[qwerty49]

Apropos nothing, I saw this article [https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7165839...comparison] about what UConn spends on its men’s and women’s basketball programs.  The answer is $34 million between the two basketball programs.  It doesn’t break down expenses between the men and women, though revenues are broken down ($11.9 million in revenue for the MBB team vs. $8.5 million for the women’s team).  I thus find it a bit curious that the article keeps talking about “investment” in the team; spending $34 million to get back $20.4 million makes it one of the lousiest investments ever.  These “investments” don’t even count NIL payments to players.

BC

With all due respect, your BB arithmetic may be accurate (ie not affected by FB) but your analysis is a bit too simplistic.  The marketing and sales process is pretty complicated.  For the school, "Seller Benefits" are not just limited to revenue intake -- existing brand awareness and brand equity are two very important, long-term, cumulative marketing factors that add to and influence a "buyer's" choice.  It's tough to quantify the revenue equivalent of either of those intangible brand factors but you see them in play at the supermarket every day.  When it comes to hoops, UConn has consistently had eye-level shelf space for at least the last decade; as much as we wish, we simply have not.

[qwerty49]

Apropos nothing, I saw this article [https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7165839...comparison] about what UConn spends on its men’s and women’s basketball programs.  The answer is $34 million between the two basketball programs.  It doesn’t break down expenses between the men and women, though revenues are broken down ($11.9 million in revenue for the MBB team vs. $8.5 million for the women’s team).  I thus find it a bit curious that the article keeps talking about “investment” in the team; spending $34 million to get back $20.4 million makes it one of the lousiest investments ever.  These “investments” don’t even count NIL payments to players.

BC

With all due respect, your BB arithmetic may be accurate (ie not affected by FB) but your analysis is a bit too simplistic.  The marketing and sales process is pretty complicated.  For the school, "Seller Benefits" are not just limited to revenue intake -- existing brand awareness and brand equity are two very important, long-term, cumulative marketing factors that add to and influence a "buyer's" choice.  It's tough to quantify the revenue equivalent of either of those intangible brand factors but you see them in play at the supermarket every day.  When it comes to hoops, UConn has consistently had eye-level shelf space for at least the last decade; as much as we wish, we simply have not.