UConn reports more than $40 million athletic deficit
By PAT EATON-ROBB
January 17, 2019
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) Spending in the athletic division at the University of Connecticut outpaced revenue by more than $40 million in 2018, the school reported Thursday.

In an NCAA financial statement, UConn reported that total generated revenue from sports last year totaled $40.4 million, while expenses came in at $80.9 million.

UConn spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said the gap is a result of declining conference and media licensing revenue and rising costs.

"It is not sustainable and the Division of Athletics is continually working to identify savings and drive up revenue in order to help close this gap," she said.


The school, with most of its athletic programs in the American Athletic Conference, struggles to compete fiscally with similar programs in the higher revenue-generating Power Five conferences the Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Southeastern Conference and Pac-12.

The school reported receiving $7.1 million in conference distribution funds last year and another $1 million in media rights, down from $7.3 million reported in 2017. By comparison, the average school distribution for the Southeastern Conference was reported to be about $41 million and Big Ten schools reportedly received an average of about $38.5 million.

To help close its budget gap, the athletic division received $30 million in institutional support and another $8.5 million from student fees last year. That was down from $34 million in institutional support in 2017.

The statement shows the football program had an $8.7 million deficit; men's basketball lost about $5 million; and women's basketball, a perennial power, lost just over $3 million.

Football is the school's most expensive program, with operating expenses totaling just over $15.7 million. Ticket sales for the football program, which finished with a 1-11 record, totaled $2.4 million, compared with $3.3 million in 2017.

Men's basketball operating expenses totaled $11.1 million and women's basketball expenses were reported at $7.8 million.

Ticket sales for the men's basketball games totaled $3.1 million, while ticket sales for the women's games brought in $2.4 million.

Athletic Director David Benedict has said UConn's financial struggles won't impact the planned construction of new baseball, softball and soccer stadiums, which are being paid for mostly through private donations.

Gulp. Scary numbers.

I suppose you have to consider those deficits marketing/promotion expenses. If you mothballed football and hoops, I wonder what that would do after a few years to the caliber of applicants who wanted to attend UConn?

I'd'd?

ILLUMINATE!!!! (I am still waiting on my damn sparklers!)

Quote:

---

ILLUMINATE!!!! (I am still waiting on my damn sparklers!)

---

Sparklers are dangerous you, could burn you hand on one or "you'll put your eye out". Can't have those. They are perhaps as dangerous as bear cubs on a leash.

Quote:

---

UConn reported that total generated revenue from sports last year totaled $40.4 million, while expenses came in at $80.9 million.

---

This happens at institutions of women's basketball.

trey3216 said:

---

I've said many times that the nuclear arms race in college athletics, combined with the out of control rate of tuition increases, will cause the shuttering of doors for quite a few universities, let alone athletic departments.

---

I agree. UCONN has a great WBB and they are losing 40M a year? What about schools that do not have any notable athletic programs whatsoever yet try to compete with the arms race?

Agree. It seems like a bubble that's bound to burst, and I dont see how some universities will be able to come out on the other side.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

UConn reported that total generated revenue from sports last year totaled $40.4 million, while expenses came in at $80.9 million.

---

This happens at institutions of women's basketball.

---

There is one money maker in college athletics.

BaylorOkie said:

---

Agree. It seems like a bubble that's bound to burst, and I dont see how some universities will be able to come out on the other side.

---

Agree completely. And with TV money -- the biggest source of revenue for these conferences and schools -- bound to dry up as more and more people cut the cord/stop watching, the situation is even more tenuous.

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

Agree. It seems like a bubble that's bound to burst, and I dont see how some universities will be able to come out on the other side.

---

Agree completely. And with TV money -- the biggest source of revenue for these conferences and schools -- bound to dry up as more and more people cut the cord/stop watching, the situation is even more tenuous.

