[Goose]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

[Goose]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

[CTcard]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

[CTcard]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

[Goose]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

I agree. There also could be some major issues about leaving before the end of the year. We don't know what his contract says.

[Goose]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

I agree. There also could be some major issues about leaving before the end of the year. We don't know what his contract says.

[JJJ]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

I agree. There also could be some major issues about leaving before the end of the year. We don't know what his contract says.

I believe I read somewhere that he didn’t want to create a mess for the university by leaving right away (which is what would’ve happened if he held his ground initially). I’m a Loh fan

[JJJ]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

I agree. There also could be some major issues about leaving before the end of the year. We don't know what his contract says.

I believe I read somewhere that he didn’t want to create a mess for the university by leaving right away (which is what would’ve happened if he held his ground initially). I’m a Loh fan

[CardinalSagehen]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

I agree. There also could be some major issues about leaving before the end of the year. We don't know what his contract says.

I believe I read somewhere that he didn’t want to create a mess for the university by leaving right away (which is what would’ve happened if he held his ground initially). I’m a Loh fan

I agree with you, CT.  The reporting that I saw indicated that Loh had expressed major misgivings about keeping Durkin to the Board of Regents. However, the Board still found and recommended that Durkin should be kept. Loh tried going along with the finding for a day - after all, the President or CEO of an organization reports to the Board, right?  He then unilaterally (at least as reported) went against the Board's recommendation and fired Durkin after the backlash.  

It takes a lot of courage to be in a public-facing role these days, with the press and social media users always ready to pounce. I think by all reasonable standards, Loh's response to the crisis was understandable and ethical. Let's also not forget that he was quick to accept "moral and ethical responsibility" on behalf of the University for the student-athlete's death before any reports or findings were completed. 

Loh should be considered hirable by other institutions. If you want to be critical, I think the Board and its questionable report deserve most of the criticism. But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

[CardinalSagehen]

In this day of not taking responsibility Loh is my hero.    Do the right thing is how we should all live.

I agree, but I would consider him more of a hero if he had simply refused to keep Durkin in the first place. He was kind of "retiring under protest", but it would have been more of a statement if he had said "either he goes or I go, right now".  He really got cover for firing the coach from the players and student body, so it was easier to do. If that hadn't happened?

While I think it is correct to note that he didn't stand up and fire Durkin until after the public outcry on the decision gave him cover, maybe that's okay. Acting mostly heroically is still pretty good. And doing the right thing after stewing about it for awhile is also still pretty good.
It's also dangerous to expect our heroes to be perfect. Even the best suffer from being actual humans, with human frailty.

I agree. There also could be some major issues about leaving before the end of the year. We don't know what his contract says.

I believe I read somewhere that he didn’t want to create a mess for the university by leaving right away (which is what would’ve happened if he held his ground initially). I’m a Loh fan

I agree with you, CT.  The reporting that I saw indicated that Loh had expressed major misgivings about keeping Durkin to the Board of Regents. However, the Board still found and recommended that Durkin should be kept. Loh tried going along with the finding for a day - after all, the President or CEO of an organization reports to the Board, right?  He then unilaterally (at least as reported) went against the Board's recommendation and fired Durkin after the backlash.  

It takes a lot of courage to be in a public-facing role these days, with the press and social media users always ready to pounce. I think by all reasonable standards, Loh's response to the crisis was understandable and ethical. Let's also not forget that he was quick to accept "moral and ethical responsibility" on behalf of the University for the student-athlete's death before any reports or findings were completed. 

Loh should be considered hirable by other institutions. If you want to be critical, I think the Board and its questionable report deserve most of the criticism. But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

[82lsju]

But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

Probably not, I'd guess not many universities are looking to hire a 71 year old as their new president.

[82lsju]

But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

Probably not, I'd guess not many universities are looking to hire a 71 year old as their new president.

[TreesAndBirds]

Effort to keep Loh.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.baltimo...y,amp.html

[TreesAndBirds]

Effort to keep Loh.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.baltimo...y,amp.html

[martyup]

As a former football and wrestling coach, I wonder how difficult it will be, as a result of this MD debacle and the death of a player, to get players in shape to play football.  Kids don't push themselves.  They have to be "encouraged" to work hard and dig deep.  If they are not in shape, they are more likely to get hurt playing.

Clearly, the MD coaching staff crossed the line and it resulted in the death of a young man. When this happens, there should be no hesitation in terminating the responsible persons. The way MD handled this incident is a permanent stain on their program.

[martyup]

As a former football and wrestling coach, I wonder how difficult it will be, as a result of this MD debacle and the death of a player, to get players in shape to play football.  Kids don't push themselves.  They have to be "encouraged" to work hard and dig deep.  If they are not in shape, they are more likely to get hurt playing.

Clearly, the MD coaching staff crossed the line and it resulted in the death of a young man. When this happens, there should be no hesitation in terminating the responsible persons. The way MD handled this incident is a permanent stain on their program.

[CTcard]

Effort to keep Loh.

Interestingly (to me at least), whomever has updated the Wikipedia entry most recently does not seem to me a strong fan of the man.
It's always complicated.

Under Loh's leadership, the University declined in US News rankings[10] and endured a scandal related to the death of a football player, Jordan McNair.[11] Furthermore, Loh chose Damon Evans – the employee who was responsible for oversight of the football program at the time of the tragedy – to be the school's next athletic director; the appointment was announced after McNair's death, but before the results of the investigation into the incident were known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Loh

[CTcard]

Effort to keep Loh.

Interestingly (to me at least), whomever has updated the Wikipedia entry most recently does not seem to me a strong fan of the man.
It's always complicated.

Under Loh's leadership, the University declined in US News rankings[10] and endured a scandal related to the death of a football player, Jordan McNair.[11] Furthermore, Loh chose Damon Evans – the employee who was responsible for oversight of the football program at the time of the tragedy – to be the school's next athletic director; the appointment was announced after McNair's death, but before the results of the investigation into the incident were known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Loh

[needle]

But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

Probably not, I'd guess not many universities are looking to hire a 71 year old as their new president.

Harvard hired a guy who's starting the job at age 67. I agree that 71 would be considered "old" by most schools, but I also think some universities would at least consider hiring the guy. However, I would assume he can keep earning a nice six-figure salary at UMaryland if that's his choice (tenure).

[needle]

But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

Probably not, I'd guess not many universities are looking to hire a 71 year old as their new president.

Harvard hired a guy who's starting the job at age 67. I agree that 71 would be considered "old" by most schools, but I also think some universities would at least consider hiring the guy. However, I would assume he can keep earning a nice six-figure salary at UMaryland if that's his choice (tenure).

[TreesAndBirds]

But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

Probably not, I'd guess not many universities are looking to hire a 71 year old as their new president.

Harvard hired a guy who's starting the job at age 67. I agree that 71 would be considered "old" by most schools, but I also think some universities would at least consider hiring the guy. However, I would assume he can keep earning a nice six-figure salary at UMaryland if that's his choice (tenure).

Fall out continues

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla...story.html

[TreesAndBirds]

But, the world being the way it is, Loh will probably never have the opportunity to be a University President again.

Probably not, I'd guess not many universities are looking to hire a 71 year old as their new president.

Harvard hired a guy who's starting the job at age 67. I agree that 71 would be considered "old" by most schools, but I also think some universities would at least consider hiring the guy. However, I would assume he can keep earning a nice six-figure salary at UMaryland if that's his choice (tenure).

Fall out continues

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla...story.html

[cardcrimson]

Just think if Notre Dame were a public university. A kid dies filming a practice and a girl kills herself after being raped by a player and there are no repercussions. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Just think if Notre Dame were a public university. A kid dies filming a practice and a girl kills herself after being raped by a player and there are no repercussions. . . .

