SB Nation reviews the Big East...commentary

[stever20]

Can we stop crapping our collective pants every time someone writes something negative about the Big East? The league will be fine. Respect is earned, not given, so let's grow a pair and go out and earn some respect!

Best post of the year. It's like a lot of folks on here want the press to just give the exact same respect that the Big East had when we had Syracuse, UConn, Louisville, etc. Think going into last year the press did give a lot of the same respect, but then we had the debacle that was last year(and don't kid yourself, last year was a total debacle). Now going into this year, we have to go out and earn the respect.

[Xudash]

No. I get the difference between revenue and profit. If you honestly think the P5 has no advantage over us in money you are delusional. The $20-40mm TV payouts the schools get dwarfs anything we can hope to get and undoubtedly gives them a huge advantage. Other than the bottom dwellers who have been long term losers and can't fill their stadiums, most of the athletic departments do very well for themselves. And are you really looking to just compete with the Wake Forests, Purdues, and Iowa States of the world?

I'll begin by responding to your last question: I'm looking for Xavier and for the Big East to compete for national championships.

Otherwise, let me see if I can help us with the delusional thing - data and facts have been known to help with that: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/6/5783394/college-sports-profits-money-schools-revenues-subsidies. And USA Today's NCAA Finances Table, which was the basis for the SB NATION article, presenting revenue, expense and, importantly, subsidies by school: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/.

Most of the athletic departments do very well for themselves. No, I don't believe that's true. Though it's fair to take the position that the practice of accounting in collegiate athletics is squirrelly throughout the land for the reasons stated in the SB article, it can't be true that most athletic departments do very well when it only takes getting to the 21st school on the list to find a deficit position, and given that the word SUBSIDY is involved in determining the financial positions of these athletic departments. Please don't counter by taking the position that the public schools among them have endless supplies of money. They're all under budgetary pressures and taxpayers would take issue with that sentiment anyway.

You keep focusing on the undeniably large TV payouts. I'll again counter with the impact that carrying a D1A football program has on an athletic budget. Scholarships, Title IX compliance (i.e. even more scholarships), marching bands, stadium maintenance and operations, athletic administration overhead, coaches salaries - big ones for football and a big overall number due to the number of sports fielded, etc.

If they all have such a material advantage over us in money, then why don't they all succeed in basketball? I'll agree with you that the Top 20 on that list have a financial advantage over us, but not necessarily the rest of them. And even then, prior to Xavier being in an even better financial position as a result of becoming a BE member, Xavier competed with that 20 well.

[DC Denizen]

No. I get the difference between revenue and profit. If you honestly think the P5 has no advantage over us in money you are delusional. The $20-40mm TV payouts the schools get dwarfs anything we can hope to get and undoubtedly gives them a huge advantage. Other than the bottom dwellers who have been long term losers and can't fill their stadiums, most of the athletic departments do very well for themselves. And are you really looking to just compete with the Wake Forests, Purdues, and Iowa States of the world?

I'll begin by responding to your last question: I'm looking for Xavier and for the Big East to compete for national championships.

Otherwise, let me see if I can help us with the delusional thing - data and facts have been known to help with that: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/6/5783394/college-sports-profits-money-schools-revenues-subsidies. And USA Today's NCAA Finances Table, which was the basis for the SB NATION article, presenting revenue, expense and, importantly, subsidies by school: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/.

Most of the athletic departments do very well for themselves. No, I don't believe that's true. Though it's fair to take the position that the practice of accounting in collegiate athletics is squirrelly throughout the land for the reasons stated in the SB article, it can't be true that most athletic departments do very well when it only takes getting to the 21st school on the list to find a deficit position, and given that the word SUBSIDY is involved in determining the financial positions of these athletic departments. Please don't counter by taking the position that the public schools among them have endless supplies of money. They're all under budgetary pressures and taxpayers would take issue with that sentiment anyway.

You keep focusing on the undeniably large TV payouts. I'll again counter with the impact that carrying a D1A football program has on an athletic budget. Scholarships, Title IX compliance (i.e. even more scholarships), marching bands, stadium maintenance and operations, athletic administration overhead, coaches salaries - big ones for football and a big overall number due to the number of sports fielded, etc.

If they all have such a material advantage over us in money, then why don't they all succeed in basketball? I'll agree with you that the Top 20 on that list have a financial advantage over us, but not necessarily the rest of them. And even then, prior to Xavier being in an even better financial position as a result of becoming a BE member, Xavier competed with that 20 well.

One of your own links links to something that disproves your whole theory of subsidies meaning that the ADs aren't actually doing well....

http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... -subsidies

[Xudash]

No. I get the difference between revenue and profit. If you honestly think the P5 has no advantage over us in money you are delusional. The $20-40mm TV payouts the schools get dwarfs anything we can hope to get and undoubtedly gives them a huge advantage. Other than the bottom dwellers who have been long term losers and can't fill their stadiums, most of the athletic departments do very well for themselves. And are you really looking to just compete with the Wake Forests, Purdues, and Iowa States of the world?

I'll begin by responding to your last question: I'm looking for Xavier and for the Big East to compete for national championships.

Otherwise, let me see if I can help us with the delusional thing - data and facts have been known to help with that: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/6/5783394/college-sports-profits-money-schools-revenues-subsidies. And USA Today's NCAA Finances Table, which was the basis for the SB NATION article, presenting revenue, expense and, importantly, subsidies by school: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/.

