3 ms·

From your link: Of the 119 FBS football teams, 68 (57.1 percent) finished the year in the black. Of the 119 FBS schools playing men's basketball, 67 teams mad

From your link: Of the 119 FBS football teams, 68 (57.1 percent) finished the year in the black. Of the 119 FBS schools playing men's basketball, 67 teams made a profit. One of those same 119 schools made money in women's basketball in 2008. FBS football teams recorded a median net profit of $1.95 million. Men's basketball at the same schools produced a median profit of $518,000. No other sport at the FBS schools, measured by median values, showed a program in the black. so yeah, profit centers.

prostoalex 13y ago
The facility cost is shifted to university's balance sheet. Most calculations assume that the cost of building and maintaining a stadium and supporting infrastructure is zero. I'm going to sound like an economist that refuses to pick up a $20 bill (if it's real, somebody else would've picked it up), but there's, for example, profit opportunity in on-campus food catering. So a bunch of private contractors sign up with university to operate their own facility, hire their own staff, and give the university a cut of the earnings or licensing fee. Why has no for-profit corporation stepped up to build up a stadium, hire coaches and players, license the university name and then enjoy the profits?
- bostonpete 13y ago
  An athletic program in isolation may not be profitable, but I think most schools view it as an important way to keep alumni involved and believe the increase in alumni donations more than offsets any loss they may take in athletics.
- wtvanhest 13y ago
  The facility cost is shifted to university's balance sheet. Most calculations assume that the cost of building and maintaining a stadium and supporting infrastructure is zero. Do you have a source on that? I couldn't figure out a way to research it myself, but it seems illogical that the cost of financing the facilities would not hit he P&L of the athletics association. Why has no for-profit corporation stepped up to build up a stadium, hire coaches and players, license the university name and then enjoy the profits? The same reason many Universities still own on campus housing in most cases. Likely because Universities will not let them. Also, it is likely that the NCAA would oppose it.

prostoalex 13y ago

The facility cost is shifted to university's balance sheet. Most calculations assume that the cost of building and maintaining a stadium and supporting infrastructure is zero. I'm going to sound like an economist that refuses to pick up a $20 bill (if it's real, somebody else would've picked it up), but there's, for example, profit opportunity in on-campus food catering. So a bunch of private contractors sign up with university to operate their own facility, hire their own staff, and give the university a cut of the earnings or licensing fee. Why has no for-profit corporation stepped up to build up a stadium, hire coaches and players, license the university name and then enjoy the profits?

bostonpete 13y ago
An athletic program in isolation may not be profitable, but I think most schools view it as an important way to keep alumni involved and believe the increase in alumni donations more than offsets any loss they may take in athletics.
wtvanhest 13y ago
The facility cost is shifted to university's balance sheet. Most calculations assume that the cost of building and maintaining a stadium and supporting infrastructure is zero. Do you have a source on that? I couldn't figure out a way to research it myself, but it seems illogical that the cost of financing the facilities would not hit he P&L of the athletics association. Why has no for-profit corporation stepped up to build up a stadium, hire coaches and players, license the university name and then enjoy the profits? The same reason many Universities still own on campus housing in most cases. Likely because Universities will not let them. Also, it is likely that the NCAA would oppose it.