[2006alum]

Just think if Notre Dame were a public university. A kid dies filming a practice and a girl kills herself after being raped by a player and there are no repercussions. . . .

Consider the Church to which the University owes its allegiance. Accepting responsibility and doing the right thing does not seem to come naturally...

---

The Regents seem to be without any good options, from their perspective at least--I think most of us would agree that it's a good thing they seem to have gotten played here. They (1) wanted to keep Durkin, but also presumably (2) don't want Maryland's name dragged through the mud. So do they follow through on their threats to Loh and fire him now?  Or do they let it be, realizing how appalling that decision would look now, especially since Loh is out the door in a few months anyway?

The Regents had no good options because they should never have been involved at all. Regents have no direct supervisory authority over either the AD or the coaches - that's the President's prerogative. The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. I see no reason why this fiscal perversion of the chain of authority in universities will disappear any time soon. As much as I mock the Bing-Arrillaga aspects to Stanford, having many honeypots not directly derived from athletics does provide a counterweight and enhance overall university integrity. Unlike, say, up in Eugene...

[2006alum]

Just think if Notre Dame were a public university. A kid dies filming a practice and a girl kills herself after being raped by a player and there are no repercussions. . . .

Consider the Church to which the University owes its allegiance. Accepting responsibility and doing the right thing does not seem to come naturally...

---

The Regents seem to be without any good options, from their perspective at least--I think most of us would agree that it's a good thing they seem to have gotten played here. They (1) wanted to keep Durkin, but also presumably (2) don't want Maryland's name dragged through the mud. So do they follow through on their threats to Loh and fire him now?  Or do they let it be, realizing how appalling that decision would look now, especially since Loh is out the door in a few months anyway?

The Regents had no good options because they should never have been involved at all. Regents have no direct supervisory authority over either the AD or the coaches - that's the President's prerogative. The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. I see no reason why this fiscal perversion of the chain of authority in universities will disappear any time soon. As much as I mock the Bing-Arrillaga aspects to Stanford, having many honeypots not directly derived from athletics does provide a counterweight and enhance overall university integrity. Unlike, say, up in Eugene...

[TreesAndBirds]

Just think if Notre Dame were a public university. A kid dies filming a practice and a girl kills herself after being raped by a player and there are no repercussions. . . .

Consider the Church to which the University owes its allegiance. Accepting responsibility and doing the right thing does not seem to come naturally...

---

The Regents seem to be without any good options, from their perspective at least--I think most of us would agree that it's a good thing they seem to have gotten played here. They (1) wanted to keep Durkin, but also presumably (2) don't want Maryland's name dragged through the mud. So do they follow through on their threats to Loh and fire him now?  Or do they let it be, realizing how appalling that decision would look now, especially since Loh is out the door in a few months anyway?

The Regents had no good options because they should never have been involved at all. Regents have no direct supervisory authority over either the AD or the coaches - that's the President's prerogative. The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. I see no reason why this fiscal perversion of the chain of authority in universities will disappear any time soon. As much as I mock the Bing-Arrillaga aspects to Stanford, having many honeypots not directly derived from athletics does provide a counterweight and enhance overall university integrity. Unlike, say, up in Eugene...

More....ugh...

https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terp...story.html

[TreesAndBirds]

Just think if Notre Dame were a public university. A kid dies filming a practice and a girl kills herself after being raped by a player and there are no repercussions. . . .

Consider the Church to which the University owes its allegiance. Accepting responsibility and doing the right thing does not seem to come naturally...

---

The Regents seem to be without any good options, from their perspective at least--I think most of us would agree that it's a good thing they seem to have gotten played here. They (1) wanted to keep Durkin, but also presumably (2) don't want Maryland's name dragged through the mud. So do they follow through on their threats to Loh and fire him now?  Or do they let it be, realizing how appalling that decision would look now, especially since Loh is out the door in a few months anyway?