---

some of that money will be there, albeit in alternative formats. And all those cutting cords right now are naive to think those costs won't drift towards what you were previously paying on your cable bill. It's going to happen.

trey3216 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

Agree. It seems like a bubble that's bound to burst, and I dont see how some universities will be able to come out on the other side.

---

Agree completely. And with TV money -- the biggest source of revenue for these conferences and schools -- bound to dry up as more and more people cut the cord/stop watching, the situation is even more tenuous.

---

some of that money will be there, albeit in alternative formats. And all those cutting cords right now are naive to think those costs won't drift towards what you were previously paying on your cable bill. It's going to happen.

---

The bigger problem is that many of the cord cutters are no longer paying for sports broadcasting in any form and have just stopped watching altogether or are going to sports bars. That's why ESPN is in the pickle it's in. It's running out of people it can hand those costs down to, and with ESPN+ it's trying to hand new and higher costs to its current shrinking customer base. As a veteran of the newspaper industry, I can tell you that's not a sustainable model.

WBB lost $3 mil? UCONN? They are soooo successful. I thought they filled up their arena every home game.

bear2be2 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

Agree. It seems like a bubble that's bound to burst, and I dont see how some universities will be able to come out on the other side.

---

Agree completely. And with TV money -- the biggest source of revenue for these conferences and schools -- bound to dry up as more and more people cut the cord/stop watching, the situation is even more tenuous.

---

some of that money will be there, albeit in alternative formats. And all those cutting cords right now are naive to think those costs won't drift towards what you were previously paying on your cable bill. It's going to happen.

---

The bigger problem is that many of the cord cutters are no longer paying for sports broadcasting in any form and have just stopped watching altogether or are going to sports bars. That's why ESPN is in the pickle it's in. It's running out of people it can hand those costs down to, and with ESPN+ it's trying to hand new and higher costs to its current shrinking customer base. As a veteran of the newspaper industry, I can tell you that's not a sustainable model.

---

ESPN won't be footing the bill. You didn't get what I'm saying

trey3216 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

Agree. It seems like a bubble that's bound to burst, and I dont see how some universities will be able to come out on the other side.

---

Agree completely. And with TV money -- the biggest source of revenue for these conferences and schools -- bound to dry up as more and more people cut the cord/stop watching, the situation is even more tenuous.

---

some of that money will be there, albeit in alternative formats. And all those cutting cords right now are naive to think those costs won't drift towards what you were previously paying on your cable bill. It's going to happen.

---

The bigger problem is that many of the cord cutters are no longer paying for sports broadcasting in any form and have just stopped watching altogether or are going to sports bars. That's why ESPN is in the pickle it's in. It's running out of people it can hand those costs down to, and with ESPN+ it's trying to hand new and higher costs to its current shrinking customer base. As a veteran of the newspaper industry, I can tell you that's not a sustainable model.

---

ESPN won't be footing the bill. You didn't get what I'm saying

---

And you missed my point clearly. ESPN can and will charge more for their services, but as long as their customer base is shrinking -- and that trend almost certainly will continue as they charge loyal subscribers more and more for the same products -- they'll continue in their current drain-circling trajectory.

What's happening with ESPN isn't new, and there's no super clever way out of the mess they find themselves in long-term. It's the exact same thing that's happened in the newspaper industry, where technological advances and changes in user platform preferences have caused traditional revenue streams to dry up without introducing new ones to the equation. ESPN can stall this temporarily (as newspaper ownership groups have) by cutting costs and asking more and more of the consumer, but they can't and won't solve their problem long-term that way. I'm not sure there even is a solution.

The problem, as with other entertainment products, is the cost of production. Costs for college football are high, giant gorgeous stadiums and practice facilities, outrageous coaching salaries and the need to support non revenue sports that are expected (by law) to be supported in the same manner as the only revenue producing sport. Colleges pass that on to the TV networks, but even then don't cover all the operating costs and require ever increasing donations from boosters and alumni.

At some point the merry-go-round will stop.

Losing a couple million a year to stay in big time sports is no big deal.

Its worth the money spent in name recognition and marketing.

Its why Liberty is spending big money on athletics.

But $40 million is no joke....and that is not sustainable.

bear2be2 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

Agree. It seems like a bubble that's bound to burst, and I dont see how some universities will be able to come out on the other side.

---

Agree completely. And with TV money -- the biggest source of revenue for these conferences and schools -- bound to dry up as more and more people cut the cord/stop watching, the situation is even more tenuous.

---

some of that money will be there, albeit in alternative formats. And all those cutting cords right now are naive to think those costs won't drift towards what you were previously paying on your cable bill. It's going to happen.

---

The bigger problem is that many of the cord cutters are no longer paying for sports broadcasting in any form and have just stopped watching altogether or are going to sports bars. That's why ESPN is in the pickle it's in. It's running out of people it can hand those costs down to, and with ESPN+ it's trying to hand new and higher costs to its current shrinking customer base. As a veteran of the newspaper industry, I can tell you that's not a sustainable model.

---

ESPN won't be footing the bill. You didn't get what I'm saying

---

And you missed my point clearly. ESPN can and will charge more for their services, but as long as their customer base is shrinking -- and that trend almost certainly will continue as they charge loyal subscribers more and more for the same products -- they'll continue in their current drain-circling trajectory.

What's happening with ESPN isn't new, and there's no super clever way out of the mess they find themselves in long-term. It's the exact same thing that's happened in the newspaper industry, where technological advances and changes in user platform preferences have caused traditional revenue streams to dry up without introducing new ones to the equation. ESPN can stall this temporarily (as newspaper ownership groups have) by cutting costs and asking more and more of the consumer, but they can't and won't solve their problem long-term that way. I'm not sure there even is a solution.

---

you've clearly missed the point. The distributors that will be bidding for sports will be Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and Netflix. The consumer, who is shifting to streaming, will inevitably end up absorbing costs eventually, just as they did in the past. This is already happening so it's not really debatable. This is why print and traditional media is failing, because they didn't foresee or acknowledge it when it was happening

According to Baylor financials this is a rather limited view of Baylor athletics in 2017:


58,897,000 Income from intercollegiate athletics per audited financial statement
15,300,000 Bear Foundation income
74,197,000 Total Revenue
98,125,000 Expenses per DOE website
(23,928,000) Deficit for fiscal year ended May 31, 2017

So Baylor lost nearly $24 million in 2017.

What doesn't show up is any money Baylor spent on settling with Arthur Briles or any females who have filed suit against Baylor related to athletics.

Not a rosy picture.

trey3216 said:

---

I've said many times that the nuclear arms race in college athletics, combined with the out of control rate of tuition increases, will cause the shuttering of doors for quite a few universities, let alone athletic departments.

---

I don't know how worried I am about universities going completely out, since their hard assets are largely sunk costs, but the model is undergoing rapid change because of the cost.

I'm a niche expert and a few universities have reached out to me, not for full time teaching positions but to build online courses to reach students that simply can't foot the bill. The model is moving online because of cost, the price/value proposition simply isn't there for most consumers. There is a lot of gnashing of teeth about the costs for most families, but my advice is the same for all, don't pay the large bill until you know the value proposition can be achieved. Meaning, no liberal arts schools, no navel gazing without picking a degree and no fluff diplomas.

The gap in expectations, if you will, is the distance between the concept of 'public' education and the actual practice of it. The 'elitist' left doesn't want to deal with the unwashed masses, but their institutions were designed entirely for that sole, single purpose. A lot of state funded universities have put themselves on an island and need to be reigned in by their supporters and electorates.

Stranger said:

---

According to Baylor financials this is a rather limited view of Baylor athletics in 2017:


58,897,000 Income from intercollegiate athletics per audited financial statement
15,300,000 Bear Foundation income
74,197,000 Total Revenue
98,125,000 Expenses per DOE website
(23,928,000) Deficit for fiscal year ended May 31, 2017

So Baylor lost nearly $24 million in 2017.

What doesn't show up is any money Baylor spent on settling with Arthur Briles or any females who have filed suit against Baylor related to athletics.

Not a rosy picture.

---

Allocate that loss to the board members on a per member basis and ask if they've donated to cover the shortfall.

Right now, the silence is a bit much.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Losing a couple million a year to stay in big time sports is no big deal.

Its worth the money spent in name recognition and marketing.

Its why Liberty is spending big money on athletics.

But $40 million is no joke....and that is not sustainable.

---

That bolded part is what college athletics really is, a dog and pony show for potential students and alums. Also, some level of enforced doctrination into a long term relationship.

To be fair, the private schools like Baylor, USC, ND, etc, this isn't a big deal. Except that they get federal tax dollars in loans for students.

But for public institutions, which are becoming laggards in quality, passing on horrendous debt to undergrads who have no chance of paying off debt and faculty that simply aren't contributing meaningful research, this should be a five alarm problem that should have state legislators carrying pitchforks. And people are loathe to admit it, but a lot of state universities are simply political grandstanding, offering nothing of value in states where the economy needs a significant boost. We can thumb our noses as private school grads, but it's still our problem and we are paying for it beyond simply tax dollars.

Higher education is a buyer beware proposition as much as anything, but moreso in the public space IMO.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

I've said many times that the nuclear arms race in college athletics, combined with the out of control rate of tuition increases, will cause the shuttering of doors for quite a few universities, let alone athletic departments.

---

I don't know how worried I am about universities going completely out, since their hard assets are largely sunk costs, but the model is undergoing rapid change because of the cost.

I'm a niche expert and a few universities have reached out to me, not for full time teaching positions but to build online courses to reach students that simply can't foot the bill. The model is moving online because of cost, the price/value proposition simply isn't there for most consumers. There is a lot of gnashing of teeth about the costs for most families, but my advice is the same for all, don't pay the large bill until you know the value proposition can be achieved. Meaning, no liberal arts schools, no navel gazing without picking a degree and no fluff diplomas.

The gap in expectations, if you will, is the distance between the concept of 'public' education and the actual practice of it. The 'elitist' left doesn't want to deal with the unwashed masses, but their institutions were designed entirely for that sole, single purpose. A lot of state funded universities have put themselves on an island and need to be reigned in by their supporters and electorates.

---

our own beloved university is in the same boat bro, hate to break it to you. You know how many BA and MA Social Work degrees we crank out? I won't even get to deep into the implications of what the scandal has brought us into, but had we done like so many on this board wanted and told the system to pound sand, we could very well have been one of those schools closing up shop within the next 10 years due to shifts in the way education is garnered and athletic relegation.

You should really listen to TellMeYouLoveMe. Baylor is rolling in dough and the future and giving dollars from our super ecstatic alumni are not a problem! As a matter of fact, they are at record levels! That is what I have read into the last dozen press releases about fundraising and finances that have come out of Pat Neff Hall. Every single day at Baylor University is sunshine and 72 degrees. We have no worries!!!! Life is good. We are in good hands.

I'm shocked that the so-called Baylor fans on this forum are not concerned that Baylor athletic department is drowning in $24 million in red ink.

Who covers that shortfall? More raises in tuition? How much can Baylor endure?

Are none of you concerned?

Stranger said:

---

I'm shocked that the so-called Baylor fans on this forum are not concerned that Baylor athletic department is drowning in $24 million in red ink.

Who covers that shortfall? More raises in tuition? How much can Baylor endure?

Are none of you concerned?

---

Relax, my friend. ILLUMINATE!!!! (Checked my mailbox again today. I have still not received my damn sparklers!!!)

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

You should really listen to TellMeYouLoveMe. Baylor is rolling in dough and the future and giving dollars from our super ecstatic alumni are not a problem! As a matter of fact, they are at record levels! That is what I have read into the last dozen press releases about fundraising and finances that have come out of Pat Neff Hall. Every single day at Baylor University is sunshine and 72 degrees. We have no worries!!!! Life is good. We are in good hands.

