Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
momba,
I understand your pointt, but football actually is a revenue maker, especially the AFA because every time CBS or ESPN airs their games they get paid television rights. I was shocked to learn how much they get paid for some of their games. Ask anybody about Notre Dame. Plus, the concessions pay the AFA to sell their hotdogs and sodas. They make money off their ticket sales. The parking fees go back to them. Sweatshirts, hats, souvenirs, Etc. Etc. Etc.
I once said something akin to your position to Bullet. He than showed me that although they bring in the big money, they don't keep all of it. The athletic department will take some of the money to support niche sports that are in the red. Without football revenues the niche sports would be long gone. It is not about going over the budget per se , it is about running in the red from a net perspective and I highly doubt that the FB program is in the red.
My guess would be the AFA had to slash x amount of money, and they took the bottom four that have the lowest ROI. IOWs if water polo is less in the red than fencing, than they will be safe. You can't look at it from cost, but net. Fencing might only cost 50k, and they may be budgeted 60k, but if their revenues are 5 k it is still money with no return. Water Polo may cost 100k, but their revenue may be 75k, thus the sum total loss would only be 25k compared to the 45k for fencing. Which niche sport would you cut?
As far as the PR impact, the fact is the AFA has more than enough qualified candidates they don't need to recruit for niche sports that are too expensive to run. Olympics are every four years, the kid that is competing at the level you are speaking of already knows all of the best players in the world in their sport. They already would know this aspect. Let's be honest, have you ever watched curling? If not do so this year. When you do notice the size of the crowds. Bullet and I took our kids to the Turin Olympics. Those arenas are used for multiple sports, and each ticket costs a different price. We went to short track speed skating and ladies figure skating. The price for 5 tickets to see Apollo win was less than the 2 tickets for the short program ladies, and better seats too.
The point is even from a PR perspective you are not reaching a lot of people that are unaware of this issue since the average person wants to watch the more known sports. I.e. to bring it back to the AFA, the FB team gives more exposure to more people that don't know anything about the AFA than a niche sport where it is so small that they know all of the leaders already.
I understand your pointt, but football actually is a revenue maker, especially the AFA because every time CBS or ESPN airs their games they get paid television rights. I was shocked to learn how much they get paid for some of their games. Ask anybody about Notre Dame. Plus, the concessions pay the AFA to sell their hotdogs and sodas. They make money off their ticket sales. The parking fees go back to them. Sweatshirts, hats, souvenirs, Etc. Etc. Etc.
I once said something akin to your position to Bullet. He than showed me that although they bring in the big money, they don't keep all of it. The athletic department will take some of the money to support niche sports that are in the red. Without football revenues the niche sports would be long gone. It is not about going over the budget per se , it is about running in the red from a net perspective and I highly doubt that the FB program is in the red.
My guess would be the AFA had to slash x amount of money, and they took the bottom four that have the lowest ROI. IOWs if water polo is less in the red than fencing, than they will be safe. You can't look at it from cost, but net. Fencing might only cost 50k, and they may be budgeted 60k, but if their revenues are 5 k it is still money with no return. Water Polo may cost 100k, but their revenue may be 75k, thus the sum total loss would only be 25k compared to the 45k for fencing. Which niche sport would you cut?
As far as the PR impact, the fact is the AFA has more than enough qualified candidates they don't need to recruit for niche sports that are too expensive to run. Olympics are every four years, the kid that is competing at the level you are speaking of already knows all of the best players in the world in their sport. They already would know this aspect. Let's be honest, have you ever watched curling? If not do so this year. When you do notice the size of the crowds. Bullet and I took our kids to the Turin Olympics. Those arenas are used for multiple sports, and each ticket costs a different price. We went to short track speed skating and ladies figure skating. The price for 5 tickets to see Apollo win was less than the 2 tickets for the short program ladies, and better seats too.
The point is even from a PR perspective you are not reaching a lot of people that are unaware of this issue since the average person wants to watch the more known sports. I.e. to bring it back to the AFA, the FB team gives more exposure to more people that don't know anything about the AFA than a niche sport where it is so small that they know all of the leaders already.
Last edited: