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

[Dave Ratchford]

OK...moving right along.  No need to get in a snit.  Let's all agree that
we'd all like to see better football games without it causing a severe hit
to the finances of the athletic department.  As the issues of restructuring
the conference games are being discussed by the ADs and Big10 biggies,
they  have thought of all these things concerning home games, OOC games,
and money and lots of other stuff as well.  Nebraska is represented in all
these discussions and decisions.  Nebraska is not the only program in the
conference with these same issues, some of the other most powerful programs
in the conference deal with them too.  The days of 11-1 votes are gone, the
conference is not aligning itself to stick it to Nebraska.  Hitting the
panic button over this is way premature. Let's hang loose and see what
comes.

Dave


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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<http://mc/compose?to=answerman1@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
>
>
>
>