An unstated assumption re: expansion - what good is the money?

is, there are are finite number of good coaches, and the likelyhood of them choosing Minnesota or Purdue are low given the availability of many other successful programs with similar caches of cash remains low.

What did you do to lose so many points?

We just spent millions renovating the football stadium, the practice field, and the training center. What else are we going to spend money on in the near term?

Oh, and despite that we STILL profited $26 million.

First, you get the money; then you get the power, THEN you get the girl.

Didn't we just renovate the stadium, the practice facility, and the weight room?

So what facilities are we building?

"At that point it takes on a very dark appearance."

Instead enriching the guys running the show, maybe it could be fed back to the University and tuition levels could be reduced.  I know it's unlikely but if there is any upside to the relentless money grab of big time sports then it should be the chance to make a difference for the university and it's students.

Explain.

Well, ya know, marginal utility and all that. 

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to suscribe to your newsletter.

Let's see if can lure Erin Andrews away from Fox.

I've read a number of places the amount they can generate per year is up to $200M. That would mean full saturation of the TV markets from NYC, NJ, Maryland and DC. Other, more realistic numbers have it at around $100M per year, which would mean everyone would benefit given what schools recieved from TV contracts this past year.

Washington DC and Baltimore account for ~3.4m homes. 3.4m * $3.99 per subscription = $13-14m.

NYC has 7.4m homes. Providence has ~600k. While that only equates to around $2.5m right now, if they can renegotiate it so that providers in NYC have to carry BTN, you are looking at a $20-30m boost. I don't think that Rutgers is the key to getting that to happen, but if it is, then Rutgers is one of the best financial decisions they have made since starting the network.

This also doesn't account for increases to advertising revenue due to additional markets.

I've got to assume that Delaney & Co. crunched the numbers on this one before extending the invitations.  He is a pretty savvy businessman.  He must have figured that the addition of the NYC and DC markets could generate more revenue per team that we were previously getting.

Maybe I'm a snob, but to me there's only so much money that should go into fringe sports like  water polo and crew.  There's already a thriving/massive athletic department at the school, and I don't see why it's better for it to grow further.  Also, money is not necessarily going to drive interest in the non-revenue sports - there's a limit to how much increased TV exposure, etc. is going to create a following in, say, field hockey or volleyball.

We'll see if any of that money ends up in community outreach (not sure what that would be, exactly - more money isn't going to give student-athletes more time to visit hospitals or run sports camps), or post-career resources for student-athletes.  But will those things really require millions and millions of dollars?  

I would absolutely love it if the surplus cash from the athletic department went into the university for things like scholarships or even improved student athletic facilities (it's not still the same CCRB and IM building is it???)  But I am very, very skeptical that such a thing would happen.  

Finally, the always-prevalent 'arms race' explanation:  we're already at the head of the pack in football, and are moving toward that position in basketball... with the revenues we already had.  How much more can the football program, for example, build to be more attractive to recruits? A floating practice facility?

I will make a video of me shaving my head and post it to the board if David Future Brandon ever lowers ticket prices (without adding advertising to the stadium.)

So it's not necessarily any good for Michigan directly, but it might help the more hapless members of the conference improve their athletic departments?  Only thing is, if the operative consideration is improving the quality of competition ... how come we added Maryland and Rutgers?

Well, I don't think that Maryland and Rutgers are "exciting" additions, but I think that if you make business decisions based on what is exciting or sexy, that you are a pretty bad at your job.

The economics are highly questionable?  Based on your made up numbers?  Please, just stop.  We do not know what the actual data is, so this is a silly argument to have.  I am pretty sure that the folks in the B1G hired a whole truck load of accountants and business consultants to consider all the various economic impacts of this expansion far better than we can here on the board.  There are all sorts of direct and indirect benefits, both near and long term which need to be considered.  Now, you can assert that they are all a bunch of idiots when it comes to business, but I would argue that history tends to disprove that with the success that they have had with prior expansion and the BTN thus far.  So I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this (at least as far as the economics go)

So the real debate is whether the potential economic benefit of expansion outweighs the dilution of tradition.  I think that is the big issue that we are having.  Teams all go through good and bad spells, but what is bothersome is bringing in schools without rich sports traditions.

For me, I am not thrilled with it, but I can see the need.  I hope it does not become the start of a trend. 

My revenues aren't quite on par with the UM athletic department's. 

I'm not even sure they're plural.