Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
Correct. And Saul addressed this. By the way, how would quoting the Lincoln Tribune validate anything relative to UNL?
Better qualify the bold. Certain factions in the Big 10 (read: the academics, who were never very important in the entire process) were pissed.
It's all about money. Nothing more, nothing less. People bring up the other bullshit to try to fool themselves and make the whole thing appear more legitimate.
|
It's the Chicago Tribune.
And I fully understand why a sports fan outside of the day-to-day operations would overstate the value of the athletic department. It's the lense that sports fans see the University though.
But trust me, you are wrong. Completely wrong.
It's a basic function of math.
The top universities don't just want to be seen as academically elite for the sake of reputation. Research and tuition are now the lifeblood of a University. The contribution from the athletic department, even among the very biggest programs, pales in comparison.
Take UNL for example. Their athletic programs generates a profit. Approximately $10M/year of their $80M/year program goes back to the UNL general fund from the Athletic Department.
Compare that to UNL's $132M research budget. Of that, typically 33% is "overhead", the university's cut to cover general fund expenses... that's $43M.
Even at UNL, research generates 4x more revenue back to the University.
If you look at a school like Arizona, the numbers are even more dramatic. They have a $600M/year research budget and only a $42M/year athletics budget. The same 33% holds and the athletics department generates even less (if anything) back to the university.
It's more likely a $200M vs $0-$5M ratio.
The view that sports fans have of the role of sports money is so skewed its remarkable.
$200M vs (at best) $5M.