Most of the athletic departments do very well for themselves. No, I don't believe that's true. Though it's fair to take the position that the practice of accounting in collegiate athletics is squirrelly throughout the land for the reasons stated in the SB article, it can't be true that most athletic departments do very well when it only takes getting to the 21st school on the list to find a deficit position, and given that the word SUBSIDY is involved in determining the financial positions of these athletic departments. Please don't counter by taking the position that the public schools among them have endless supplies of money. They're all under budgetary pressures and taxpayers would take issue with that sentiment anyway.

You keep focusing on the undeniably large TV payouts. I'll again counter with the impact that carrying a D1A football program has on an athletic budget. Scholarships, Title IX compliance (i.e. even more scholarships), marching bands, stadium maintenance and operations, athletic administration overhead, coaches salaries - big ones for football and a big overall number due to the number of sports fielded, etc.

If they all have such a material advantage over us in money, then why don't they all succeed in basketball? I'll agree with you that the Top 20 on that list have a financial advantage over us, but not necessarily the rest of them. And even then, prior to Xavier being in an even better financial position as a result of becoming a BE member, Xavier competed with that 20 well.

One of your own links links to something that disproves your whole theory of subsidies meaning that the ADs aren't actually doing well....

http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... -subsidies

This link clearly indicates - in the table provided - that only 20 out of the over 200 schools listed operate in the black. What you can't accept about that is beyond me. You stated that "most of the athletic departments do well for themselves." That simply isn't true, even at the FBS level, even with the television money.

And the table obviously reflects concluded business. Moving forward, universities will likely experience more financial pressure than less financial pressure, making those subsidies, in whatever form (i.e. from depreciation (UT) to student fees) more difficult to rely upon.

[DC Denizen]

This link clearly indicates - in the table provided - that only 20 out of the over 200 schools listed operate in the black. What you can't accept about that is beyond me. You stated that "most of the athletic departments do well for themselves." That simply isn't true, even at the FBS level, even with the television money.

And the table obviously reflects concluded business. Moving forward, universities will likely experience more financial pressure than less financial pressure, making those subsidies, in whatever form (i.e. from depreciation (UT) to student fees) more difficult to rely upon.

You are cherry picking a line out of there and ignoring the overall message of the article...if you are that desperate to believe that we are doing better financially than the majority of the P5; have at it.

[marquette]

I'll just point out that Maryland, a pretty average P5 school by most metrics, was on the verge of bankruptcy prior to joining the B1G. As far as I know, none of us are anywhere near that large of a budget problem.

Additionally, every football school has been jacking their ticket prices to cover the skyrocketing costs. It was a huge deal at Ohio State a couple years ago.

[Xudash]

This link clearly indicates - in the table provided - that only 20 out of the over 200 schools listed operate in the black. What you can't accept about that is beyond me. You stated that "most of the athletic departments do well for themselves." That simply isn't true, even at the FBS level, even with the television money.

And the table obviously reflects concluded business. Moving forward, universities will likely experience more financial pressure than less financial pressure, making those subsidies, in whatever form (i.e. from depreciation (UT) to student fees) more difficult to rely upon.

You are cherry picking a line out of there and ignoring the overall message of the article...if you are that desperate to believe that we are doing better financially than the majority of the P5; have at it.

I'm not desperate about anything. And I didn't cherry pick anything; the table is the table.

I noted earlier that I do agree that the top 20 - I believe I picked 20 - schools do have a financial advantage over us because of how profitable they are overall. Ohio State is Ohio State. The Horseshoe with 107k packed in for every home game and all that tradition and success is going to crank up the cash register. Schools like that - Texas, Michigan, Florida, etc. - operate at a level that dwarfs even their colleagues.

If you are more interested in the "message" then have at it. The fact of the matter is that many of even the P5 are not swimming in cash.

Overall, if this is about being able to compete, which I think this was what this discussion was about at some point, then I'm not worried for the Big East, nor Xavier as it operates within it. Hell, not that it's an end-all point, but Xavier still sits in the Forbes Top 20 Most Valuable Basketball programs (#17) - one of 3 private schools (X, Duke and 'cuse) to make the list - and the only non-P5 school to make it.

WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK WITH THE FOX TV AGREEMENT AND WITH BASKETBALL AS THE FLAGSHIP SPORT, regardless of where we stand against any given P5 athletic program.

[stever20]

think one thing with the money- the money influx from some of the new tv deals and the college football playoff hasn't arrived yet. SEC this year in football is going to be getting about double the money they got last year from bowl games. Next year it will be more when their bowl game isn't hosting the SF.

[Xudash]

think one thing with the money- the money influx from some of the new tv deals and the college football playoff hasn't arrived yet. SEC this year in football is going to be getting about double the money they got last year from bowl games. Next year it will be more when their bowl game isn't hosting the SF.

Those are fair points. You would think that would enable the SEC to clear all program deficits, moving Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina and UT into the black.

[NJRedman]

Can we stop crapping our collective pants every time someone writes something negative about the Big East? The league will be fine. Respect is earned, not given, so let's grow a pair and go out and earn some respect!

Best post of the year. It's like a lot of folks on here want the press to just give the exact same respect that the Big East had when we had Syracuse, UConn, Louisville, etc. Think going into last year the press did give a lot of the same respect, but then we had the debacle that was last year(and don't kid yourself, last year was a total debacle). Now going into this year, we have to go out and earn the respect.

Okay, then how about you stop using those same articles to lecture us on how screwed we all are. Two way street pal!