[82lsju]

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

given Cal and Stanford are getting a smaller than full share of ACC TV money 

For Stanford and Cal, it will be 30% of a whole ACC share for the next seven years. That number will jump to 70% in Year 8, 75% in Year 9 and then full financial shares in the 10th year, sources said.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...rd-cal-smu

even if you allocate 90% of the media money to football they are both probably losing money on football.

I have a hard time seeing the cost of scholarships (more at Stanford than Cal), football coaches, football staff, travel, equipment, other operating expenses, and the share of AD overhead (which likely scales by number of people (players, coaches, staff) being covered by the media money.  If you add in depreciation of the football facilities it would get even worse

I expect we will never see more than a 30% media share from the ACC as I expect the ACC will no longer exist by year seven (~5 years from now)

[82lsju]

The prompt was actually about football but there is a relative paucity of data that separates football revenue and costs from non-football revenue so Google provided me with what it could find.  This is partly because the biggest single revenue source for most schools is “media and broadcast rights”, which comes from the conference, and commingles football revenue with revenue from other sports.  It’s also because a non-insubstantial amount of cost is fixed in an athletics department (things like compliance, office of the director, etc.) that cannot be allocated to a particular sport.  Finally, while you could definitely cut a number of men’s sports (like baseball), Title IX prevents you from cutting a lot of women’s sports, so the costs of football sort of have to include the women’s sports that would offset the 105 male athletes that constitute the roster limit.

BC

given Cal and Stanford are getting a smaller than full share of ACC TV money 

For Stanford and Cal, it will be 30% of a whole ACC share for the next seven years. That number will jump to 70% in Year 8, 75% in Year 9 and then full financial shares in the 10th year, sources said.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...rd-cal-smu

even if you allocate 90% of the media money to football they are both probably losing money on football.

I have a hard time seeing the cost of scholarships (more at Stanford than Cal), football coaches, football staff, travel, equipment, other operating expenses, and the share of AD overhead (which likely scales by number of people (players, coaches, staff) being covered by the media money.  If you add in depreciation of the football facilities it would get even worse

I expect we will never see more than a 30% media share from the ACC as I expect the ACC will no longer exist by year seven (~5 years from now)