Wall Street Journal: Gophers 10th Most Valuable D1 men's college program

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,971
Reaction score
18,163
Points
113
Ryan Brewer, an assistant professor of finance at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus, calculated the intrinsic valuations of 100 top Division I programs, including all 74 major-conference ones. Among other factors, the study examined each program's revenues and expenses and made cash-flow adjustments, risk assessments and growth projections for every school.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702303816504577317681170452786.html

Gophers are #10 nationally and #3 in the Big Ten.

Go Gophers!!
 

Illinois not in the top 20... ouch.

This probably takes into bonds needed to pay off arenas/renovations etc. as well so that is why we are a bit higher. Haven't had to build a new arena lately. Not sure though.
 

Is this a belated April Fool's joke?

Northwestern in the top 20?
 


This information makes one question why we can't fund a practice facility- an investment in the future revenue stream- out of this very profitable program (and soon to be more profitable after premium seating). Of course the answer probably lies in the fact that we then spread these dollars over so very many non-revenue sports. In reality- when the program goes out looking for donors- the donors don't know it, but they are really funding the non-rev. sports. The practice facilty funding is already coming in if we were not relocating it.
 


bga1 said:
This information makes one question why we can't fund a practice facility- an investment in the future revenue stream- out of this very profitable program (and soon to be more profitable after premium seating). Of course the answer probably lies in the fact that we then spread these dollars over so very many non-revenue sports. In reality- when the program goes out looking for donors- the donors don't know it, but they are really funding the non-rev. sports. The practice facilty funding is already coming in if we were not relocating it.
Click to expand...
Isn't the athletic department also paying back for TCF?
 

zambam said:
Isn't the athletic department also paying back for TCF?
Click to expand...
Of course. But if the program is being run properly- proceeds from football should be handling that. It's a good question though.
 

The big question is how profitable is football. Football should almost always bring in the most money. Also, doesn't our athletic department actually pay the scholarships for all the players? I remember reading when Flip made the endowment that unlike some schools, our athletic department actually pays the scholarships and doesn't use waivers for them.
 

Football brings in $15 Million profit, Basketball $10 Million profit. There is also other revenue coming in from sources like advertising and the Big Ten network which really should be attributed to basketball and football but is not.

Approximately half of the profit from football and basketball goes directly to subsidize the women's sports, the other half goes to the giant pot to help the department out regardless of gender.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDet...264743d342f322f3230313220333a33303a343920504d
 



It is both about current profits and growth potential...we have a lot of room to grow both revenue and profits with the new seat donations at the Barn and if we an starting winning meaningful games and tourny games, we will sell more tickets, jersey's etc.

The issue I have is if the BB team generates $10 mil in profits each year...why don't we have facilities to match? Investing in a practice facility is an absolute no brainer and that we haven't broken ground yet is, IMO, the greatest failure of Maturi...even more so than hiring Tim Brewster. At least with Brewster, there was a shot at an upside, even if it was small...so JM gets a pass from me. The way Mason and Monson were extended then fired is a bigger issue to me than hiring Brew. But not securing the funding for the practice facility along with TCF when we had all that momentum and fund raising apparatus in place is inexcusable to me.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
It is both about current profits and growth potential...we have a lot of room to grow both revenue and profits with the new seat donations at the Barn and if we an starting winning meaningful games and tourny games, we will sell more tickets, jersey's etc.

The issue I have is if the BB team generates $10 mil in profits each year...why don't we have facilities to match? Investing in a practice facility is an absolute no brainer and that we haven't broken ground yet is, IMO, the greatest failure of Maturi...even more so than hiring Tim Brewster. At least with Brewster, there was a shot at an upside, even if it was small...so JM gets a pass from me. The way Mason and Monson were extended then fired is a bigger issue to me than hiring Brew. But not securing the funding for the practice facility along with TCF when we had all that momentum and fund raising apparatus in place is inexcusable to me.
Click to expand...

Bingo! And what is even more irritating is that the new premium seating program promises to generate more dollars - with still no attached promise of spending it on the practice facility.
 

bga1 said:
Bingo! And what is even more irritating is that the new premium seating program promises to generate more dollars - with still no attached promise of spending it on the practice facility.
Click to expand...

Well, part of the issue is that that money is going into the general athletic pool and helps pay for non-revs. However, once there is more capital built up (we've only been getting a few years of BTN money) the U will be more able to decide where it wants to go.
 

One would think you would invest your money into your most valuable assets. I'm sure that football revenue hurts the overall health of the athletic department and puts a strain on the basketball revenue, but basketball being the 10th most valuable program in the country should dictate where your priorities should lie. The fact that the administration can't figure out a way to finance the practice facility borders on the rediculous.
 



Agree that the practice facility should be a given if we're going to be in the arms race. However, there are also some other things to consider before joining the knee-jerk reaction.

-How do most of the other schools split their money? Can't believe we're that different in what we support. Pretty sure there are very few athletic departments where even one women's sport or any other sport other than football or basketball brings in more than it costs. Aren't that many Connecticut women's BB teams or UND hockey teams out there.
-How many football stadiums have been built recently? Has anyone really examined what's happened because of the effort to build it, especially with where the economy went? Did this wave of new basketball practice facilities get going about the time TCF was being planned? Don't know for sure, but it seems like it's sort of a recent development.
-And what in the hell does, "made cash-flow adjustments, risk assessments and growth projections for every school," actually mean? No chance of anything being wrong here I'm sure.
-Again, if you're going to justify the emphasis on college football and basketball, then you have to accept that a large part of it is supporting other programs. That and raising the profile of the University are more important than giving the average fan bragging rights over some yahoo from Wisconsin. I know the importance of the revenue sports. God knows, since the 60's I've invested quite a bit of money, time, and emotion in them with often a poor return. Just saying it doesn't have to be the "either or scenario" that seems to prevail here.
 

Never underestimate the intrinsic-historic value of The Barn.
 

Mulligan said:
Agree that the practice facility should be a given if we're going to be in the arms race. However, there are also some other things to consider before joining the knee-jerk reaction.

-How do most of the other schools split their money? Can't believe we're that different in what we support. Pretty sure there are very few athletic departments where even one women's sport or any other sport other than football or basketball brings in more than it costs. Aren't that many Connecticut women's BB teams or UND hockey teams out there.
-How many football stadiums have been built recently? Has anyone really examined what's happened because of the effort to build it, especially with where the economy went? Did this wave of new basketball practice facilities get going about the time TCF was being planned? Don't know for sure, but it seems like it's sort of a recent development.
-And what in the hell does, "made cash-flow adjustments, risk assessments and growth projections for every school," actually mean? No chance of anything being wrong here I'm sure.
-Again, if you're going to justify the emphasis on college football and basketball, then you have to accept that a large part of it is supporting other programs. That and raising the profile of the University are more important than giving the average fan bragging rights over some yahoo from Wisconsin. I know the importance of the revenue sports. God knows, since the 60's I've invested quite a bit of money, time, and emotion in them with often a poor return. Just saying it doesn't have to be the "either or scenario" that seems to prevail here.
Click to expand...

There are many baseball programs on the South that generate revenue. Florida State regularly draws 5-6000 fans. Arkansas has a stadium that seats over 10,000.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom