[CTcard]

That's a lot to be spending servicing debt.  If the next TV contract is not as lucrative due to changes in the cable industry... some schools are going to be in trouble.

Whether that is a lot to be spending on servicing debt depends upon a host of details.
What fraction of revenue is this? [Two years ago (fiscal year 2015) those schools reported AD revenues from between $105 million to $54 million. Presumably those were all bigger in fiscal year 2017.]
What's the term on the debt?
What do those payments cover?

From what I have heard and what is in that article, it appears that cal is in the worst trouble. Their debt payments are scheduled to go on for a long time and currently they are primarily paying interest only as I understand it. 

Nevertheless, if the next TV contract is less lucrative than the current one then every school will be in some trouble. Rarely does anybody plan/budget for this kind of revenue drop. 

UCLA had more sports.  They cut them years ago and noted the budget realities.  Simply, the UCLA AD was/is a better run organization.

While I don't doubt that UCLA has a better run AD, I do not see that cutting sports is an indication of that ... rather the opposite.


-----------
I thought the previous blog on over/unders for 2017 was more interesting. Maybe I'll start a new thread on that.

[CTcard]

That's a lot to be spending servicing debt.  If the next TV contract is not as lucrative due to changes in the cable industry... some schools are going to be in trouble.

Whether that is a lot to be spending on servicing debt depends upon a host of details.
What fraction of revenue is this? [Two years ago (fiscal year 2015) those schools reported AD revenues from between $105 million to $54 million. Presumably those were all bigger in fiscal year 2017.]
What's the term on the debt?
What do those payments cover?

From what I have heard and what is in that article, it appears that cal is in the worst trouble. Their debt payments are scheduled to go on for a long time and currently they are primarily paying interest only as I understand it. 

Nevertheless, if the next TV contract is less lucrative than the current one then every school will be in some trouble. Rarely does anybody plan/budget for this kind of revenue drop. 

UCLA had more sports.  They cut them years ago and noted the budget realities.  Simply, the UCLA AD was/is a better run organization.

While I don't doubt that UCLA has a better run AD, I do not see that cutting sports is an indication of that ... rather the opposite.


-----------
I thought the previous blog on over/unders for 2017 was more interesting. Maybe I'll start a new thread on that.