Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:53:50 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dave Hendrickson wrote:
>
> One thing may have changed significantly since the 1986 (or so) study
> that claimed only five football programs made money. The TV packages
> have exploded over the last ten years or so, as evidenced by the multitude
> of games on the tube. To ignore this enormous increase in revenue and
> assume that the previous study still holds (assuming it once did) doesn't
> make sense.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Supply has so outstripped demand in
all of sports that, except for the Crown Jewels (which in college
football is about 2-3 bowl games), TV revenues have *dropped* since
1986. Every conference wants to get its games on the tube and they keep
underbidding each other. A lot of the games that you see are in fact
produced in house by the conferences, which try to sell the ad time
themselves. Some of these self-production efforts actually lose money.
> Frankly, the revenue/expense numbers from the USA Today site are SO lopsided
> that the only way you could get to anything close to only five or ten
> football teams making a profit would be to invoke the kind of Hollywood
> accounting practices that still show movies like E.T. still in the red.
I think that these numbers are so laundered that you can't even use them
as a starting point. Most schools do not include capital and facilities
costs in these reports. That may be the single largest expense item
they have. I don't trust that the revenue numbers aren't equally
doctored, though it isn't as easy to be creative. Your assessment is
widely off the mark; it's the athletic departments that are engaging in
Fantasyland accounting in order to make their books look good.
J. Michael Neal
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|