Online Now 2683

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 1973
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 2698
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Compairson of Programs Across 4 Revenue Sports

  • There are 5 sports that generally turn a positive revenue at most schools (MBB, FB, WBB, Hockey, and Baseball). Obviously, not every school turns money, but at the major conference level, these programs generally turn money (Northern Baseball doesn't, but that's an outlier). 4 of these sports currently have polls out. I looked at the media polls, and marked which schools have multiple teams. I also listed out of how many. I.E. MSU has 4 teams eligible (Whoops, FB, BB, and Hockey), whereas those bastards in Bloomington would only have 3 (Whoops, BB, and FB). Finally, I used the media polls, as opposed to coaches.

    Baylor (3/3)
    MSU (3/4)
    O$U (3/4)
    scUM (3/4)
    Kentucky (2/3)
    Louis (2/3)
    UNC (2/3)
    Duke (2/3)
    Gtown (2/3)
    Stan (2/3)
    UGA (2/3)
    PSU (2/3)
    UNL (2/3)
    UConn (2/4)
    Wisky (2/4)
    ND (2/4)

    What we can see, that besides something in the water in Waco, MSU is in pretty good company for success across revenue sports. It's unknown if hockey can continue it's first half success, but WHoops is better than they've been playing. In short, like always, it's a good time to be a Spartan.

    signature image

    RBW Spartan ●

  • I get your point, but there are very few that turn a positive revenue in their sports. There might be 1, maybe 2 that turn a profit in Whoops. Same with baseball.........that number will be slightly higher than Whoops, but not much. Hockey is in that same boat. Very few programs can pay for themselves in these sports. Football foots the bill for athletics nearly everywhere. With that said, there are many football programs in the red as well. UM was a regular in the red, which is amazing (no pun intended) when you factor in tickets sold etc. MSU is very rare in that they turn a profit in Mhoops and football. No longer do they in hockey.

    Iknowmorethanu

  • Hockey was in the black for a long time, but that has dropped off in recent years. Winning could change that.

    Women's hoops lost $2MM last year, despite what was probably the best attendence record we've had at MSU. MSU will ALWAYS lose money on women's hoops.

    Men's hoops pays for itself and then a bit more.

    Football pays for everything else.

    Rodeo Burger

  • RBW Spartan said...

    There are 5 sports that generally turn a positive revenue at most schools

    isn't all revenue positive? shrug

    notrelame ftw

  • Iknowmorethanu said...

    I get your point, but there are very few that turn a positive revenue in their sports. There might be 1, maybe 2 that turn a profit in Whoops. Same with baseball.........that number will be slightly higher than Whoops, but not much. Hockey is in that same boat. Very few programs can pay for themselves in these sports. Football foots the bill for athletics nearly everywhere. With that said, there are many football programs in the red as well. UM was a regular in the red, which is amazing (no pun intended) when you factor in tickets sold etc. MSU is very rare in that they turn a profit in Mhoops and football. No longer do they in hockey.

    I'm with you. I thought that by and large, the only sports that generally turn profits are football and men's hoops. And at many schools that's not even the case in those two sports. Hockey I can see at a VERY few schools (just because the attendance numbers are low and travel costs so high), and women's hoops and baseball I can't see.

    Edit to link article supporting my point on women's hoops.

    "Each of the 53 teams lost money in the 2010 fiscal year, and the average operating deficit was $2.01 million on an average $804,577 of revenue, according to the reports. The University of Tennessee, ranked fourth in The Associated Press Top 25, lost $713,997, while No. 7 Texas A&M University had a $2.8 million shortfall. No. 12 Michigan State University was $2.01 million in the red.

    Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/04/02/1693601/womens-college-basketball-programs.html#storylink=cpy"

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chitown_Badger on 12/19/2011 at 12:57 PM

    Women's college basketball programs consistently in the red | University of Kentucky Sports News | Lexington Herald-Leader

    The University of Connecticut's run at a third consecutive women's basketball championship comes with the trappings of a world-class sports event, including a national television audience and rowdy fans in blue wigs and face paint.

    www.kentucky.com

    Chitown_Badger

  • Was trying to find which hockey programs turn a profit and found this article, which also mentions MSU specifically.

