American Athletic Conference

[MoValley John]

If you honestly think only 7% of schools make money then I know everything I need to know about you.

You seem to be on some "foosball is the DEVIL!" kick

7% may be a high number. And I'm not a "football is the devil" person. But the vast majority of schools lose money on athletics. On the other hand, I see the intrinsic value of athletics and the spreadsheet doesn't tell the whole story. The thing to consider, if you are chasing the football dream because you are looking for the value outside of the spreadsheet, great! But if you are looking at the money it might make, you are similar to the vast majority of the late prospectors to the California Gold Rush, tired, broke and hungry. The Big five already mined all the gold.

[MoValley John]

I typed that whole post on my smartphone's glass screen!

[The Mad Hatter]

If you honestly think only 7% of schools make money then I know everything I need to know about you.

You seem to be on some "foosball is the DEVIL!" kick

1. In my post I noted that since scholarships count as expenses, some athletic departments could be in the red technically but if you don't count the scholarships (which go back to the school) might be in the black (not always, but sometimes).

2. I noted that football is indeed the big money-maker, just not so much for schools outside the BCS (so I can't be too anti-football, just against football that doesn't get access to the real money - except not even necessarily that - see point 3).

3. I noted that the overall net benefits of athletics (including monetary due to increased non-athletic contributions) could extend well beyond the department's direct revenues.

If you want to ignore all of the statistical evidence and all the nuance that I provided in my analysis of it, then I guess that's your business.

[UofMemphis]

Well, the point I was trying to make in my first post is simple...a school like WSU or VCU would be a great add for the AAC to compliment Navy football going forward.

And I simply hope you guys get it because you've proven (IMHO) that your better than the MVC...it's time to move on to a bigger challenge...a challenge like The American.

[UofMemphis]

I typed that whole post on my smartphone's glass screen!

and BOY are my fingers tired!

[tropicalshox]

Well, the point I was trying to make in my first post is simple...a school like WSU or VCU would be a great add for the AAC to compliment Navy football going forward.

And I simply hope you guys get it because you've proven (IMHO) that your better than the MVC...it's time to move on to a bigger challenge...a challenge like The American.

Change your mind? I thought VCU was was first choice for the one and only spot.

[WstateU]

I typed that whole post on my smartphone's glass screen!

and BOY are my fingers tired!

P.S. I posted this on my iPad using my butt cheeks.

[Dave Stalwart]

Well, the point I was trying to make in my first post is simple...a school like WSU or VCU would be a great add for the AAC to compliment Navy football going forward.

And I simply hope you guys get it because you've proven (IMHO) that your better than the MVC...it's time to move on to a bigger challenge...a challenge like The American.

Thanks. I'm sure many of us would like that too. We are hoping that this season in the Valley won't be a complete rpi disaster but its probably going to be. It would definitely be fun to face some of those names in your conference.

Also, many here are very educated about football as far as costs and issues. We hash it out pretty much every year and we are certainly up to speed on a lot of the weird details. A lot of people really want it back at WSU and it all gets discussed quite a bit.

[UofMemphis]

Change your mind? I thought VCU was was first choice for the one and only spot.

I used to think that (I've never said it here) only because the one time I've been to your city I saw a decent sized football stadium and assumed WSU must play FCS football...meaning it would be difficult for WSU to move just Olympic sports to the AAC.

I now know you guys dropped football in the 80s...

[UofMemphis]

P.S. I posted this on my iPad using my butt cheeks.

Might I suggest some Clorox wipes?

[MoValley John]

P.S. I posted this on my iPad using my butt cheeks.

Ordinarily, I'd find that funny, but what about the millions of people suffering from diminished gluteal syndrome? Hank Hill finds your post offensive.

[Rlh04d]

Let's put the idea that football is more profitable to the test. Certainly, gross revenue will be higher, but if you spend more on football, that doesn't matter. Therefore, net revenue of the athletic department is the best measure of profitability. In addition, many athletic departments inflate their revenue numbers by including direct contributions from the school, so it is important to know how highly subsidized the department is. Luckily there is a USA Today database that keeps track of both of these stats. Let's see how a non-football school like WSU compares to the football schools you mention:

I don't think you need to go this far. The "football is more profitable" argument is insane coming from any member of the AAC who is watching the new Big East members make more from simply their basketball product than the AAC members make from basketball and football combined. Football is huge if you're in a major conference. The AAC is not a major conference and is fighting for scraps. Clearly, for ANY conference outside of the major players in football, basketball is the most profitable sport.

[UofMemphis]

Someone who roots for FSU trying to convince me basketball is more important than football...gotta love this board...you go tell Boise State to just give up since they aren't "power 5"

As for WSU...the AAC is much better than the MVC from an Olympic sports standpoint.

UConn, Cincy, Memphis, Temple, Tulsa...what's not to like about playing schools like that?

[shox1989]

That's silly, if you go by the "official" numbers only 7% of schools actually make money...you really believe that?

we always make sure our "official" Expense/Revenue come out almost exactly the same for some accounting reason...we had a long drawn out thread on our board going over why...most schools do

"How many Division I athletics departments operate in the black?
Less than 7 percent of Division I athletics programs had positive net revenue between 2004 and 2010."

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...s+and+Expenses

Interesting article. A couple of interesting paragraphs from it:

How can schools lose money when men’s basketball and football generate so much money?
Between 50 to 60 percent of FBS football and basketball programs have generated more revenue than expenses. Still, that means almost half of the so-called revenue sports don’t cover their own expenses, let alone pay for the non-revenue programs.

The other interesting paragraph means Marshall is among the 100 highest paid coaches in the nation in any college sport:

Why do coaches make so much money?
Coaching salaries are market-driven just like they are for faculty in medicine, law, business and other academic fields. Of the tens of thousands of full-time and part-time coaches in all three divisions, about 100 coaches at top-tier Division I institutions make a million dollars or more. These coaches are the exception. For example, in 2010, a typical Division I head men’s tennis coach made about $49,000 annually and a Division I head women’s golf coach about $52,000. Most Divisions II and III coaches make less than their Division I counterparts. When it comes to high salaries, it is all about the market and institutional autonomy.

[UofMemphis]

Coaching salaries are very high...we're having to pay: 2.65 Million per year for Josh Pastner (basketball) and 1 Million for Justin Fuente (football)