Kansas irrelevant.

#101
#101
Harvard University's endowment suffered investment losses of at least 22% in the first four months of the school's fiscal year, the latest evidence of the financial woes facing higher education.

The Harvard endowment, the biggest of any university, stood at $36.9 billion as of June 30, meaning the loss amounts to about $8 billion. That's more than the entire endowments of all but six colleges, according to the latest official tally.

The only revenue that can be counted on is not donations. But sales made by your sports. Ok I am done for today. Hope everyone has a good one.
 
#102
#102
volberry said:
Harvard University's endowment suffered investment losses of at least 22% in the first four months of the school's fiscal year, the latest evidence of the financial woes facing higher education.

The Harvard endowment, the biggest of any university, stood at $36.9 billion as of June 30, meaning the loss amounts to about $8 billion. That's more than the entire endowments of all but six colleges, according to the latest official tally.

The only revenue that can be counted on is not donations. But sales made by your sports. Ok I am done for today. Hope everyone has a good one.
Click to expand...

You do realize that most schools general fund in a BCS conference sees very little, if any, of the athletic revenue brough in, right?
 
#103
#103
tigervol9802 said:
You do realize that most schools general fund in a BCS conference sees very little, if any, of the athletic revenue brough in, right?
Click to expand...

yup. there are probably only about a half a dozen schools that get money from athletics. the rest subsize athletics FROM the general fund.
 
#104
#104
volberry said:
Ok Reece Davis just shared on espn that Football brings in the most revenue for the bcs athletic programs and that is why those fb tv markets are driving every move. He specifically mention how Kansas has no fb tv market and that is why they are not an attractive school. He then shared that Utah is being asked to join the pac-10 over Kansas because their fb program has a bigger fb tv market in salt lake city that would help expand the pac 10. They showed the total revenue that each bcs conference brings in and the pac 10 was last among the 6 conferences. Thay explained that even though usc has a huge LA tv market the rest of the pac 10 doesn't and the pac 10 has been behind the times in tv scheduling. Not a lot of Thursday night games or feature national matches except usc.

So to make it simple this is like if you are making a movie you would want Will Smith, Tom Cruise, Jim Carrey, and Cameron DIaz. Not my favorite actors but ones who are proven to draw an audience to make you the most $$$. You wouldn't hire a percieved nobody who has no potential to make you $$$$. The new pac 10 commissioner left the big 12 years ago because they wouldn't listen to him on how to expand. He went to the big 10 and setup the big 10 network and made then tons of $$$. Now he is going to setup the pac 10 to make $$$. He has the tv networks in his back pocket because they know he knows what to do. And he isn't going to risk his professional reputation on a no fb tv market having team like kansas. Reece then went on to say that Tx a&m just got approval to not follow Tx and go to the sec. He said because fb is soooo huge in TX that the sec can now get that TX market and get a foot hold on TX recruiting. That's huge.

kansas is IRRELEVANT!!! There's your proof. Sorry HAtervol69.
Click to expand...
1. Kevin Weiberg is not the commissioner of the PAC 10.
2. The rest of that post is too disjointed and rambling to attempt to respond to.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#105
#105
droski said:
yup. there are probably only about a half a dozen schools that get money from athletics. the rest subsize athletics FROM the general fund.
Click to expand...
Why would you do something silly like interject facts into this discussion? Football is the only path to having a quality university. That's how West Virginia has become the academic powerhouse it now is. Those BCS wins over Georgia and Oklahoma have allowed them to pass Harvard and Dartmouth on the intellectual ladder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#107
#107
Look at that. All 10 remaining basketball coaches in the Big 12 come out and unequivocally state their preference the league stay together. Shortly thereafter, reports run rampant the league is staying in business. Guess they aren't as irrelevant as some folks think.
 