    The long and short of it is, football bankrolls everything. Nothing else is profitable except for men's hoops at some schools.

    Which Sports Turn a Profit? «

    http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/07/19/which-sports-turn-a-profit/

    businessofcollegesports.com

    Chitown_Badger

  • Chitown_Badger said...

    I'm guessing because it's an amateur sport, and as such does not need to make money to justify it's existence. If the only sports offered were those that made money, you could say goodbye to field hockey, soccer, baseball, swimming, gymnastics, track, etc.

    I disagree about hockey. A lot of the schools in hockey have pretty tiny athletic budgets overall and don't have huge football money to rely on. Somehow they make it work. Schools must be making at least some money on their hockey programs otherwise how could they justify the sport?

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Giant Moose on 12/19/2011 at 1:11 PM

    signature image

    Giant Moose

  • Giant Moose said...

    I disagree about hockey. A lot of the schools in hockey have pretty tiny athletic budgets overall and don't have huge football money to rely on. Somehow they make it work. Schools must be making at least some money on their hockey programs otherwise how could they justify the sport?

    I'm guessing because it's an amateur sport, and as such does not need to make money to justify it's existence. If the only sports offered were those that made money, you could say goodbye to field hockey, soccer, baseball, swimming, gymnastics, track, volleyball (that would be a crime), etc.

    According to this guy, only about 60% of men's hoops and football programs make a profit. So in many cases, the "cash cow" is a money suck like the other sports. Still haven't found anything on profitable hockey programs.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Chitown_Badger on 12/19/2011 at 1:10 PM

    UConn Teams Profit: UConn Teams Show Slight Profit In Last Fiscal Year - Hartford Courant

    UConn's three major revenue-producing programs continued to turn a profit during the last fiscal year, enough to allow the entire 24-team athletics program to remain self-sufficient.Figures released

    articles.courant.com

    Chitown_Badger

  • Chitown_Badger said...

    I'm guessing because it's an amateur sport, and as such does not need to make money to justify it's existence. If the only sports offered were those that made money, you could say goodbye to field hockey, soccer, baseball, swimming, gymnastics, track, volleyball (that would be a crime), etc.

    According to this guy, only about 60% of men's hoops and football programs make a profit. So in many cases, the "cash cow" is a money suck like the other sports. Still haven't found anything on profitable hockey programs.

    I added this above but it's not showing up (247 glitch?):

    I should clarify that to say that the big schools like MSU may not be making money since they can afford not to due to their football money. Losing say $2 million on hockey at an MSU is no big deal when you make way more than that in football. Losing $2 million on hockey at a school like say, LSSU, would kill them.

    ----

    But yeah, you can use that argument fine at big schools who can afford to burn some hockey money. But at an LSSU or NMU they rely on hockey to actually make money for the school. So, I just question if there are only a few schools making money on hockey. Because for some of them, a large deficit would kill the athletics program I would think.

    signature image

    Giant Moose

  • I think the whole revenue thing is beside the (OP's) point. You could just as easily title this "Comparison of Programs Across 4 Nationally-Highest Profile Sports".

    Nice compilation.

    mark_v

  • Giant Moose said...

    I added this above but it's not showing up (247 glitch?):

    I should clarify that to say that the big schools like MSU may not be making money since they can afford not to due to their football money. Losing say $2 million on hockey at an MSU is no big deal when you make way more than that in football. Losing $2 million on hockey at a school like say, LSSU, would kill them.

    ----

    But yeah, you can use that argument fine at big schools who can afford to burn some hockey money. But at an LSSU or NMU they rely on hockey to actually make money for the school. So, I just question if there are only a few schools making money on hockey. Because for some of them, a large deficit would kill the athletics program I would think.

    I'm not sure. But I figure any amount in the red would be covered by tuition and fees, state budget, grants, etc. There are few self sustaining athletic depts (I believe MSU is one of them). The rest just find the money elsewhere.

    Chitown_Badger

  • I thought WHoops made money at MSU. My bad.

    Hockey was profitable for a long time - if it has fallen now, my guess it that it will become black once we move to the B1G.

    signature image

    RBW Spartan ●

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports