Greg Sankey SEC Commissioner Not focused on expansion
- Thread starter Spurman54
- Start date
Disagree there as well. College sports brings in roughly 15.8 billion dollars in revenue in a year. College basket ball only brings in a billion and that is due to march madness. So tell me again how there is a microscopic difference. Football stands on it on as the money maker. Those are the facts, that is the sport that conference decisions are made on. Everything else is a side issue.
Analysis: Who is winning in the high-revenue world of college sports?
The U.S. hyper-commercialized system of college sports, which does not exist anywhere else in the world, is in a period of overarching transition and deep financial crisis.
www.pbs.org
Last edited:
Disagree there as well. College sports brings in roughly 15.8 billion dollars in revenue in a year. College basket ball only brings in a billion and that is due to march madness. So tell me again how there is a microscopic difference. Football stands on it on as the money maker. Those are the facts, that is the sport that conference decisions are made on. Everything else is a side issue.
Analysis: Who is winning in the high-revenue world of college sports?
The U.S. hyper-commercialized system of college sports, which does not exist anywhere else in the world, is in a period of overarching transition and deep financial crisis.
I think he was agreeing with you and saying that basketball brings in a microscopic amount compared to football.
That's true, but I like to put that in writing as a way of showing respect to the athletes whose sports are not "high profile."
As I previously asked, how do D-II, D-III, and NAIA schools do it, when all of their varsity sports lose money?
If it was strictly about the money, why sponsor money-losing programs?
For one thing, D-II and lower sports are bare bones operations. Operating costs are minimal. No frills. Also, far less money is allocated for athletic scholarships (only 36 for D-II football compared to 85 for D-I). Many are on partial scholarships. D-III doesn't even offer athletic scholarships.
So, the answer to your question is that they don't generate much revenue, but they don't need to generate much revenue because operating costs bare bones. You ever watch the show "Last Chance U"? That gives you a good idea of what programs do to cut costs. Players dumping bags of ice in large kiddie pools and filling them with a garden hose to soak in. Players wash their own uniforms. Etc.
It's basically like comparing an MLB operation to a Class A operation.
Last edited:
A good read. Thanks for sharing.Disagree there as well. College sports brings in roughly 15.8 billion dollars in revenue in a year. College basket ball only brings in a billion and that is due to march madness. So tell me again how there is a microscopic difference. Football stands on it on as the money maker. Those are the facts, that is the sport that conference decisions are made on. Everything else is a side issue.
Analysis: Who is winning in the high-revenue world of college sports?
The U.S. hyper-commercialized system of college sports, which does not exist anywhere else in the world, is in a period of overarching transition and deep financial crisis.
You have misconstrued. "Microscopically" was meant as a metaphorical comparison between the financial contribution of basketball to that of football.Disagree there as well. College sports brings in roughly 15.8 billion dollars in revenue in a year. College basket ball only brings in a billion and that is due to march madness. So tell me again how there is a microscopic difference. Football stands on it on as the money maker. Those are the facts, that is the sport that conference decisions are made on. Everything else is a side issue.
Analysis: Who is winning in the high-revenue world of college sports?
The U.S. hyper-commercialized system of college sports, which does not exist anywhere else in the world, is in a period of overarching transition and deep financial crisis.
It’s not my day I apologize
Not my day I’ll admit. 2 hours of sleep for a sick 3 year old will do that.
Last edited:
Agreed. And as an example, uniforms are likely recycled yearly.
All sports matter to the participants. But when it comes to funding the sports programs at a high P5 level, football does matter most.
Never did like bringing Missouri to the SEC - A&M if we had known what we know today but did not and that's Texas coming in. Maintains a rivalry in the state of Texas as well. But really was not sold on them as well when they were first mentioned along with Missouri. Oklahoma should have stayed with OK State and headed an upgrading of the Big 12.
There's a point where expansion gets out of control , to me the SEC has reached that point - time to stop and let things settle as no other conference with the same number of teams will ever come close to the difficulty level of the SEC.
One major consideration to invite TAMU and Mizzou was that both are members of the AAU, so the academic profile of the SEC increased exponentially.
Also, that brought in the Missouri and part of the Texas viewership thereby increasing the TV footprint of the SEC.