4 ms·

Sports teams are generally a net positive. You and I see the $3.5M salary for a football coach at a public university and think it's absurd, but the football pr

Sports teams are generally a net positive. You and I see the $3.5M salary for a football coach at a public university and think it's absurd, but the football program itself pulls in tons of cash directly and indirectly and is probably more than 'worth it' to the school overall. edit: Looks like this is generally wrong. I'll leave it up but see below comment.

brianwawok 10y ago
I hear that sound byte (bite?) here a lot. It does not seem to be true based on the news I read. Perhaps you have better sources than I. From what I see, 20 out of 1,083 NCAA schools made money on sports. The other 1,063 lost money. 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... Only 24 FBS schools generated more revenue than they spent in 2014, according to the NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report. That figure jumped from 20 schools in 2013, but it has remained relatively consistent through the past decade. Don't forget to account for scholarships. You are giving free tuition to the football team, ladies soccer team, lacrosse team, ladies cross country, swimming, etc. etc. etc. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jim-moran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/ji... Only two sports were profitable at FBS schools, according to the report. Football programs netted a median profit of slightly more than $3 million and men’s basketball netted a median $340,000. But the profits at most schools quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The median loss among of athletic departments was $11.6 million.
- WaxProlix 10y ago
  Hey, that's news to me. I heard this in terms of specifically the UC schools' major sports endeavors, so maybe it's still true there, but thanks for the sources.

brianwawok 10y ago

I hear that sound byte (bite?) here a lot. It does not seem to be true based on the news I read. Perhaps you have better sources than I. From what I see, 20 out of 1,083 NCAA schools made money on sports. The other 1,063 lost money. 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... Only 24 FBS schools generated more revenue than they spent in 2014, according to the NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report. That figure jumped from 20 schools in 2013, but it has remained relatively consistent through the past decade. Don't forget to account for scholarships. You are giving free tuition to the football team, ladies soccer team, lacrosse team, ladies cross country, swimming, etc. etc. etc. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jim-moran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/ji... Only two sports were profitable at FBS schools, according to the report. Football programs netted a median profit of slightly more than $3 million and men’s basketball netted a median $340,000. But the profits at most schools quickly vanished after paying for a long list of other intercollegiate teams, all of which lose money. The median loss among of athletic departments was $11.6 million.

WaxProlix 10y ago
Hey, that's news to me. I heard this in terms of specifically the UC schools' major sports endeavors, so maybe it's still true there, but thanks for the sources.