The Regents had no good options because they should never have been involved at all. Regents have no direct supervisory authority over either the AD or the coaches - that's the President's prerogative. The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. I see no reason why this fiscal perversion of the chain of authority in universities will disappear any time soon. As much as I mock the Bing-Arrillaga aspects to Stanford, having many honeypots not directly derived from athletics does provide a counterweight and enhance overall university integrity. Unlike, say, up in Eugene...

More....ugh...

https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terp...story.html

[CTcard]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

[CTcard]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

[CardinalSagehen]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

I'm not sure if this financial analysis attempts to include the indirect effect on alumni giving. Athletics is a form of brand advertising for universities, and in business, brand advertising almost always has a negative hard-RoI because its benefits cannot be directly attributed to the campaign. In the case of football, for example, well heeled donors feel better at tailgate parties when the team's winning and may tend to open their checkbooks. 

That said, I still take your point that the revenue effect of football is overstated and there's too much kowtowing to football programs and coaches.

[CardinalSagehen]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

I'm not sure if this financial analysis attempts to include the indirect effect on alumni giving. Athletics is a form of brand advertising for universities, and in business, brand advertising almost always has a negative hard-RoI because its benefits cannot be directly attributed to the campaign. In the case of football, for example, well heeled donors feel better at tailgate parties when the team's winning and may tend to open their checkbooks. 

That said, I still take your point that the revenue effect of football is overstated and there's too much kowtowing to football programs and coaches.

[BostonCard]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

By way of comparison, the NIH alone funds University of Maryland College Park: $51,048,915 (link: https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?o...&pid=#tab2)

Here's the full breakdown of UM College Park:
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY14%20Working...BUDGET.pdf

The state gives the school $450 million; tuition gives $480 million; federal grants give $320 million

Still, the OP called it one of the biggest revenue streams.  That's probably accurate.

BC

[BostonCard]

 The problem is that when the football coach makes more money than the President, the AD oversees one of the largest revenue streams in the University system, and the football team is much more high profile than the university itself, the temptation for the Regents to get involved is too great to resist. 

Overall I agree, except the revenue stream is not as big or as important to the university as everyone thinks. 

The University of Maryland overall has a budget of about 2 billion. 
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY18%20Working...GET%20.pdf 

The USA Today does an annual listing of athletic department revenue, expenses, subsidies from the general fund. The latest lists nominal revenue for Maryland of $95 million, of which $14.5 million is a subsidy from student fees, the general fund, etc. Apparently that means the actual revenue from athletics is about 80 million. 
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

So, by my math that makes athletics about 4% of revenues; significant but not exactly the largest source. 
I think it is notable that even at Maryland, a Big Ten school, the athletics program overall is a net drag on the institution's finances. [Though I suspect football is a net income generator.]

By way of comparison, the NIH alone funds University of Maryland College Park: $51,048,915 (link: https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?o...&pid=#tab2)

Here's the full breakdown of UM College Park:
http://otcads.umd.edu/bfa/FY14%20Working...BUDGET.pdf

The state gives the school $450 million; tuition gives $480 million; federal grants give $320 million

Still, the OP called it one of the biggest revenue streams.  That's probably accurate.

BC

[CTcard]

Still, the OP called it one of the biggest revenue streams.  That's probably accurate.

In no manner was the point of my post to indicate the OP was inaccurate, but rather to provide some context as to just what is the revenue stream to universities from big time sports.


To further a point, the net impact of intercollegiate finances to the universities roughly breaks down to:

- A handful of programs actually contribute some money back to the broader university.

- The dozen or so most successful football teams make enough to fund intercollegiate athletics overall.

- A majority of the Power 5 football teams probably at least fund themselves but cannot cover the whole AD - though accounting complexity makes the fund themselves part almost impossible to determine.

