OT: Northeastern cuts football program

[upstater1]

Also, what do you mean by saying that football programs are much too expensive? Many times, the money earned from football (merchandise, TV, tickets) helps pay for the other sports on campus that would otherwise be dropped (or paid for through an endowment fund). Obviously you have to reinvest in your football program to keep it earning money, doesn't make it too expensive though because if it were, more programs would go the way of Northeastern.

It's just not true. So many d1 schools lose upward of $10 million a year. And that's in the reported money. They never count the amount of subsidies involved. For instance, a SUNY school needs to make $5,000 per player, or $500k, just to cover player costs, but that totally ignores the extra $15k per player that comes from the endowment and taxpayers (i.e the cost of attendance of each student). Add that to student activity fees, and cost of stadium upkeep, etc., and many schools are in the hole $5 million before they start accounting for expenses.

It's gotten way too big. Most schools should drop their programs or force the NCAA to allow them to play in lesser divisions.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

It's just not true. So many d1 schools lose upward of $10 million a year. And that's in the reported money. They never count the amount of subsidies involved. For instance, a SUNY school needs to make $5,000 per player, or $500k, just to cover player costs, but that totally ignores the extra $15k per player that comes from the endowment and taxpayers (i.e the cost of attendance of each student). Add that to student activity fees, and cost of stadium upkeep, etc., and many schools are in the hole $5 million before they start accounting for expenses.

It's gotten way too big. Most schools should drop their programs or force the NCAA to allow them to play in lesser divisions.

Yes, you're right. NCAA Study Shows that Most Athletic Programs Lose Money CONNECTICUT SPORTS LAW

Edit: Took a look through this site: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show?school_id=24

Most of the public schools in the ACC (I just picked that conference because I'm a BC alum) are in the black for their athletics programs as a whole, and only 1 of the 8 was operating with a football budget that was significantly in the red. I'm aware of the possibility that these numbers have been powdered up a little bit.

I'm also aware that the schools in the ACC should be considered the "haves" in the great BCS money giveaway compared to the majority of schools out there (like the SUNY's you mentioned) that are certainly "have nots" - so you're still right. I just checked Albany (-700K) and Buffalo (-2.3M), both of which obviously spend more than they earn on their football teams.

 

[pats1]

Question for the OP .....

Nothing personal,but why do threads like these stay in the main forum while other threads actually pertaining to OTHER PRO FOOTBALL TEAMS that are marked 'OT' get tossed to other forums???

Power of the Moderator to do this perhaps?

Because there's no forum titled "Northeastern Huskies football" and there is a forum titled "NFL Football Forum?"

If you don't want other NFL threads moved, tell Ian to remove the NFL Football Forum. That's the only reason why we move them.

 

[upstater1]

You also need to look a little behind the numbers:

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show

This is Rutgers.

Look at Student Fees: $5.3m
Look at Direct Institutional Support: $14.5m

Then click on Expenses.

Look at Student Aid: $6.3m
(Now, that 6.3m is the cost of scholarships. But the dirty secret here is that each scholarship covers tuition, and the cost of tuition is subsidized by the endowment and the taxpayers. In RU's case, tuition only covers 40% of the cost of each player, so the AD is reimbursing the school for 40% of the actual cost. That means the actual cost is $15.3m, and the AD pays back $6.3m).

So, student fees 5.3m + direct money from school 14.5m + scholarships 9m = $29 million.

This is a huge chunk of money for a school that has been cutting courses and academic departments left and right, and they have been sinking in the academic rankings as a result. Meanwhile, they took out a $115 million loan to expand their stadium by 12,000 seats, and according to the school, that expansion is revenue neutral. But what if the program starts failing? Who will be on the dock for that loan? The school.

 

[Real American Hero]

That's my alma mater, and Nickerson field was a terrible field, almost built as an afterthought. Puke green astroturf; next to loud Storrow drive and the RR interchange yard, and a hulking concrete mammoth that was the bleachers.

Our president at the time, Silber, an arrogant egomaniac was never a fan of football and couldn't wait for an excuse to do away with the program.

It's a pathetic ending to a location that has such a storied history- The Boston Braves and the Patriots played there.

Another BU alum here. I lived on West Campus my freshman year, that field was awful despite the history before BU. Still I was pretty bummed when they killed the program, they had a few decent years when I was a student (92-96), I remember the stud QB transfer that lead our turnaround was in a Philosophy class I took where the professor regularly took attendance. Guess who never showed?

Anyhow, sorry to hear about NU cutting their program.

 

[primetime]

Th NCAA requires that your teams compete in the same division, so if Northeastern wants to keep their hockey and bball teams going, they must compete in div. 1. They can't drop in divisions.

This is precisely why there's a div. III hockey league but no div. II.

This is 100% untrue. RPI, St. Lawrence, and Union hockey, amongst many others, play in Division I while their football teams are in Division III. The reason why there's a Division III in hockey but no Division II is that there simply aren't that many schools in the United States with varsity hockey programs. Meanwhile Hobart plays Division III hockey but Division I lacrosse.

 

[upstater1]

This is 100% untrue. RPI, St. Lawrence, and Union hockey, amongst many others, play in Division I while their football teams are in Division III. The reason why there's a Division III in hockey but no Division II is that there simply aren't that many schools in the United States with varsity hockey programs. Meanwhile Hobart plays Division III hockey but Division I lacrosse.

Well, no, it's not 100% untrue. It was maybe 15% untrue.

Here are the official NCAA rules for D1 membership:

"You must maintain seven D1 male/mixed and seven female sports,
including two team sports per gender and not more than two
emerging sports. (Or six male/mixed and eight female)."

Why does RPI have D1 hockey but D3 in football? Because there's an exception to the rule. You can place one sport in D1 if you are a D2 or D3 school, but that sport may not be football or basketball.

With football or basketball, you must go into D1 in at least 14 sports (counting both genders).

 

[DaBruinz]

Historically, baseball, basketball, and hockey have all had more popularity around here. In the south, football is part of their culture; hockey is practically an unknown.

That may have been the case 20 years ago, but not today. Most, if not all, of the High Schools in the larger cities in Texas (over 20K people), have hockey teams.. In Plano alone, there were no fewer than 3 hockey rinks in a city of 200K.. Not to mention that several of the cities around it also had hockey rinks. Not to mention the Stars practice facility and at least 2 minor league teams. Hockey has become a fast growing sport here. Yes, football is in their blood, but hockey has become very popular.

 

[mosslost]

Does anyone know if NEU would honor the scholarships for football players until they graduate still?

I went to NEU for a year that I spent out of the USMC, and knew quite a few of the players. Hope they don't get screwed over!

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Does anyone know if NEU would honor the scholarships for football players until they graduate still?

I went to NEU for a year that I spent out of the USMC, and knew quite a few of the players. Hope they don't get screwed over!

Yes it's been in the paper that the students won't lose their scholarships.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

You also need to look a little behind the numbers:

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show

This is Rutgers.

Look at Student Fees: $5.3m
Look at Direct Institutional Support: $14.5m

Then click on Expenses.

Look at Student Aid: $6.3m
(Now, that 6.3m is the cost of scholarships. But the dirty secret here is that each scholarship covers tuition, and the cost of tuition is subsidized by the endowment and the taxpayers. In RU's case, tuition only covers 40% of the cost of each player, so the AD is reimbursing the school for 40% of the actual cost. That means the actual cost is $15.3m, and the AD pays back $6.3m).

So, student fees 5.3m + direct money from school 14.5m + scholarships 9m = $29 million.

This is a huge chunk of money for a school that has been cutting courses and academic departments left and right, and they have been sinking in the academic rankings as a result. Meanwhile, they took out a $115 million loan to expand their stadium by 12,000 seats, and according to the school, that expansion is revenue neutral. But what if the program starts failing? Who will be on the dock for that loan? The school.

The #'s on that Rutger's page are pretty strange... They spread the student fees out over each particular sport, somehow have a -900K dollar institutional support for men's bball, and claim to spend every dollar earned without ever going over budget.

Doesn't sound like anything except creative accounting to me.


Also, my original point was that the football program helps other sports programs stay funded. I think this is quite true for the ACC - just not once you widen the lens to non power conference schools with sugar daddy bowl deals and TV earnings. Rutgers gets 2.3 million just for having it's football team in the Big East, presumably. That obviously helps.

Interestingly, it looks like U Maine and UNH get this same benefit from their hockey teams.

 

[patfanken]

They had a whole bunch of lousy coaches. Their best coach was Joe

Zabilski.

I dated his daughter for a long time. She was hot.

 

[brady et al fan]

NU football was always a tough sell given that campus. The football field was way off campus so you had to really be intentional to take in a game. Nice field once you got there but it was never a big draw. Hockey and hoops were big when I was there, largely because they were right on campus.

I was more surprised when BU dropped its program. They were way more successful than NU and a teammate of mine played there and went on to play for the Browns for years. I never understood why they did not last unless, as someone said, Silber just didn't like it.

 

[Sivy]

College football sucks anyway. Get rid of it. Just have open tryouts for the nfl.

 

[efin98]

That may have been the case 20 years ago, but not today. Most, if not all, of the High Schools in the larger cities in Texas (over 20K people), have hockey teams.. In Plano alone, there were no fewer than 3 hockey rinks in a city of 200K.. Not to mention that several of the cities around it also had hockey rinks. Not to mention the Stars practice facility and at least 2 minor league teams. Hockey has become a fast growing sport here. Yes, football is in their blood, but hockey has become very popular.

There are more than just those three teams...in the minors alone there are three American Hockey League teams playing in Houston, San Antonio, and Ceder Park and seven Central Hockey League teams playing in Allen, Amarillo, Corpus Christi, Laredo, Odessa, Hidalgo, and North Richard Hills.

That's just the teams in Texas alone, there are dozens more cities across the south that have teams...just about all the major cities have a team at some level from the NHL down to the Southern Professional Hockey League.

 

[notex]

I went to Northeastern: heres my take on it

- I know a few of the guys who played on the team. They seemed very frustrated with the program everytime I asked how football was going (obviously nobody goes to the games). I am not surprised at all and a few years ago I know that they were talking about cutting it as well

- I got the feeling while I was there that the school just doesn't care about sports. The Hockey team is great. I really enjoyed going to those games but thats only because boston is such a great hockey city and we almost have no choice to be competitive..

- Matthews arena (hockey) is a great. Those games are great and I was a hockey player myself in high school. Highlight of athletic program

My high school stadium was literally twice as big and nicer than The northeastern Parsons football field... I cant even call it a stadium. (my HS wasn't even big) The neighbors wouldn't even allow night games to be played due to some type of noise complaint petition when they built it.

- Northeastern OWNS a field on huntington ave (right in campus) which it LEASES to Wentworth....goes to show the commitment to athletics.. would of been a great practice facility for all sports.

- Bottom line... Nobody goes to this school expects good athletics. Its just not that kind of school.

Whats important here: People are generally drawn to the urban campus and our popular co-op (internship) programs. Our nursing program is great as well.

That having been said.. I think if we had pumped money into the program and built a stadium - football could have worked.. The school is just not interested.

 

[PatriotsInGA]

College football sucks anyway. Get rid of it. Just have open tryouts for the nfl.

Worst.....idea.....ever.

Coming from the Southeast I love college football. The rivalries are always more intense, the tailgates much better, and the stadiums are 15,000/20,000 seats larger than NFL stadiums. I would still pick NFL over college, but college is still an amazing atmosphere.