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

Tue Feb 12 13:25:01 CST 2013

I have not read through all of these to know if this has been mentioned and this 
does not take into account the economic impact for the Lincoln and Nebraska 
businesses that benefit from having the home games, but:

How much more would you as a ticket holder be willing to pay for higher quality 
level of apponants?

I recognize that ticket prices are higher these days (especially once you factor 
in the "donation" on season tickets), but would it be worth $10 more to see a 
mid-level team from a top conference rather than a Directional U that isnt even 
competetive in their own conference?

Making up this $5MM over a six home game sechedule works out to be approx $9.25 
extra per ticket/game (assuming 90K paying tickets per game).  Depending on how 
the athelitic department is allowed to cash flow on a year to year basis, by 
averaging out the increased revenue on an every-other year basis would reduce it 
to $5.

There are so many ways that this $5MM can be made up (with the majority of fans 
not even noticing it) that I doubt it would affect the actual budget.  But 
having only a six home game year with two or three of those being pay-for-play 
would hurt the revenue (IMO). 

That said, I depend on these pay-for-play games as my chance to get into the 
stadium as these tend to be the easiest and cheapest tickets to get for someone 
outside of Lincoln and just traveling in for the day.    

________________________________
From: Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>
To: Dave Ratchford <ratchfromneb at gmail.com>; husker at tssi.com
Sent: Tue, February 12, 2013 12:38:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Husker] Big 10 to increase number of league games.

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 

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker