header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: UCLA and USC

 (Read 48682 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17718
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #350 on: July 06, 2022, 11:06:01 AM »
Eh, without knowing his mission and the directives he received from his superiors I think it is unfair to call it "poor management".

Obviously if he was told to run the department with a balanced budget, he didn't. OTOH, if he was told to keep all sports and look for improved revenue, he did a GREAT job.
Well he was about to have to cut many sports, so he wasn't actually successful at either mission.

Unless his plan all along, was "run up the deficit and pray for a bailout from the B1G."

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #351 on: July 06, 2022, 11:07:06 AM »
Per USA Today, top college athletic department revenues for the 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic) fiscal year:

  • $223M, Texas
  • $212M, aTm
  • $210M, Ohio State
  • $197M, Michigan 
  • $174M, Georgia 
  • $164M, Penn State 
  • $164M, Bama
  • $163M, Oklahoma 
  • $159M, Florida 
  • $157.7M, LSU
  • $157.6M, Wisconsin 
  • $152.7M, Florida State 
  • $152.5M, Auburn 
  • $151M, Iowa
  • $150M, Kentucky 
  • $143M, Tennessee 
  • $140.6M, USCe
  • $140M, Michigan State 
  • $139M, Louisville 
  • $137M, Arkansas 


medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #352 on: July 06, 2022, 11:09:09 AM »
Well he was about to have to cut many sports, so he wasn't actually successful at either mission.

Unless his plan all along, was "run up the deficit and pray for a bailout from the B1G."
I'm calling that success at the mission of "keep all sports and look for improved revenue". He kept all sports and found improved revenue. 


utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17718
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #353 on: July 06, 2022, 11:11:37 AM »
I'm calling that success at the mission of "keep all sports and look for improved revenue". He kept all sports and found improved revenue.


"Hope is not a plan."

-Abraham Lincoln

longhorn320

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 9345
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #354 on: July 06, 2022, 11:27:33 AM »
They won't let me give blood anymore. The burnt orange color scares the hell out of the doctors.

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7868
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #355 on: July 06, 2022, 12:01:54 PM »
"Hope is not a plan."

-Abraham Lincoln
True

”I hope this play goes well.”

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17168
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #356 on: July 06, 2022, 02:18:26 PM »
Given its perilous athletic department finances, [color=var(--primary-body-link-color)]UCLA[/iurl] faced the prospect of cutting sports had the school not agreed to [color=var(--primary-body-link-color)]bolt for the Big Ten Conference[/color].[/font][/size][/color]

The timing isn’t certain and the number of teams that would have been affected isn’t known, but the Bruins were headed toward an Olympic sports Armageddon [color=var(--primary-body-link-color)]without the infusion of cash[/iurl] that will accompany its departure from the Pac-12 Conference in 2024.[/font][/size][/color]

This is the exact same shyt that happened with Maryland they were on the cusp of folding shop.What does this tell you about either Collegiate Athletics or their departments? Falling back on the games hoping it covers their lack of institutional control or personal ineptness - IMHO
Suburbia:Where they tear out the trees & then name streets after them.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18899
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #357 on: July 06, 2022, 03:31:07 PM »
"Hope is not a plan."

-Abraham Lincoln
"Hope is not a strategery."
-George W. Bush
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #358 on: July 06, 2022, 03:32:10 PM »
This is the exact same shyt that happened with Maryland they were on the cusp of folding shop.What does this tell you about either Collegiate Athletics or their departments? Falling back on the games hoping it covers their lack of institutional control or personal ineptness - IMHO
It isn't that simple. 

A lot of Universities, for various reasons, want to offer and to be competitive in a large number of sports. Of those, only CFB and Men's BB have any chance to generate enough revenue to cover their costs. All the others are just expenditures. 

Then you have wealthier conference programs spending lavishly on facilities not only for the two revenue sports but for the non-revenue sports as well. Schools from less wealthy leagues simply cannot keep up with what schools from the wealthier leagues can spend so they are confronted with three basic options:
  • Subsidize the Athletic Department, or
  • Cut some non-revenue sports, or
  • Join a wealthier league.

If you or I were AD at Maryland or UCLA prior to their joining the B1G we'd have been confronted with the same problem  

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37602
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #359 on: July 06, 2022, 06:47:48 PM »
Per USA Today, top college athletic department revenues for the 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic) fiscal year:





seems odd that Nebraska isn't in the top 20
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17718
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #360 on: July 06, 2022, 06:52:01 PM »
seems odd that Nebraska isn't in the top 20
Revenues can fluctuate fairly significantly in any given year.  If they grabbed your numbers at just the wrong time, it could misrepresent the true picture.




OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18899
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #361 on: July 06, 2022, 07:43:07 PM »
Per USA Today, top college athletic department revenues for the 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic) fiscal year:

  • $223M, Texas
  • $212M, aTm
  • $210M, Ohio State
  • $197M, Michigan
  • $174M, Georgia
  • $164M, Penn State
  • $164M, Bama
  • $163M, Oklahoma
  • $159M, Florida
  • $157.7M, LSU
  • $157.6M, Wisconsin
  • $152.7M, Florida State
  • $152.5M, Auburn
  • $151M, Iowa
  • $150M, Kentucky
  • $143M, Tennessee
  • $140.6M, USCe
  • $140M, Michigan State
  • $139M, Louisville
  • $137M, Arkansas


12 SEC teams in the top 20?  What are these, recruiting rankings??
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Hawkinole

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #362 on: July 07, 2022, 01:20:15 AM »
It isn't that simple.

A lot of Universities, for various reasons, want to offer and to be competitive in a large number of sports. Of those, only CFB and Men's BB have any chance to generate enough revenue to cover their costs. All the others are just expenditures.

Then you have wealthier conference programs spending lavishly on facilities not only for the two revenue sports but for the non-revenue sports as well. Schools from less wealthy leagues simply cannot keep up with what schools from the wealthier leagues can spend so they are confronted with three basic options:
  • Subsidize the Athletic Department, or
  • Cut some non-revenue sports, or
  • Join a wealthier league.

If you or I were AD at Maryland or UCLA prior to their joining the B1G we'd have been confronted with the same problem 
I think women's gymnastics is probably profitable at a handful of universities, but not in the Big Ten. If U of Iowa would hire Shawn Johnson as a coach, or her coach Liang Chow as women's gymnastics coach, I think the sport would take off just like wrestling took off at Iowa in the early 1970s when Dan Gable was abandoned at Iowa State and hired at Iowa.
There are diamonds in the rough; each school must find its diamonds.

Hawkinole

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #363 on: July 07, 2022, 01:33:27 AM »
Seriously, if they are planning to take the six most valuable what would that be?

My guess:
  • Oregon
  • Stanford
  • California
  • Washington
  • Colorado
  • ASU
  • Utah
  • Arizona
  • Washington State
  • Oregon State

Maybe?
My guess of value from a sporting standpoint:
1. Washington - population and fan exuberance
2. Oregon - fan exuberance, and football success
3. Colorado - population growth, past football success
4. Utah - fan loyalty, and football success
5. California - population
6. ASU - population growth
7. Arizona - population growth
8. Stanford - Olympic sports, ND, academics, and occasional football success
9. Washington St. - recent football success, and midwestern weather
10. Oregon State - Landscape scenery, rose gardens, basketball sometimes, and their hope they can suit up a football team.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2022, 01:38:33 AM by Hawkinole »

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.