---

Easy CAB'er, you've never been strong at reading comprehension, but go back and read what I said.

I can tell you point blank that there are rich people(ok, not technically rich, but net worth above $1 mil) lined up ready and willing to pay Baylor's hefty $40k per year tuition price tag. These are people living West of the Mississippi, with fewer than 2 kids whose own states suck immensely at higher education. And Baylor only needs approx(?) 4,000 of those kids a year. By virtue of location and ease of doing business, Baylor doesn't have to work hard to pay the bill. The problem is in the quality of the students. There is a tradeoff between quality of student and the ability to pay the full fare. It puts Baylor, SMU, TCU in the unenviable position of having to take the 3th generation trust fund kid with subpar grades and a mediocre standardized test score.

Now, whether Baylor is managing it's costs is another matter altogether, but the revenue and aggregate demand are strong for private higher education, largely because the options are so few.
But strong demand alone won't compensate for inept board and administrators that outspend the organization.

If(just hedging) the shortfall is as bad Stranger indicates, it's a red flag that heads aren't rolling..

Stranger said:

---

I'm shocked that the so-called Baylor fans on this forum are not concerned that Baylor athletic department is drowning in $24 million in red ink.

Who covers that shortfall? More raises in tuition? How much can Baylor endure?

Are none of you concerned?

---

Not concerned. I've graduated. My kids have options their old man didn't, so I don't see them at Baylor. Do I feel sorry for future parents/students? Absolutely. The money absolutely is covered either by drawing the endowment or raising tuition.

Stranger, I think I'm more surprised that you expect them to tell the truth. What on Earth gave you that idea?

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

You should really listen to TellMeYouLoveMe. Baylor is rolling in dough and the future and giving dollars from our super ecstatic alumni are not a problem! As a matter of fact, they are at record levels! That is what I have read into the last dozen press releases about fundraising and finances that have come out of Pat Neff Hall. Every single day at Baylor University is sunshine and 72 degrees. We have no worries!!!! Life is good. We are in good hands.

---

Easy CAB'er, you've never been strong at reading comprehension, but go back and read what I said.

I can tell you point blank that there are rich people(ok, not technically rich, but net worth above $1 mil) lined up ready and willing to pay Baylor's hefty $40k per year tuition price tag. These are people living West of the Mississippi, with fewer than 2 kids whose own states suck immensely at higher education. And Baylor only needs approx(?) 4,000 of those kids a year. By virtue of location and ease of doing business, Baylor doesn't have to work hard to pay the bill. The problem is in the quality of the students. There is a tradeoff between quality of student and the ability to pay the full fare. It puts Baylor, SMU, TCU in the unenviable position of having to take the 3th generation trust fund kid with subpar grades and a mediocre standardized test score.

Now, whether Baylor is managing it's costs is another matter altogether, but the revenue and aggregate demand are strong for private higher education, largely because the options are so few.

But strong demand alone won't compensate for inept board and administrators that outspend the organization.

If(just hedging) the shortfall is as bad Stranger indicates, it's a red flag that heads aren't rolling..

---

Yes, I think Art Briles and his staff got screwed. I am a CABer. Once again, I am so sorry Art and Ian gave you a painful wedgy.

And you have just said that if Baylor is willing to lower the standards that we still have an overabundance of parents willing to pay to have their Village Idiots go to Baylor. LOL. Okay. That makes me feel better. Nothing short of excellence!!!

trey3216 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

I've said many times that the nuclear arms race in college athletics, combined with the out of control rate of tuition increases, will cause the shuttering of doors for quite a few universities, let alone athletic departments.

---

I don't know how worried I am about universities going completely out, since their hard assets are largely sunk costs, but the model is undergoing rapid change because of the cost.

I'm a niche expert and a few universities have reached out to me, not for full time teaching positions but to build online courses to reach students that simply can't foot the bill. The model is moving online because of cost, the price/value proposition simply isn't there for most consumers. There is a lot of gnashing of teeth about the costs for most families, but my advice is the same for all, don't pay the large bill until you know the value proposition can be achieved. Meaning, no liberal arts schools, no navel gazing without picking a degree and no fluff diplomas.

The gap in expectations, if you will, is the distance between the concept of 'public' education and the actual practice of it. The 'elitist' left doesn't want to deal with the unwashed masses, but their institutions were designed entirely for that sole, single purpose. A lot of state funded universities have put themselves on an island and need to be reigned in by their supporters and electorates.

---

our own beloved university is in the same boat bro, hate to break it to you. You know how many BA and MA Social Work degrees we crank out? I won't even get to deep into the implications of what the scandal has brought us into, but had we done like so many on this board wanted and told the system to pound sand, we could very well have been one of those schools closing up shop within the next 10 years due to shifts in the way education is garnered and athletic relegation.

---

Here's Baylor's problem's from a financial forecast perspective in my illustrious opinion, based on trends in higher education that I see.

• Need to raise average professor salary and those professors need to work directly with students. This is what makes the Baylor model work. Research is nice, but people aren't going to fork out 40k tuition to be taught by a ....TA. They can get that at at state U.
• Endowment needs to be $3 bil(US) It's $1.2 bil. This is a much bigger problem than anyone either realizes or will discuss. We have some down years coming. The central problem is the inability of our board to attract and retain endowment dollars. 30 Regents. Only a few can donate and those aren't out raising funds, what's the point??? It gets worse, the people campaigning to be on the board don't have $$ either.
• The next wave of technology investment to keep up with, and differentiate from the completely online providers. In 3 years, every higher education option will have a completely online option. Differentiating this will be difficult. Consumers have come to expect that learning happens off campus in front of a screen and that's part of the value proposition. And they expect it to be cheap. This will erode the value provided by the diploma factories, but will also make 2nd tier offerings irrelevant.

Originally posted by 365's strangest and most butthurt poster.

Quote:

---

Yes, I think Art Briles and his staff got screwed. I am a CABer. Once again, I am so sorry Art and Ian gave you a painful wedgy.

And you have just said that if Baylor is willing to lower the standards that we still have an overabundance of parents willing to pay to have their Village Idiots go to Baylor. LOL. Okay. That makes me feel better. Nothing short of excellence!!!

---

What color is the sky in your world?

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Originally posted by 365's strangest and most butthurt poster.

Quote:

---

Yes, I think Art Briles and his staff got screwed. I am a CABer. Once again, I am so sorry Art and Ian gave you a painful wedgy.

And you have just said that if Baylor is willing to lower the standards that we still have an overabundance of parents willing to pay to have their Village Idiots go to Baylor. LOL. Okay. That makes me feel better. Nothing short of excellence!!!

---

What color is the sky in your world?

---

The same as yours. It is our perception of Baylor Reality that seems to be on different ends of the spectrum. And that is okay. In your world, as long as Art and Ian are gone, Satan and his little brother can run the show and all is well in BaylorLand. LOL! Please tell Xiled I said Hello.

Good to know. Hope the medication kicks in.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Originally posted by 365's strangest and most butthurt poster.

Quote:

---

Yes, I think Art Briles and his staff got screwed. I am a CABer. Once again, I am so sorry Art and Ian gave you a painful wedgy.

And you have just said that if Baylor is willing to lower the standards that we still have an overabundance of parents willing to pay to have their Village Idiots go to Baylor. LOL. Okay. That makes me feel better. Nothing short of excellence!!!

---

What color is the sky in your world?

---

The same as yours. It is our perception of Baylor Reality that seems to be on different ends of the spectrum. And that is okay. In your world, as long as Art and Ian are gone, Satan and his little brother can run the show and all is well in BaylorLand. LOL! Please tell Xiled I said Hello.

---

Satan?! Seems legit