[Husker] Big 10 to increase number of league games.

[Mike Jaixen]

That's awfully generous for you to determine how the Nebraska athletic department should spend their money.  Nebraska football makes a lot of money, but the athletic department spends a lot of money to put all of those funds to use.  Cutting $5 million of revenue from the department will have an effect.  Probably not to the football program, because you never want to cripple the cash cow of the department.

But that money is being used for something.  It's not going into some slushfund for Tom and Shawn to roll around in whenever they are feeling down in the dumps.  It's used for those many sports that don't make revenue, and those programs would be affected if you remove revenue from the department.

Mike Jaixen
http://huskermike.blogspot.com
http://www.cornnation.com

--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Dave Ratchford <ratchfromneb at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Dave Ratchford <ratchfromneb at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Husker] Big 10 to increase number of league games.
To: "Gerald Jensen" <answerman1 at hotmail.com>
Cc: "Mike Jaixen" <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>, "Husker Discussion List" <husker at tssi.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 11:51 AM

Check out the valuations of college football programs done by Forbes mag in Dec. 2012.  Google will take you to it.  As Paul Dalen can no doubt confirm, numbers can pretty much tell any story you want them to.  The Nebraska athletic department makes a lot of money.  More than just about all the other 126 (or so...not sure) FBS schools.  This idea that we have to pay all these teams to come play in Lincoln because we *need* the money so bad is wrong.  The idea that we must play 7 home games or we will be in a dire financial plight is wrong as well.  We *want* to play 7 home games of course, more home games for our fans.  We *want* the money from the home games of course, put it to good use I am sure.  But the program being severely impacted if we play 6 games every few years?  Not so. At all.  Worth it to play less lame OOC games.  


Dave


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Gerald Jensen <answerman1 at hotmail.com> wrote:





If it results in one less home game every few years, and programs like OSU and Michigan aren't afraid of it, then Nebraska shouldn't be as well.


 

 

This is a very short-sighted statement. Nebraska is no where close to the financial league of O-State and Michigan. I am placing a chart in the body, of this message, if it does not pass the Mike's server let me know and I will attach it. Nebraska is much closer to the bottom of the BIG than the top. Notice O-State had a $10,000,000 profit Michigan had a $10,000,000 profit Penn State had a $15,000,000 profit Nebraska had a $1.5 million profit. We barely break even. Also note neither Penn State nor Ohio State receive any school subsidy and Michigan receives a pittance.


 

 






School


Revenue

Expenses 

Subsidies


Ohio State 

$131,815,821 

$122,286,869

$0


Michigan

$122,739,052

$111,844,553 

$272,684


Penn State 

$116,118,025

$101,336,483

$0


Wisconsin

$96,288,191 

$95,623,345

$7,237,901 


Iowa

$93,353,56

$88,057,486

$564,680 


Mich State 

$84,510,199 

$84,004,229

$3,650,280


Nebraska 

$83,679,756 

$81,916,484

$0


Minnesota

$78,924,683

$78,924,683

$7,778,861


Illinois 

$77,863,883

$73,476,818

$3,983,640


Indiana

$71,017,355

$69,314,511

$2,686,769


Purdue 

$66,202,493

$59,429,383

$0 


Northwestern

N/A

N/A

N/A