any other sport, if a sport doesn't make a net profit per year for a particular school, then it's a non-revenue sport at that school, not a revenue sport.

Baseball in the SEC is clearly #3 and at most schools is a revenue sport. I'm holding two tickets for the first event in the SEC to be called off by the COVID Virus and they are Auburn baseball tickets.

When Connecticut and Tennessee started operating in the Red those were the last two women's basketball programs to operate in the black so Women's hoops turned red across the country. I have no doubt but what Big 10 hockey is profitable but it doesn't translate to any other conference. A few softball programs in the SEC have hit the black in the ledger sheet but far from the majority.

It's Football, massive gap, Basketball which is almost as profitable and almost as well attended as the ACC (average to average), and baseball which is really only rivaled at about half of the ACC schools and many of the PAC and Big 12 schools, and some smaller West Coast and Texas schools. But this is precisely why one size can't fit all and each sport needs to be taken independent of others. The idea is to give every school a chance to showcase and profit more efficiently from what they do best.

I would say half the ECAC and most of Hockey East makes money...

(05-28-2020 02:08 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 08:38 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  That playful and artsy statue of the venerable Nate B. Forrest can be found in my hometown of Nashville. Three years ago, it was given this lovely pink paint job.

Photo courtesy of WZTV

I'd love to extend an invitation to those folks to come and attempt to slosh pink paint on the NBF portrait hanging in my home.

* The man who had the statute constructed and erected on his property is as small-minded and hate-filled as I am pompous and pretentious.

* The people who vandalized his property should be arrested if caught.

* If NBF is one of your heroes ... good for you, as that is your right. I find that wrong on various levels but you would find many things about me off-putting too.

* Go, Tigers.