#108
#108
hatvol96 said:
Why would you do something silly like interject facts into this discussion? Football is the only path to having a quality university. That's how West Virginia has become the academic powerhouse it now is. Those BCS wins over Georgia and Oklahoma have allowed them to pass Harvard and Dartmouth on the intellectual ladder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Guess he will never respond to defend the idiocy of calling Texas a and m a pathetic school
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#109
#109
volberry said:
you would have a bb program to pay for itself and all other sports plus they would have to send money to the university to help fund the academics.

did anyone think that sports is just for fun lol. it's to make the college more $$$. for better library's, books, dorms, faculty raises. we might as well just agree to shut down the whole university structure just so bb programs can say they are king. and in 30 years they will still be using 2010 textbooks. meaning you would be less attractive as a school to attend.
Click to expand...

It's already been said but I'll do it again: Athletic Departments at the majority of colleges borrow money from the university. Very rarely, if ever, do athletic departments fund entire colleges.

What in the hell are you talking about?

You do realize college students buy their own textbooks?
 
#110
#110
justingroves said:
It's already been said but I'll do it again: Athletic Departments at the majority of colleges borrow money from the university. Very rarely, if ever, do athletic departments fund entire colleges.

What in the hell are you talking about?

You do realize college students buy their own textbooks?
Click to expand...
I'd love to see a single example of an athletic department covering an entire university's total operating expenses.
 
#111
#111
volberry said:
Harvard University's endowment suffered investment losses of at least 22% in the first four months of the school's fiscal year, the latest evidence of the financial woes facing higher education.

The Harvard endowment, the biggest of any university, stood at $36.9 billion as of June 30, meaning the loss amounts to about $8 billion. That's more than the entire endowments of all but six colleges, according to the latest official tally.

The only revenue that can be counted on is not donations. But sales made by your sports. Ok I am done for today. Hope everyone has a good one.
Click to expand...

wait then why isn't texas or florida's endowment larger than harvards if football revenue is the key to a schools revenue? are you really arguing that any university makes more off of football than they get in donations? i'd bet there isn't a single university in the country that fits that profile.
 
#113
#113
volberry said:
Harvard University's endowment suffered investment losses of at least 22% in the first four months of the school's fiscal year, the latest evidence of the financial woes facing higher education.

The Harvard endowment, the biggest of any university, stood at $36.9 billion as of June 30, meaning the loss amounts to about $8 billion. That's more than the entire endowments of all but six colleges, according to the latest official tally.

The only revenue that can be counted on is not donations. But sales made by your sports. Ok I am done for today. Hope everyone has a good one.
Click to expand...

You need to take two weeks off from this board, then quit.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
I heard Bill king on 560 sports radio share that fb is indeed king. His opinion as a long lasting sports radio figure is enough for me. See you guys on another discussion. This point is proven and ni reason to beat a dead horse.
 
#117
#117
volberry said:
I heard Bill king on 560 sports radio share that fb is indeed king. His opinion as a long lasting sports radio figure is enough for me.
Click to expand...
Why am I not surprised you're the type of person who lets others do your thinking for you? Then again, in your case that's probably for the best.
 
#122
#122
Hey guys, came back on here because I had posted something awhile back. I know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand, but my take is that volberry is saying that football hands down brings in the most profits for sports, and the counter argument is that football brings in the most revenues but not necesarilly the highest profits (given its operating costs).....

It also seems like volberry has made some foolish points along the way (i.e. I just recently graduated from Harvard, and I can assure you that the % decrease in endowment is due to lack of investments and a REFUSAL by President Foust to cut back the endless perks enjoyed by Harvard faculty. Rumor around the campus was that faculty still enjoy all expenses paid trips for book tours, interviews, etc everywhere around the world - anything to publicize Harvard... Sure, this is a good business plan, but to make ends meet Harvard has laid off numerous administrative positions and lower-end jobs, etc... Anyways, just thought I'd clarify).....


Back to my original question though... Again, not knowing anything about the inner-workings of it, it seems like the true test would be to look at the revenue and profits of a middle tier college/university that does not have a football program and one that does.... I think it is common belief that football brings in the most revenue at most schools (not sure about Kentucky, Kansas, etc) but as mentioned before, there is also a higher operating cost. However, football revenues also go into funding athletic programs that have no chance in making a profit, right? (i.e. tennis, lacrosse, and hell basically every other sport)... Soooo, with no football program raking in a large revenue, how are these sports funded? If they also are funded through the University General Endowment (as most if not all colleges are since none that i know of allow their athletic dept to have a separate endowment or whatever) then couldn't it be the case that having Football in some instances simply REDUCES the % of money having to be taken out of the general university fund? If football can pay for tennis, wrestling, etc rather than have them come out of the general fund, then it would be the case that football appears to be most profitable, no? Obviously, I'm assuming that is the case and I may be WAY off...

Also, where does Title IX factor into this? My understanding is that having a football team requires a college/university to also create an X amount of women's sports to balance it out... I don't know that much about Title IX, but I'm sure that plays a factor somehow in why some schools don't go the football route (because while football revenues may pay for those Title IX sports at colleges like UT, UF, etc, they won't necesarilly pay for them at ETSU - making it a double whammy because now you have to fund not only football but also a handful of women's sports)....

Looking forward to feedback. Go Vols!
 
#123
#123
There is no feedback needed when a guy says Joker Phillips and Turner Gill have more power than Self and Calipari.

As a whole football is king but at schools like UK and KU it is not (macro vs. micro as another post pointed out). It's not too hard to understand.
 
#124
#124
WPAINE said:
Hey guys, came back on here because I had posted something awhile back. I know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand, but my take is that volberry is saying that football hands down brings in the most profits for sports, and the counter argument is that football brings in the most revenues but not necesarilly the highest profits (given its operating costs).....

It also seems like volberry has made some foolish points along the way (i.e. I just recently graduated from Harvard, and I can assure you that the % decrease in endowment is due to lack of investments and a REFUSAL by President Foust to cut back the endless perks enjoyed by Harvard faculty. Rumor around the campus was that faculty still enjoy all expenses paid trips for book tours, interviews, etc everywhere around the world - anything to publicize Harvard... Sure, this is a good business plan, but to make ends meet Harvard has laid off numerous administrative positions and lower-end jobs, etc... Anyways, just thought I'd clarify).....


Back to my original question though... Again, not knowing anything about the inner-workings of it, it seems like the true test would be to look at the revenue and profits of a middle tier college/university that does not have a football program and one that does.... I think it is common belief that football brings in the most revenue at most schools (not sure about Kentucky, Kansas, etc) but as mentioned before, there is also a higher operating cost. However, football revenues also go into funding athletic programs that have no chance in making a profit, right? (i.e. tennis, lacrosse, and hell basically every other sport)... Soooo, with no football program raking in a large revenue, how are these sports funded? If they also are funded through the University General Endowment (as most if not all colleges are since none that i know of allow their athletic dept to have a separate endowment or whatever) then couldn't it be the case that having Football in some instances simply REDUCES the % of money having to be taken out of the general university fund? If football can pay for tennis, wrestling, etc rather than have them come out of the general fund, then it would be the case that football appears to be most profitable, no? Obviously, I'm assuming that is the case and I may be WAY off...

Also, where does Title IX factor into this? My understanding is that having a football team requires a college/university to also create an X amount of women's sports to balance it out... I don't know that much about Title IX, but I'm sure that plays a factor somehow in why some schools don't go the football route (because while football revenues may pay for those Title IX sports at colleges like UT, UF, etc, they won't necesarilly pay for them at ETSU - making it a double whammy because now you have to fund not only football but also a handful of women's sports)....

Looking forward to feedback. Go Vols!
Click to expand...
Football itself loses money or barely breaks even at most FBS schools. That's why they have to dip into their general funds for athletics. The idea that football pays for nonrevenue sports is pure fiction at the vast majority of schools. In most instances, football doesn't even pay for itself.
 
#125
#125
hatvol96 said:
Football itself loses money or barely breaks even at most FBS schools. That's why they have to dip into their general funds for athletics. The idea that football pays for nonrevenue sports is pure fiction at the vast majority of schools. In most instances, football doesn't even pay for itself.
Click to expand...

This may sound silly, but why then do colleges/universities have athletics?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top