Should the Iowa Athletic Dept Fund UNI?

UNI also would not be in this situation if they were not managing the program to one standard, only to have the goal posts moved on them.
 
It sounds to me like it would be in the best interest of the State of Iowa/BOR for UNI to become a satellite campus of the U of I or ISU. University of Iowa - Eastern Campus or ISU - Eastern Campus.

Why are they going after the athletic department revenue? The real money is in grants...
 
hogeye said:
You've alluded to this before and I forgot to follow up. I don't see where you are getting that from. Is there a different set of accounting for the State of Iowa differing from what they publish in the annual report?

I am not a bean counter, but it looks like they make the books show that it nets out to zero.

Not to sidetrack the conversation too much...Iowa and Iowa State both fund UNI every time they play.
Click to expand...
.

It's a long explanation. Too long for here, but the report you include above does show some of what I am referring to. Mostly, sometimes the administration talks about the athletic department losing money, neglecting to explain in the year's the AD loses money, the AD is still making payments to the U's general fund. If it is all one pot, as they report above, the left hand losing money while reimbursing the right hand doesn't really mean the left hand is losing money. An over simplfication.
 
If UNI cannot support division 1 athletics they should drop down to division 3. They can play in the IIAC. I do find it amusing to read Americans crying about "socialism in sports" when most professional US leagues are socialist in nature. The NFL is the most successful sports league in world history. They share profits and every team has the same salary cap. This makes for a very interesting league as anyone can beat anyone on any given day. You won't see dynasties ala Manchester United or Real Madrid but those teams are millions in debt, while every NFL team is virtually guaranteed to make a profit. Obviously the American system is the way to go.
 
HawkeyeinMexico said:
If UNI cannot support division 1 athletics they should drop down to division 3. They can play in the IIAC. I do find it amusing to read Americans crying about "socialism in sports" when most professional US leagues are socialist in nature. The NFL is the most successful sports league in world history. They share profits and every team has the same salary cap. This makes for a very interesting league as anyone can beat anyone on any given day. You won't see dynasties ala Manchester United or Real Madrid but those teams are millions in debt, while every NFL team is virtually guaranteed to make a profit. Obviously the American system is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I also don't hear people crying about Iowa getting an equal share of the BTN contract even though they don't create their fair share of revenue with respect to cable viewers. By the way some people are commenting you would think they would be clamouring to drop the BTN so OSU can start the Buckeye network.
 
CAARHawk said:
I also don't hear people crying about Iowa getting an equal share of the BTN contract even though they don't create their fair share of revenue with respect to cable viewers. By the way some people are commenting you would think they would be clamouring to drop the BTN so OSU can start the Buckeye network.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of how you make a comparison. The Big Ten is formed as a single entity made up of 12 universities, similar to the NFL with 30+ teams sharing revenue. The logic that is being employed is that the value of the 12 members together will be greater than the sum generated by 12 independent members. The Big Ten competes with other collegiate conferences for dollars. One would not expect the Big Ten conference to share its sports proceeds with other conferences. If it were forced to share dollars with lesser conferences to make things "equal" then we would be talking about the "sports socialism".
 
eyekwah said:
It is a matter of how you make a comparison. The Big Ten is formed as a single entity made up of 12 universities, similar to the NFL with 30+ teams sharing revenue. The logic that is being employed is that the value of the 12 members together will be greater than the sum generated by 12 independent members. The Big Ten competes with other collegiate conferences for dollars. One would not expect the Big Ten conference to share its sports proceeds with other conferences. If it were forced to share dollars with lesser conferences to make things "equal" then we would be talking about the "sports socialism".
Click to expand...

OSU and Michigan are forced to share money with the lesser programs like us, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, MSU, etc. So how is that not "socialistic"?
 
CAARHawk said:
I also don't hear people crying about Iowa getting an equal share of the BTN contract even though they don't create their fair share of revenue with respect to cable viewers. By the way some people are commenting you would think they would be clamouring to drop the BTN so OSU can start the Buckeye network.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that UNI is part of some State of Iowa University Athletic Conference...get your apples out of the oranges...
 
HawkForce said:
OSU and Michigan are forced to share money with the lesser programs like us, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, MSU, etc. So how is that not "socialistic"?
Click to expand...

They're not "forced" to do anything...they make millions on their own that Iowa doesn't get to touch. Entering a television agreement as a conference is different, as are the television agreements that the NCAA as a whole enters into.
 
I don't want UNI to lose their sports, but this will not be the solution. I say schedule them every year to help them out. They are better competition than most of the other pre-conference puds we play, anyway. Keeps the money in-state that way, too.
 
turfpest said:
Regardless of the situation, this is becoming a growing problem in America. Someone or some entity that is successful and doing well is force to fork over "their success" to someone else. I mean that kind of mentality is *** backwards.
Click to expand...

You mean like when the 99%'ers like me, and I presume you, were forced to bail out those struggling big old Wall Street banks with our "success" a few years back?

Or when we put a greater percentage of our "success" in our gas tanks not because of the old supply and demand model but instead due to those poor Goldman Sachs boys' speculation driving up the price of oil?

ExxonMobil CEO Says Oil Price Should Be $60 To $70 A Barrel - Forbes


Or when we pay a higher tax rate on our "success" than Mitt Romney and other millionaires?

Warren Buffett and His Secretary Talk Taxes - ABC News


You are damn right! I am tired of forking over my "success" to those freakin' government welfare sucking socialist scumbag bankers and their apologists!:mad:
 
Golfer said:
.

It's a long explanation. Too long for here, but the report you include above does show some of what I am referring to. Mostly, sometimes the administration talks about the athletic department losing money, neglecting to explain in the year's the AD loses money, the AD is still making payments to the U's general fund. If it is all one pot, as they report above, the left hand losing money while reimbursing the right hand doesn't really mean the left hand is losing money. An over simplfication.
Click to expand...

That makes sense...since politics are involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top