That's debatable but I didn't say in our conference. The poster said 30 programs nationwide. That's what I was referring to.
Printable View
But Football and Men's basketball are the only two that make money at every school except a handful where baseball makes a little money. Yes, even we lose money in women's basketball. No one wants to get into a bidding war for a sport that loses the school 7 figures annually.
Lol. No. It's no way they were paying Vic and other collegiate Women's Basketball coaches millions of dollars if Women's Basketball doesn't make any money for the schools. Women's College Basketball is on ESPN networks more than baseball and the schools get paid for that as well. Not sure where you're getting that info from.
"What Vic Schaefer and his staff have done here is unbelievable. They built the program from scratch, from the ground up. They deserve a lot of credit. While it is not net revenue producing, the ambassadors they are for Mississippi State University, Mississippi State athletics and ultimately for our fanbase is great. (As for men's basketball) it produces more revenue then women's basketball from the standpoint of ticket prices and donations.
-Jared Benko in a Gene's Page interview Dec. 16 2019
That's where I got my information from. Also LSU released it's budget last week and women's basketball lost the school 2 mil.
"Net revenue producing" takes into account expenses. Expenses include costs for things like facilities, event staffing, etc... which multiple sports use. (exerpt below) To say that Women's Basketball doesn't make any money for the school is inaccurate. The amount of money that a sport generates has nothing to do with how the school chooses to SPEND the money. Schools make a lot of money off the NCAA Tournament/Final Four alone.
From USA Today: "Another figure that contributed to MSU's rise in expenses, which saw an increase of approximately $15 million for the second straight year, was a $6 million rise in cost for facilities."
And it goes without saying that LSU doesn't represent every athletic department in the nation.
Sorry your feeling are hurt but it's like losing the track or tennis coach to me. I know we are good in those sports but it's not something the average sports fan follows. None of my State friends (and I texted them all yesterday) lost a wink of sleep over this and neither did I. I'm just being honest.
My feelings aren't hurt. But if you don't care, then why even bother posting? The fact is, many do care, and quite frankly, don't give a shit that you don't. I don't care about our soccer team, but if someone starts a thread on it, I'm not going to comment, "I don't care."
Correct, it doesn't produce a net positive when accounting for cost. So it doesn't make money for the school on its own.
Now, obviously there is a benefit or the school wouldn't be willing to spend on it. That benefit is seen in other ways, I'm sure - exposure, branding, increased applications and enrollment, etc. I'm sure when all possible avenues are explored, it is a gain for the university. But the sport itself, in terms of costs out versus revenues in, does not end up making money.
Actually I've done that exact thing. I had a long thread one time showing (statistically) that college baseball is meaningless (in terms of revenue and viewership) in the real work compared to football and men's basketball. It's our pet sport, no doubt, and many enjoy going but to 99% of people in this country nobody has a clue who's good in college baseball and who sucks. Not looking to argue, I know that's not a popular decision, but just calling it like I see it, that's all.
their chief rivals coach Dawn Plitzuweit, who has done quite well at South Dakota, not as provenas Aaron Johnston though.
One other worth a look would be Karl Smesko at FGCU, has 30+ wins multiple times ( 3 in the last 4 years ) and that is tough to do regardless what conference your in. His teams also will beat or play down to the wire a P5 school almost every year, including a Top 20 UK a year or so ago.