Quote:
Originally Posted by warpaint*
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx
it's absolutely secondary. If you are insinuating that it is still a very profitable venture (in spite of being a secondary sport to football) particularly for the blue bloods there is no question you would be right about that. If you are insinuating it isn't secondary to what schools are making off football then that is a patent absurdity.
An anecdotal example, Duke brought in $25 million (very impressive) in revenue off men's hoops while Alabama rake in a smidge shy of $82 million. Hence, secondary to football. Those #'s of course are at the top of the spectrum.
|
This is the kind of ignorance I was referring to. The $770m from March Madness is taken by the NCAA and used to fund 98% of its operations, as well as feed the mouths of 200+ D1 athletic programs who would die without it. Football money is not taken by the NCAA, is kept by schools and conferences.
If we took the $770m and divided it by the 63 games played in the NCAA tourney, that's $12m/game. KU played 6 games last year, meaning they should've gotten 36M simply based on performance. But basketball funds everything, football funds yourself. Hence your (skewed) numbers.
The total money, tv ratings, fan attendance, ad revenue, etc etc generated from basketball & football is actually much more similar than you think and that's the point folks like you continue to miss.
Quote:
|
Also March Madness is comprised of 63 games whereas the Super Bowl is one, not really an apt comparison.
|
We're not talking about the NFL here, which is of course the undisputed king of sports in America. We're talking college sports.