already a subscriber? Register me
Subscribe now See my options


  • We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
Comment threads per page: 10 | 20 | 50
  1. With profits like this why bother with academics?
  2. Now you know why there was a cover-up as Penn State. Almost $50 million in profits to secure.
  3. I wonder how the "Revenue" figures were derived. Is this simply ticket revenue, or does it factor in marketing / royalities? I would think that the "Bucky Franchise" would bring in a sizeable chunk of change as well. What would be equally interesting is the price of tickets across the schools compared. This too would be interesting as well.
  4. " Schools use different formulas to report these numbers, " therefore these numbers are
    useless and meaningless.
    Why different formulas ?
    There are other revenue streams that are not in these numbers.
    It's about the money folks --- case in point --- Penn State.
  5. A couple obvious questions-
    According to your chart, Wisconsin must have 525 football players ($23.6m / 45.6k). How can that be correct? Are the expenses shown over a players career? - i.e. over a 4 or 5 year period?
    There are many ways do account for revenue and expenses. Can you tell us what is included? Is it consistent for all schools? Did you ask the UW Athletic Dept to comment before running this story?
    Hide replies
  6. Not all the schools allocate TV and conference revenues to each sport in the same manner. So it's not appropriate to do a direct comparison. The only comparison that can be made is on the expense side.
  7. I think there is a little more information that would be helpful. While you suggest that Wisconsin isn't getting "bang for its buck," don't the numbers suggest that they invest more in their program than all but OSU? I don't know if it's a good thing that PSU's revenue outpaces its expenses by over $50M. I guess it depends on where their expenses go and where all the revenue goes, and that would really hold true for every program: rate them based on how they spend the money.
  8. Let's see: UW can either reduce expenses (ranks 3rd - i.e., high) or increase revenue (ranks 7th - i.e., low). Any bets. There's WORK to reduce expenses; just click a few ticket and sales numbers to increase revenue. Or...Barry can work to get his UW accountant team to convince us how differently the UW's three chart figures are drawn up.
  9. Its all about stadium size.
    1 Mich. 113K
    Hide replies
  10. Don, I think an overlooked aspect of this story and these stats are the costs of the additional scholarships that title 9 imposes on schools that choose to have a football team. If you adjust for the cost of the corresponding women's programs and their scholarships these numbers look a lot worse. UW football is still very profitable, but it is not as good as it looks on a net basis.


See all Journal Sentinel Twitter feeds