- Most of the athletic programs that require giant subsidies from the rest of the university are those in the group of 5 conferences that spend in a manner to indicate they would like to get into a Power 5 conference.

Further details on that last one ...

Among those with giant subsidies is Rutgers ($33 million - they used to be THE largest before joining the Big 10).
Officially the second biggest subsidy at a Power 5 school is ASU at about $19 million.
cal seems to be claiming zero subsidy, but it looks fishy as they report both a $16 million deficit and about $4 million in school funds + student fees.

[CTcard]

Still, the OP called it one of the biggest revenue streams.  That's probably accurate.

In no manner was the point of my post to indicate the OP was inaccurate, but rather to provide some context as to just what is the revenue stream to universities from big time sports.


To further a point, the net impact of intercollegiate finances to the universities roughly breaks down to:

- A handful of programs actually contribute some money back to the broader university.

- The dozen or so most successful football teams make enough to fund intercollegiate athletics overall.

- A majority of the Power 5 football teams probably at least fund themselves but cannot cover the whole AD - though accounting complexity makes the fund themselves part almost impossible to determine.

- Most of the athletic programs that require giant subsidies from the rest of the university are those in the group of 5 conferences that spend in a manner to indicate they would like to get into a Power 5 conference.

Further details on that last one ...

Among those with giant subsidies is Rutgers ($33 million - they used to be THE largest before joining the Big 10).
Officially the second biggest subsidy at a Power 5 school is ASU at about $19 million.
cal seems to be claiming zero subsidy, but it looks fishy as they report both a $16 million deficit and about $4 million in school funds + student fees.

[TreesAndBirds]

Still, the OP called it one of the biggest revenue streams.  That's probably accurate.

In no manner was the point of my post to indicate the OP was inaccurate, but rather to provide some context as to just what is the revenue stream to universities from big time sports.


To further a point, the net impact of intercollegiate finances to the universities roughly breaks down to:

- A handful of programs actually contribute some money back to the broader university.

- The dozen or so most successful football teams make enough to fund intercollegiate athletics overall.

- A majority of the Power 5 football teams probably at least fund themselves but cannot cover the whole AD - though accounting complexity makes the fund themselves part almost impossible to determine.

- Most of the athletic programs that require giant subsidies from the rest of the university are those in the group of 5 conferences that spend in a manner to indicate they would like to get into a Power 5 conference.

Further details on that last one ...

Among those with giant subsidies is Rutgers ($33 million - they used to be THE largest before joining the Big 10).
Officially the second biggest subsidy at a Power 5 school is ASU at about $19 million.
cal seems to be claiming zero subsidy, but it looks fishy as they report both a $16 million deficit and about $4 million in school funds + student fees.

Or a football program can hurt university fundraising....

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla...story.html

[TreesAndBirds]

Still, the OP called it one of the biggest revenue streams.  That's probably accurate.

In no manner was the point of my post to indicate the OP was inaccurate, but rather to provide some context as to just what is the revenue stream to universities from big time sports.


To further a point, the net impact of intercollegiate finances to the universities roughly breaks down to:

- A handful of programs actually contribute some money back to the broader university.

- The dozen or so most successful football teams make enough to fund intercollegiate athletics overall.

- A majority of the Power 5 football teams probably at least fund themselves but cannot cover the whole AD - though accounting complexity makes the fund themselves part almost impossible to determine.

- Most of the athletic programs that require giant subsidies from the rest of the university are those in the group of 5 conferences that spend in a manner to indicate they would like to get into a Power 5 conference.

Further details on that last one ...

Among those with giant subsidies is Rutgers ($33 million - they used to be THE largest before joining the Big 10).
Officially the second biggest subsidy at a Power 5 school is ASU at about $19 million.
cal seems to be claiming zero subsidy, but it looks fishy as they report both a $16 million deficit and about $4 million in school funds + student fees.

Or a football program can hurt university fundraising....

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla...story.html