• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

SEC TV contract

Besides who is getting rich from these contracts - aside some $5M coaches .. ALL of the money is supporting non-revenue sports.

And in Nebraska's case, our athletic department generates so much revenue they actually offer some non-athletic scholarships to kids who aren't on a Husker team of some kind. That's an absolute statistical anomaly, though, as almost every major college runs their athletic programs at a deficit. They're supported by tax money, funds from the academic side of the university and boosters.

If I recall, there are only about 10-15 athletic departments who run their programs in the black. It's the usual suspects like Texas, Ohio State, USC, Nebraska, Alabama, Oklahoma and a few others. Once you get to a certain point, football pays for everything. The problem is that the other ~110 FBS schools pay through the nose to keep fielding their athletic teams. They realize it's a necessary evil because college athletics is big time branding, marketing and a draw for future non-schollie student athletes who will pay their university's exorbitant tuition and keep the turd afloat.

It's the old adage of spending money to make money. Except that in this case, nearly every university is under the break-even line and their athletics are just hemorrhaging cash. We should feel lucky that despite our recent on-field failures, NU is not only raking in the dough, but actually turning a profit. That financial freedom definitely gives Moos and Frost more leeway with what resources they can use.
 

And in Nebraska's case, our athletic department generates so much revenue they actually offer some non-athletic scholarships to kids who aren't on a Husker team of some kind. That's an absolute statistical anomaly, though, as almost every major college runs their athletic programs at a deficit. They're supported by tax money, funds from the academic side of the university and boosters.

If I recall, there are only about 10-15 athletic departments who run their programs in the black. It's the usual suspects like Texas, Ohio State, USC, Nebraska, Alabama, Oklahoma and a few others. Once you get to a certain point, football pays for everything. The problem is that the other ~110 FBS schools pay through the nose to keep fielding their athletic teams. They realize it's a necessary evil because college athletics is big time branding, marketing and a draw for future non-schollie student athletes who will pay their university's exorbitant tuition and keep the turd afloat.

It's the old adage of spending money to make money. Except that in this case, nearly every university is under the break-even line and their athletics are just hemorrhaging cash. We should feel lucky that despite our recent on-field failures, NU is not only raking in the dough, but actually turning a profit. That financial freedom definitely gives Moos and Frost more leeway with what resources they can use.
The economics of collegiate sports to me is a very interesting case study.

It blends in so many facets of modern day society ... racial equality, gender equality, academics, socio-economics, highly compensated, revenue sharing, cost sharing ...

The TV talking heads and apologists for compensating athletes look at these things so myopically. I'm sure many believe that there is more money to be shared but they at best are looking at it from an Ohio State or Alabama perspective. They don't look at it from the Wyoming and South Dakota State perspective. They look at it from the Joe Burrow and Jalen Hurts perspective but forget to think about the track and field athlete who's free education/room & board are paid for by the revenues generated by football.

Could the current environment be better? Sure, I'd prefer that we didn't have these facility's arm races we are always in and would like to see the Saban's of the world to make a little less but I'd rather have this where literally tens of thousands of athletes are able to attend school because of football and basketball than a few thousand football and basketball players get paid a "salary" to play collegiately.

Lastly if they want to get paid ... sue the NFL/NBA and get the age limitation restriction removed.
 
If I recall, there are only about 10-15 athletic departments who run their programs in the black. It's the usual suspects like Texas, Ohio State, USC, Nebraska, Alabama, Oklahoma and a few others. Once you get to a certain point, football pays for everything. The problem is that the other ~110 FBS schools pay through the nose to keep fielding their athletic teams. They realize it's a necessary evil because college athletics is big time branding, marketing and a draw for future non-schollie student athletes who will pay their university's exorbitant tuition and keep the turd afloat.
B1G schools raked in over $50M and still most B1G schools lose money in sports? Sad comentary, IMHO.
 



Weren't the age restrictions largely made at the behest of the NCAA?
I am sure there is collaboration between the NFL/NBA and the NCAA ... but legally the age restrictions are on the books of the professional leagues. They are the ones that would have to be sued to remove the restrictions.
 
I am sure there is collaboration between the NFL/NBA and the NCAA ... but legally the age restrictions are on the books of the professional leagues. They are the ones that would have to be sued to remove the restrictions.
Didn't LeBron James go to the NBA right out of high school? Loophole in the rule?
 




As several have already mentioned, “pay the players” sounds like a really neat and quick fix, but there’s a thousand devils in the details. Less than 1 percent of all colleges are actually generating positive cash flow with their athletics programs. The rest are living off of $ millions in student “fees” (taxes).

Many smaller programs are taxing their students $ thousands a year in fees, and but only a fraction of the students even attend the games! These students will be paying back student loans for many years, much of which paid for the football team.

I watch some of these big time colleges on TV and when the camera pans the crowd, its very obvious a lot of these fans have never even taken a college class, much less attended the university they are wearing a t-shirt for.

When UT is winning, every Tom, dick, and Harry around here has some sort of adornment on their car. All the world is suddenly a UT backer.

I am ranting so I’ll shut up now.
 
you guys are missing some really good games. You don't have to like the SEC to like and enjoy good football.
Football should not be played in 80 degree heat in late October. It is also an area of the country that I would probably least care to visit. The whole idea of the southeast and their conference doesn’t do it for me. I do like the crowd shots. The girls really doll themselves up.
 



Many smaller programs are taxing their students $ thousands a year in fees, and but only a fraction of the students even attend the games! These students will be paying back student loans for many years, much of which paid for the football team.
I think this over embellishes the situation slightly.

The average student pays somewhere around $300 a year for athletics. That represents probably somewhere between 1% and at most 5% of their cost of attendance ... that would mean proportionally their student loans and the time they spend to pay it back is somewhere between 1 and 5% of those figures.

I could also argue having a successful athletic department attracts students, faculty, donations, resources ... and without the impact of a successful athletic department the cost of attendance would actually rise.

Imagine a Lincoln Nebraska without athletics ... it wouldn't be as diverse, as cosmopolitan, as developed, with significantly less facilities, resources and opportunities for the student body as a whole!
 
Last edited:
I think this over embellishes the situation slightly.

The average student pays somewhere around $300 a year for athletics. That represents probably somewhere between 1% and at most 5% of their cost of attendance ... that would mean proportionally their student loans and the time they spend to pay it back is somewhere between 1 and 5% of those figures.

I could also argue having a successful athletic department attracts students, faculty, donations, resources ... and without the impact of a successful athletic department the cost of attendance would actually rise.

Imagine a Lincoln Nebraska without athletics ... it wouldn't be as diverse, as cosmopolitan, as developed, with significantly less facilities, resources and opportunities for the student body as a whole!

Nebraska Athletics provides scholarships for non-athletes to attend UNL. Granted, we are in an extreme minority here, but I firmly believe schools are better with athletics.
 


GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top