Unplug the fridge

[twoBshorty]

Is Maryland's athletic budget completely and totally separate from the rest of the school? As in, they come from completely different sources and one has absolutely no effect on the other and there's no intertwining? Because as a Maryland grad student, it doesn't sit well with me that the school could consider throwing money away by firing the football coach when they have cut funding for grad students and faculty, are putting employees on furloughs (again), and are cutting department budgets so severely that the history department is not even printing syllabi because of the cost of paper. I'm sorry the football team sucks, but that buyout would pay for a lot of paper and TA stipends.

I hope I'm looking at this the wrong way.

[Birds of B'more]

Is Maryland's athletic budget completely and totally separate from the rest of the school? As in, they come from completely different sources and one has absolutely no effect on the other and there's no intertwining? Because as a Maryland grad student, it doesn't sit well with me that the school could consider throwing money away by firing the football coach when they have cut funding for grad students and faculty, are putting employees on furloughs (again), and are cutting department budgets so severely that the history department is not even printing syllabi because of the cost of paper. I'm sorry the football team sucks, but that buyout would pay for a lot of paper and TA stipends.

I hope I'm looking at this the wrong way.

In a word.......yes. Although in recent years the Athletic Dept has had budget surpluses that they have turned over to the School's general fund.

[OregonBird]

Well you have to look at the bottom line, as infuriating as it may be to students who aren't athletes.

A winning football program is going to bring in a ridiculous number times more money than having smart grad students or a top history program.

If eating a few million leads to that situation in 5 years, then that is what they should do.

Look at top programs like Vatech and USC...First of all, top students go to these schools over other similar schools they may be considering because of the athletics, mainly football. Secondly, the money they get for bowls, ticket sales, suites, endorsments, etc are going to help the university as a whole, I doubt it just goes to the sports aspect of things.

Hit the nail on the head.

Having great Football and Basketball teams highly correlates to having a great campus life. That leads to more applications and better students being accepted on campus. It adds to the name recognition and increases the overall "brand" value that is the University of Maryland.

While eating the cost of those contracts might be politically unpalatable, one could argue that the ROI of the turnaround a new coach would bring would far exceed the cost of the contracts. We hear about it all the time about when a certain "name" takes a HC position at a school, season ticket sales increase by X thousand or X percent.

MD won't get a primetime game on abc, ESPN or ESPN2 anytime soon. There will also be plenty of folks that won't renew their season tickets. The suites will sit unsold. Less money will flow into the Terrapin Club and Gridiron Network. There are real economic costs, some more long term, associated with keeping the current staff around.

[OregonBird]

In a word.......yes. Although in recent years the Athletic Dept has had budget surpluses that they have turned over to the School's general fund.

I think I'll be sending my son to U of O to play ball. They're not hurting for money, that's for sure.

[Birds of B'more]

I think I'll be sending my son to U of O to play ball. They're not hurting for money, that's for sure.

Yeah, but the Ducks have good ol' Uncle Phil to bankroll their athletic department. The Terps have no such benefactor. Kevin Plank might be that guy for them someday, but he doesn't have the wealth just yet

[section18]

Did anyone see this coming? Boom......boom.........boom. Three strikes and your out......alright....I know that's in baseball....How did this happen? Why did it happen? The head coach is supposed to run the team and rely on his assistants. We lost a lot of seniors at the end of the 2008 season. Didn't his assistants see the shortcomings of this years players? Is it poor recruiting and poor coaching? Many are saying yes to this question. There is a lot of money being lost this season because of the Terps poor play. I think the remaining games will play a major role in determining whether Ralph and his staff returns in 2010. I don't see them winning any of the remaining four games. N.C. State is a longshot but possible. The other three could be major blowouts. We are 2-6 and could end up 2-10. The 1993 team under Mark Duffner went 2-9

November 7th @ N.C. State

Novmber 14th Virginia Tech

November 21st @ Florida State

November 28 Boston College @ home

[OregonBird]

To put things in perspective, one of our wins this year was an OT win AT HOME, versus a I-AA team who is 2-5 overall, and 0-4 in the Colonial Athletic Association conference.

Teams ahead of JMU:

Richmond, Villanova, William & Mary, Delaware, and Towson

That's how far the Terps have fallen

[twoBshorty]

Well you have to look at the bottom line, as infuriating as it may be to students who aren't athletes.

A winning football program is going to bring in a ridiculous number times more money than having smart grad students or a top history program.

If eating a few million leads to that situation in 5 years, then that is what they should do.

Look at top programs like Vatech and USC...First of all, top students go to these schools over other similar schools they may be considering because of the athletics, mainly football. Secondly, the money they get for bowls, ticket sales, suites, endorsments, etc are going to help the university as a whole, I doubt it just goes to the sports aspect of things.

In a word.......yes. Although in recent years the Athletic Dept has had budget surpluses that they have turned over to the School's general fund.

Thanks to both of you. I'm less annoyed now.

[square634]

For what it's worth, I had a very knowledgeable business of sports professor at Wharton who said the data don't really support a correlation between increased athletic achievement and increased academic achievement. Overall application numbers do rise and fall with athletic success, but there's no evidence that the caliber of accepted student actually rises. Athletic success can lead to increase in booster donation, but data show that alumni donations (which account for a lot more) stay relatively constant. Also, the idea that athletic departments rake in a ton of money is mitigated by all of the other minor sports (other than men's basketball and football) that generally hemorrhage money.

[Birds of B'more]

For what it's worth, I had a very knowledgeable business of sports professor at Wharton who said the data don't really support a correlation between increased athletic achievement and increased academic achievement. Overall application numbers do rise and fall with athletic success, but there's no evidence that the caliber of accepted student actually rises. Athletic success can lead to increase in booster donation, but data show that alumni donations (which account for a lot more) stay relatively constant. Also, the idea that athletic departments rake in a ton of money is mitigated by all of the other minor sports (other than men's basketball and football) that generally hemorrhage money.

I don't have any quotes, but like I said before, I remember reading on a couple occasions that in recent years the UMd Athletic Dept gave several million dollars to the School when they ran a surplus. Now this was a while ago....during a better economy and well before the football team tanked this season. But in the case of UMd, more money to athletics means more money to the School in general.

[square634]

I don't have any quotes' date=' but like I said before, I remember reading on a couple occasions that in recent years the UMd Athletic Dept gave several million dollars to the School when they ran a surplus. Now this was a while ago....during a better economy and well before the football team tanked this season. But in the case of UMd, more money to athletics means more money to the School in general.[/quote']

Interesting. I believe my professor had data suggesting that only three or four athletic departments are consistently profitable... Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State I think topped the list. Let me look into it.

[Birds of B'more]

Interesting. I believe my professor had data suggesting that only three or four athletic departments are consistently profitable... Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State I think topped the list. Let me look into it.

Maybe UMd's Athletic Dept gave the money to the School's general fund to avoid being profitable? Tax reasons, maybe? I'd be interested in what your prof says. I'm pretty sure the quotes I read (from Yow, BTW) were out of the monthly Terrapin Times magazines I received back when I was a member of the Terrapin Club, and I don't have them anymore and I doubt I could find them anywhere online without paying a subscription to TT online.

[Why Not?]

Yow may have to do something sooner rather than later considering traditional doormat schools like UNC and Wake Forest are starting to win and therefore starting to recruit better. Let’s also not forget Georgia Tech is in first place of the coastal division with Paul Johnson who is also new on the block.

It's cyclical. Just about every ACC school has been up and down through the years. Aside from the Florida schools and Tech, nobody in the ACC is going to be a powerhouse every season.

I think it's a mistake to assume Fridge's replacement would have more success than the continuation of a Fridge regime.

[square634]

Maybe UMd's Athletic Dept gave the money to the School's general fund to avoid being profitable? Tax reasons' date=' maybe? I'd be interested in what your prof says. I'm pretty sure the quotes I read (from Yow, BTW) were out of the monthly Terrapin Times magazines I received back when I was a member of the Terrapin Club, and I don't have them anymore and I doubt I could find them anywhere online without paying a subscription to TT online.[/quote']

Turns out I remembered incorrectly. I was able to access the old lecture notes, but since they are his intellectual property and may come from his textbook I won't post everything he says.

In 2003, 47 Division I-A schools made money (an average of $5 million), while the other 70 lost an average of $4.4 million.

From 2004-2006 combined, only 16 of 119 teams were profitable, and only 19 were profitable in 2006 alone.

The general data seem to show that while revenues increased over the study period, costs increased even faster.

But the schools that make money are in the BCS conferences. Only three BCS schools lost money in 2005-2006: Maryland, Wake Forest, and Cincinnati.

However, there are some ways a school can fudge the numbers, (for example, sometimes athletic merchandise sales are put directly into the general fund).

So basically, you were mostly right and I was mostly wrong. The only part I remembered correctly was that evidence suggests that alumni giving is uncorrelated to athletic success.

[OregonBird]

Turns out I remembered incorrectly. I was able to access the old lecture notes, but since they are his intellectual property and may come from his textbook I won't post everything he says.

In 2003, 47 Division I-A schools made money (an average of $5 million), while the other 70 lost an average of $4.4 million.

From 2004-2006 combined, only 16 of 119 teams were profitable, and only 19 were profitable in 2006 alone.

The general data seem to show that while revenues increased over the study period, costs increased even faster.

But the schools that make money are in the BCS conferences. Only three BCS schools lost money in 2005-2006: Maryland, Wake Forest, and Cincinnati.

However, there are some ways a school can fudge the numbers, (for example, sometimes athletic merchandise sales are put directly into the general fund).

So basically, you were mostly right and I was mostly wrong. The only part I remembered correctly was that evidence suggests that alumni giving is uncorrelated to athletic success.

The other thing that you have to consider is profitability versus cash flow.

On paper, if my non profit accounting is correct, a football team takes in gross revenues and has to partially offset them with the cost of the scholarships given to its athletes to arrive at a "Net" revenues number.

On paper, the scholarships would be a "contra revenue" not technically an expense. However, its a cashless transaction, no cash actually left the business. It's a paper journal entry.