3 ms·
A few college football programs are more profitable than Microsoft or Google. The vast majority of them just throw lots of money down the drain chasing alumni d
by ahi 14y ago
A few college football programs are more profitable than Microsoft or Google. The vast majority of them just throw lots of money down the drain chasing alumni donations that will never come.
- 001sky 14y agoNB: don't be confusing a "marketing spend" with product sales. Schools "make money" on kids paying tution, not sports. They would have to spend this money otherwise on junk-mail or fancy dorms.
- ahi 14y agoIf a school can't get it's students and alumni to the games, what are the chances it's a wise "marketing spend"?
- 001sky 14y agoI think you are missing the media vector: who do you think is watching the TV and reading about the team the papers? And also the parents of the Athletes?I'm not trying to argue with you, but I've seen the math. Most student/faculty have a naive (at best) understanding about the University as a business (albeit a non-profit one). Do you have any idea how much colleges spend on marketing? Sports is a drop in the bucket vs financial aid (often 1/3 of aggregate billed tuition is comp'd).
- ahi 14y agoI am an alum of a successful D1 school with no football program, an alum of a successful D1 school with a football program (UMich) and live in a town of a D1 school with a money pit of a football program (Eastern Michigan). For every big name program, there's a dozen that are a waste of time and money. For the record, college football is almost the only thing that will get me watching tv. I like it, but most schools shouldn't bother.