|
Post by chirpchirpcards on Dec 27, 2018 15:45:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 27, 2018 16:46:04 GMT -6
Alabama is surprising to me. They have been on top a long time, get a lot of TV and you would think make money every year, but that may be a product of sharing TV and bowl with other SEC schools.
Texas has always screwed the rest of the big 8 for decades by NOT sharing most of their revenue from TV. So I get Oklahoma being in trouble. Clemson has been in the ACC, not as high revenue, so I get that.
110 mil sounds like a lot, but our sports programs run a deficit of that much over a 10 year period. Oklahoma and Clemson have a lot of revenue in comparison though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 16:56:02 GMT -6
It appears these schools run their football programs like the federal government runs the budget.
This should tell you the “Group of Five” should cut and run. Football is NOT a viable product. Only guy making money is TV and NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Dec 27, 2018 17:01:12 GMT -6
Really, Alabama just spent 80 million to expand their stadium and are planning to spend another 78 million in renovations this spring. Do you think that was financed with fairy dust or municipal bonds ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 17:05:27 GMT -6
I’d think municipal bonds backed by Alabama football supporters would be about as secure as chunks of gold on Oak Island.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Dec 27, 2018 17:07:46 GMT -6
I’d think municipal bonds backed by Alabama football supporters would be about as secure as chunks of gold on Oak Island. Yeah that's the problem with " financial pledges", you always will have far more in pledges that you will ever collect.
|
|