Top schools with net profit from 2010

[VectorVictor]

Just imagine what Nebraska would be if we DIDN'T have this football program.

I don't have to imagine it, it already exists. If the University of Nebraska didn't have such a great football program we'd be just like Iowa State.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Haspula]

Just imagine what Nebraska would be if we DIDN'T have this football program.

I don't have to imagine it, it already exists. If the University of Nebraska didn't have such a great football program we'd be just like Iowa.

Even with our football team, we are still lower than Iowa based on that net profit list

 

[okaive]

Remember that next year we will be spending more money on travel for all sports. Going to need to factor that in.

I think Harvey the Wonder Chancellor intimated some time back that travel cost concerns were blown way out of proportion by the fans. Yes, they will increase--but they're not going to be eating away all our revenue.

Plus, once we're fully-vested members of the B1G, add another $6-10 million (minimum) to the additional $7 million withheld this year. That puts us right up there with Michigan and Penn State and leapfrogs us over the artificially-inflated Okie Lite (with their tainted T. Boone money).

For Michigan, Penn State, and (!) Iowa to have beat out Texas and Oklahoma, that should tell us that the move to the B1G is sound, fiscally.

Didn't say that it is going to take all our money away, just that it is going to be an extra increase. I cannot find the link, but TO, himself, said it would be an extra 200K a year for traveling expenses going to the Big 10.

 

[knapplc]

According to businessofcollegesports.com, Nebraska football was the 13th most-profitable program in the nation last year:

Rank 	School 	                Revenue 	Expenses 	Profit
1 	University of Texas  	$93,942,815 	$25,112,331 	$68,830,484
2 	Univ. of Georgia  	$70,838,539 	$18,308,654 	$52,529,885
3 	Penn State Univ.  	$70,208,584 	$19,780,939 	$50,427,645
4 	Univ. of Michigan  	$63,189,417 	$18,328,233 	$44,861,184
5 	Univ. of Florida  	$68,715,750 	$24,457,557 	$44,258,193
6 	Louisiana State Univ.   $68,819,806 	$25,566,520 	$43,253,286
7 	Univ. of Alabama  	$71,884,525 	$31,118,134 	$40,766,391
8 	Univ. of Tennessee  	$56,593,946 	$17,357,345 	$39,236,601
9 	Auburn Univ.  	        $66,162,720 	$27,911,713 	$38,251,007
10 	University of Oklahoma  $58,295,888 	$20,150,769 	$38,145,119
11 	Univ. of South Carolina $58,266,159 	$22,794,211 	$35,471,948
12 	Notre Dame  	        $64,163,063 	$29,490,788 	$34,672,275
13 	University of Nebraska  $49,928,228 	$17,843,849 	$32,084,379 ***
14 	Ohio State Univ.  	$63,750,000 	$31,763,036 	$31,986,964
15 	Univ. of Iowa  	        $45,854,764 	$18,468,732 	$27,386,032

 

[huskered17]

Remember that next year we will be spending more money on travel for all sports. Going to need to factor that in.

I think Harvey the Wonder Chancellor intimated some time back that travel cost concerns were blown way out of proportion by the fans. Yes, they will increase--but they're not going to be eating away all our revenue.

Plus, once we're fully-vested members of the B1G, add another $6-10 million (minimum) to the additional $7 million withheld this year. That puts us right up there with Michigan and Penn State and leapfrogs us over the artificially-inflated Okie Lite (with their tainted T. Boone money).

For Michigan, Penn State, and (!) Iowa to have beat out Texas and Oklahoma, that should tell us that the move to the B1G is sound, fiscally.

Revenue is still key, and in that area Texas is king. Profit is just determined by the way a program is managed. Oregon doesn't have to invest a single dollar in ifrastructure improvements because Phil pays for everything. Same with Okie State. The only thing you can determine from Texas not being higher on this list is that they invest 2 times more money into their athletics than Nebraska. Would you feel better about that if Nebraska had a higher proffit margin? Hell no. What's the point of profitability in college athletics? There's no CEO to pay a fat bonus to, or investors to pay out dividends too. The point of making money in college athletics is so you can spend more on college athletics. If you think it's to contribute to the academic side...well, we know that isn't the case.

I thought that I read a few years back that Warren B was not into funding for the athletic side of the University, but would help fund things having to do with the academic part of the university. It seems that all the new ventures that the school is doing is on the athletic side of things. Profit margins would have to rise once these new ventures were completed, you would think. I think once some new academic buildings are needed, you would see Warren step up quickly, to contribute. JMO

GBR!!!

 

[knapplc]

I thought that I read a few years back that Warren B was not into funding for the athletic side of the University, but would help fund things having to do with the academic part of the university. It seems that all the new ventures that the school is doing is on the athletic side of things. Profit margins would have to rise once these new ventures were completed, you would think. I think once some new academic buildings are needed, you would see Warren step up quickly, to contribute. JMO

GBR!!!

I would love to see Buffett put in an endowment for the University when he passes, but I think you're right that he won't give any money to the Athletic Department. But I'm not going to hold my breath for any kind of endowment, and I hope Warren lives another 20 years. The dude is cool.

Frankly, it's his money, and he doesn't owe the state or the University a dime. I hope he blows it all on charity or something that will make him happy. I've always been pretty blase about other people's money. Let 'em keep it. It's not mine.

 

[NUance]

"Athletics apparently has no oversight," says Ken Struckmeyer, an associate professor at Washington State who co-chairs the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, a faculty group that advocates for athletics reform. "They generate (money), then they spend whatever they bring in — and if that's not enough, the board of regents provides a subsidy to help them win. … Apparently the measure of success of universities now is wins by the football team or the basketball team."

The thing is, when a school's teams have success on the field their alumni donations generally go up. So if the school can field a successful football or basketball team, and come close to breaking even, they will generally be ahead financially.

Do you have a source or study that actually says that? Donations to the AD vs the academic side tend to be a lot different. The professors that hate athletics have lost that battle, but they have a good point about the academic side of the university kicking tax money and student fees over to athletics. He's obviously overstating his case at viewing the success of universities based on athletics... Someone isn't going to turn down MIT or something because WSU has a better basketball team.

There are probably articles out there, but my comments come from a graduate business course I took out in California. The prof sat on a committee in charge of fund raising for the university. He gave examples of schools whose donations had skyrocketed after some success on the field or court. //sorry for the slow answer. I was in Omaha for the weekend.

 

[HuskerTrucker]

Surprised that Ohio State isn't higher up....must be buying cars for their athletes on the side....lol!!