Big Ten full share will NOT fix revenue problem

[Arizona Knight]

Not at all, if you read posts you would see I never compare to Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State or Nebraska.

I have offered who we should aspire to: Michigan State and Wisconsin. As well who we probably think we are closer to today Minnesota and Northwestern.

We need to get revenue and spending close to this comparables if we don't want to be the doormat team a lot of the big ten thinks of us as.

If you are all content with Purdue / Indiana revenue...expect similar results? We do out spend both of those programs which is a good sign.

So if you remove the 80,000+ seat stadium teams, we are within $6MM of the highest spender. Hopefully you understand why we can't spend with the monsters.

 

[DJ Spanky]

So if you remove the 80,000+ seat stadium teams, we are within $6MM of the highest spender. Hopefully you understand why we can't spend with the monsters.

And the long term game plan IS to get us up into the 75-80K range with our stadium, but that is years down the road. For now we need to start consistently selling out what we have.

 

[RUChoppin]

I still hold we are 10M revenue And 5M spending below our peers. The big ten payout covers the subsidy issue. This difference is about competitive funding against similar schools.

We're $5M below where you want to see us in spending... while carrying a $23.8M subsidy. Reduce the subsidy and spending can increase.

As far as revenue, we definitely will lag a bit there just on stadium capacity. From your list, the 7 teams with the lowest revenue are also the 7 teams with the smallest stadiums.