3 ms·

Only 24 schools generate more money than they spend: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-mino

Only 24 schools generate more money than they spend: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athlet...

dpark 10y ago
That's all athletics, not just football. Although total expenses and the number of athletes have increased, budget allocations for three major sports have remained steady. Football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball garnered 13 percent, 5 percent and 4 percent of athletics expenses, respectively I wonder what percentage of revenue the football programs generate relative to their cost.
- x0x0 10y ago
  You can't have just football: Title IX.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I'm aware, but that doesn't mean that football in itself isn't making the university money. The fact that the university funnels the football surplus (assuming they have one) into other athletics doesn't mean football isn't making money. I don't believe universities are prohibited from structuring their athletics in a way that is profitable. They are simply required to provide equivalent opportunities for women. College football is common target for cries that its funding should be cut, but from what I understand, football profits are largely subsidizing other athletics at many universities.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      That's ridiculous. Having football obligates the universities to spend a bunch of money elsewhere. That is part of the bill for having football! You wouldn't claim that your company ex costs is profitable and expect people to take you seriously; they'd cry what about the costs! (Wait, maybe this isn't a good example...) As gp points out, net athletics almost always lose money. Since having football, once all required costs are taking into account, is almost always a money-losing proposition, it's very fair to ask why our universities should be subsidizing the NFL's development league.
      - dpark 10y ago
        There are at least 24 examples demonstrating that it's possible for a university with a football program to profit from it. Further, football does not oblige a university to spend on all the athletics they choose to fund. It's easy to imagine that more universities would have profitable athletic programs if they cut more of the net-cost programs. e.g. Rowing and archery and scuba likely cost the university while generating little to no revenue. You could eliminate these for both men and women and thus reduce the overall cost of athletics without violating title IX. (I am not proposing that this would be good or bad, merely possible and cost-saving.) Looking briefly, though, there are some legitimate articles indicating that profitable football programs are not the majority of cases, so it does appear that the profitability of football in colleges is overstated.
- epalmer 10y ago
  I work at a small selective liberal arts university with a pretty good football and basketball team. There is a feeling and maybe it is backed up by some research, I just don't know, that competitive sports teams attract more applicants. If you have a larger applicant pool you are considered more selective. Being more selective, overtime, helps the school's 3rd party rankings. I don't know if it really works out that way but that is the prevailing view. For us the sad part is that football games and basketball games attract very few students in the stands. My wife and I enjoy going to some games and we are always surprised at how small the student crowd is.

dpark 10y ago

That's all athletics, not just football. Although total expenses and the number of athletes have increased, budget allocations for three major sports have remained steady. Football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball garnered 13 percent, 5 percent and 4 percent of athletics expenses, respectively I wonder what percentage of revenue the football programs generate relative to their cost.

x0x0 10y ago
You can't have just football: Title IX.
- dpark 10y ago
  I'm aware, but that doesn't mean that football in itself isn't making the university money. The fact that the university funnels the football surplus (assuming they have one) into other athletics doesn't mean football isn't making money. I don't believe universities are prohibited from structuring their athletics in a way that is profitable. They are simply required to provide equivalent opportunities for women. College football is common target for cries that its funding should be cut, but from what I understand, football profits are largely subsidizing other athletics at many universities.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    That's ridiculous. Having football obligates the universities to spend a bunch of money elsewhere. That is part of the bill for having football! You wouldn't claim that your company ex costs is profitable and expect people to take you seriously; they'd cry what about the costs! (Wait, maybe this isn't a good example...) As gp points out, net athletics almost always lose money. Since having football, once all required costs are taking into account, is almost always a money-losing proposition, it's very fair to ask why our universities should be subsidizing the NFL's development league.
    - dpark 10y ago
      There are at least 24 examples demonstrating that it's possible for a university with a football program to profit from it. Further, football does not oblige a university to spend on all the athletics they choose to fund. It's easy to imagine that more universities would have profitable athletic programs if they cut more of the net-cost programs. e.g. Rowing and archery and scuba likely cost the university while generating little to no revenue. You could eliminate these for both men and women and thus reduce the overall cost of athletics without violating title IX. (I am not proposing that this would be good or bad, merely possible and cost-saving.) Looking briefly, though, there are some legitimate articles indicating that profitable football programs are not the majority of cases, so it does appear that the profitability of football in colleges is overstated.
epalmer 10y ago
I work at a small selective liberal arts university with a pretty good football and basketball team. There is a feeling and maybe it is backed up by some research, I just don't know, that competitive sports teams attract more applicants. If you have a larger applicant pool you are considered more selective. Being more selective, overtime, helps the school's 3rd party rankings. I don't know if it really works out that way but that is the prevailing view. For us the sad part is that football games and basketball games attract very few students in the stands. My wife and I enjoy going to some games and we are always surprised at how small the student crowd is.