August 14, 201313 yr Not sure what your looking at but everything article I can find says you need to check your facts. Guess I'm not reading the right reports. I've got Louisville as No. 15 in revenues on this list that represents 2006-2011 from USA today. That number can only have gotten higher and the ACC money is about to hit the books next year. Maybe now they'll give the students a break and eliminate the athletics fee... College Athletics Finances Database
August 14, 201313 yr I've got Louisville as No. 15 in revenues on this list that represents 2006-2011 from USA today. That number can only have gotten higher and the ACC money is about to hit the books next year. Maybe now they'll give the students a break and eliminate the athletics fee... College Athletics Finances Database Facts... :idunno:
August 14, 201313 yr I get what you're saying about everything having a price. But, I can tell you, the universities ARE NOT making "millions" off of all athletes. I played D1 baseball (with a handful of guys who went on to play professionally), and my college didn't make a dime off of me or any of my teammates. Granted, this was low level, D1, and baseball generally doesn't generate very much revenue. But my example of the scholarship long snapper at a major university is a good example....nobody is making money off of him. Take UK for example (or for that matter any other major BCS school). UK basketball is a brand. Alabama football, USC football, etc, are all brands. It has very little to do with who plays for them as to how much revenue they generate on TV contracts, booster donations, etc. Heck Notre Dame has a lucrative TV deal while being a marginal team for the better part of the last 20 years. People don't like Notre Dame because of the players. These schools all have huge, loyal alumni bases (many of which are very well off). And in the states without pro sports (UK, Alabama, etc) they are the only game in town. The faces change year after year. Back to UK, how many players on the UK basketball team have been true marketing icons?? ....perhaps Anthony Davis with the whole unibrow thing, but for the most part the stuff you see in terms of merchandise is UK basketball, not individual players. What star has driven Alabama football merchandise sales lately?? It's all about the brand, not the players. Yes, you have to get players to help support the brand, but college sports are not a star driven entity like pro sports. It's the individual schools themselves. 99% of all college athletes have ZERO viability as marketing giants that the schools can make money off. The only exception to this is the whole video game industry, and I do have a little bit of an issue with a players likeness being used without some sort of compensation. I see and like what you are saying about the "Brand". But what's a brand without the bodies to promote it? Not as lucrative.
August 14, 201313 yr Facts... :idunno:Did you actually read the facts? You said they were on par with all but 5 or 6 programs. How is being ranked 15th support that? Especially when they're getting over $10 million in subsidy.
August 14, 201313 yr Did you actually read the facts? You said they were on par with all but 5 or 6 programs. How is being ranked 15th support that? Especially when they're getting over $10 million in subsidy. Take out the student fees and other subsidy and Louisville's still very high on the list. And the revenue number has continued a rapid climb. The ACC bump will be very kind to Louisville's accounts. They raised the per game season ticket prices for football this year and I can only assume that it's in preparation for what I imagine will be a sizable jump again next year when the home schedule will have Kentucky, NC State, Miami and Florida State.
August 14, 201313 yr Take out the student fees and other subsidy and Louisville's still very high on the list. And the revenue number has continued a rapid climb. The ACC bump will be very kind to Louisville's accounts. They raised the per game season ticket prices for football this year and I can only assume that it's in preparation for what I imagine will be a sizable jump again next year when the home schedule will have Kentucky, NC State, Miami and Florida State. There's no doubt Louisville is in a good spot. My point still stands if you start paying athletes.
August 14, 201313 yr Did you actually read the facts? You said they were on par with all but 5 or 6 programs. How is being ranked 15th support that? Especially when they're getting over $10 million in subsidy. Add 20 million in TV money to that number and what do you get???
August 14, 201313 yr Add 20 million in TV money to that number and what do you get??? Oh, didn't realize they had that money yet. My mistake.
August 14, 201313 yr Oh, didn't realize they had that money yet. My mistake. Without the additional 20 plus million they are right on par with all but the top 5 or 6 programs in revenue. Add the new money next year and they go from the middle of that next group to inside the top 10 and closing the gap on a school like Penn State. They would be more than fine paying a stipend...
August 15, 201313 yr Without the additional 20 plus million they are right on par with all but the top 5 or 6 programs in revenue. Add the new money next year and they go from the middle of that next group to inside the top 10 and closing the gap on a school like Penn State. They would be more than fine paying a stipend... It will end up being a $15 million boost and won't put them in the top ten and still $15 million or more behind Penn St. It will also be interesting to see if their subsidy gets reduced as a result basically leaving the where they are now.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.