Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Michigan projects $26 million athletic deficit upcoming year
Author Message
Big Frog II Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,231
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 55
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Michigan projects $26 million athletic deficit upcoming year
(06-28-2020 11:07 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 09:27 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  All schools are going to suffer this year.

Yes. But if there's no football, those schools who play it will be hit harder than those who don't.

That goes without saying. That's why these schools are doing everything possible to get the season in. I just hope they can finish it.
06-30-2020 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 10,145
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 737
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #22
RE: Michigan projects $26 million athletic deficit upcoming year
Past couple years surpluses will cover that.
06-30-2020 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,475
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #23
RE: Michigan projects $26 million athletic deficit upcoming year
(06-28-2020 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 09:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 03:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-27-2020 03:25 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  With as much money as is being brought in by the Big Ten alone, how, just, how, do you run a deficit like that?

Live within your means.

Since an athletic department is a "not for profit" organization, one with big revenues has a strong incentive to find ways to spend money on "costs" that benefit the organization, to reduce the money wasted by handing it back to the University.

That kind of structure is tail wagging the dog, as "the university" should have first and last say about how athletic revenues are spent, including how much is transferred out of athletics, not the athletic department.

Yes "should do" and "do" are often quite wide apart when it comes to how organizations behave in the real world.

This is one of the arguments for splitting off the big money sports as for-profit enterprises that pay a franchise fee to the University that they use for branding purposes, as well as tuition for the classes that their athletes elect to take from their University brand partner ... they would likely pay substantially more to the Universities in franchise fees as a cost of doing business than they pay in "operating surpluses" as notionally not for profit enterprises.

http://www.susla.edu/news/susla-partners...ll-program

Wow! Great find!

No one should be shocked if this is the future of college sports.
07-02-2020 03:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,508
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 952
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #24
RE: Michigan projects $26 million athletic deficit upcoming year
(07-02-2020 03:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 09:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 03:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Since an athletic department is a "not for profit" organization, one with big revenues has a strong incentive to find ways to spend money on "costs" that benefit the organization, to reduce the money wasted by handing it back to the University.

That kind of structure is tail wagging the dog, as "the university" should have first and last say about how athletic revenues are spent, including how much is transferred out of athletics, not the athletic department.

Yes "should do" and "do" are often quite wide apart when it comes to how organizations behave in the real world.

This is one of the arguments for splitting off the big money sports as for-profit enterprises that pay a franchise fee to the University that they use for branding purposes, as well as tuition for the classes that their athletes elect to take from their University brand partner ... they would likely pay substantially more to the Universities in franchise fees as a cost of doing business than they pay in "operating surpluses" as notionally not for profit enterprises.

http://www.susla.edu/news/susla-partners...ll-program

Wow! Great find!

No one should be shocked if this is the future of college sports.

The Southern Shreveport Jags website says:

"The Southern Shreveport Jags will attend class on the campus of Southern University Shreveport (SUSLA)."

Previously, this squad was affiliated with "Texas A&T", a school whose existence i haven't been able to verify. I think the football team created this moniker so as to provide a facade of being the team of an actual college. It seems to be just a traveling football caravan of some sort that has, for now, settled in the bosom of SU-Shreveport (an actual school, btw).
07-02-2020 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoustonCougarNation Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,431
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Cougars, Frogs
Location: Houston, Texas
Post: #25
RE: Michigan projects $26 million athletic deficit upcoming year
No let's see if any of the other big boys put out their loss in revenue. Let's hope it's accurate?
07-03-2020 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 298
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 46
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Michigan projects $26 million athletic deficit upcoming year
(06-28-2020 09:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Yes "should do" and "do" are often quite wide apart when it comes to how organizations behave in the real world.

This is one of the arguments for splitting off the big money sports as for-profit enterprises that pay a franchise fee to the University that they use for branding purposes, as well as tuition for the classes that their athletes elect to take from their University brand partner ... they would likely pay substantially more to the Universities in franchise fees as a cost of doing business than they pay in "operating surpluses" as notionally not for profit enterprises.

I'd like to see that happen... Recently learned that Mark Cuban and some other entrepreneurs once considered trying to buy out Big Ten basketball. Would've been interesting. And more beneficial to the players.
07-04-2020 12:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.