BCS women's basketball programs lost $109mm in 2010

#4
#4
#5
#5
tums said:
None of this surprises me. But we must maintain equality for those not pulling their weight, blah blah. But there are some men's programs that don't do well either, it's just that NO women's one does.
Click to expand...

If you eliminated every college sports program in the country that lost money, you'd be left with maybe a dozen football programs.

$700k to UT isn't a big deal at all.
 
#6
#6
Doesn't that loss count the donation from the men as revenue?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
SGMVols said:
If you eliminated every college sports program in the country that lost money, you'd be left with maybe a dozen football programs.

$700k to UT isn't a big deal at all.
Click to expand...

I know it's not a big deal to certain universities, but it doesn't change the fact that you have to support leech programs. And by some I meant many. I know many programs lose money.......
 
#8
#8
tums said:
I know it's not a big deal to certain universities, but it doesn't change the fact that you have to support leech programs. And by some I meant many. I know many programs lose money.......
Click to expand...

The money UT will be paying Pearl and Fulmer this year to do nothing will be about 3 times more than the LVs deficit.
 
#9
#9
SGMVols said:
The money UT will be paying Pearl and Fulmer this year to do nothing will be about 3 times more than the LVs deficit.
Click to expand...

And yet those two programs will make money to pay for it. I wasn't talking about the LV's budget. I was mentioning that not one women's program made money and that it doesn't surprise me. Pay attention.
 
#10
#10
Interesting. For some reason I thought our women's basketball team were one of a few women's programs that was self-supportive. Was that ever the case?
 
#11
#11
JamesBenUT said:
Interesting. For some reason I thought our women's basketball team were one of a few women's programs that was self-supportive. Was that ever the case?
Click to expand...

Before Pat started making milion a year. Had to keep up with Geno..
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
JamesBenUT said:
Interesting. For some reason I thought our women's basketball team were one of a few women's programs that was self-supportive. Was that ever the case?
Click to expand...

Nope. Not even ever been close. In spite of all the Dearstone propoganda.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
I had no idea total staff compensation was $3.42 mil. I knew Pat was pushing $2 mil, but it seems like Holly and co must be getting paid pretty well too. I'm a huge Pat and LV fan, but it seems like they could make some minor salary adjustments and break even.
 
#14
#14
:loco:
At Auburn University, salaries and benefits cost $1.14 million, or 1,783 percent of the TigersÂ’ operating revenue of $64,225, and the program posted a $3.16 million operating loss.
Click to expand...
Didn't even know they had a program.
 
#15
#15
JamesBenUT said:
Interesting. For some reason I thought our women's basketball team were one of a few women's programs that was self-supportive. Was that ever the case?
Click to expand...

I remember reading that too. It's a database compiled by Indystar a few years ago. I remember Tennessee and UConn's women's basketball programs are very very few programs than actually made money. I remember Tennessee women's basketball had a $700,000+ profit.

Edit: I was wrong. The report was from 04-05. It showed Tennessee women's basketball program made $1,299,431 ($1,258,849 of them came from ticket sale) while spent $3,021,169, made an overall $1,721,738 deficit. I don't think the number is right. There is no way Tennessee only made $1.3M in ticket sale while showing UConn made $4,227,145.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
Pretty interesting.

Compare the academic performance across all schools of student athletes to non-student athletes and it is clear that sports (even those that don't make money) have value to any university's mission.

Also, I'm sure Summitt has intrinsic value to many donors and she also helps out the university in the form of generally good publicity, and she brings TV exposure, etc.

I still think the coaches make too much. I don't think 3.4 million in salary is necessary for a sport to teach and motivate student athletes successfully. On top of that, it's frustrating that the program is capable of making a profit through salary adjustments (as an earlier poster pointed out), but this hasn't been done. Maybe the university genuinely believes that the intrinsic value of the LV to the university is worth the large salaries and the deficit, but I'm not really sold on that.
 
#25
#25
JamesBenUT said:
Interesting. For some reason I thought our women's basketball team were one of a few women's programs that was self-supportive. Was that ever the case?
Click to expand...

The program is self-supported when factors not considered in that study are added in. That study does not count donations, even those required for season ticket purchases, nor does it count the portion of the TV revenue that is for the women's schedule.

Both were left out of the study because they are not present at most institutions and they study was conducted in a way to compare all programs on what they considered to be apples-to-apples.

The way each school calculates revenue and profit by program is very different. For example, Georgia factors all athletic donations made all year and all concessions from every sport into their football profit/loss, with every other sport only counting ticket sales. That allows them to have one o the largest football "profits" in the nation.

Bottom line is, the UTAD as a whole finished in the black, even with a $6 million donation directly to the academic side factored in. How we arrive at that final number is irrelevant, provided it's still in the black.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top