<p>Athletics has been a semi-secret drain on the general budget.</p>
<p>News:</a> Bad Time for Sports Overspending - Inside Higher Ed</p>
<p>Wow…</p>
<p>Did you see the part about the “loan forgiveness”? OMG!</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t think the problem is having a sports budget per se…I’m wondering if there has been a lot of wasteful spending somewhere. A Pac 10 school should be able to have a football team that doesn’t cost the school money!</p>
<p>Particularly since the “income” generated from football is always used as the reason we don’t have true Title IX parity for college athletes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s unlikely that it does cost money. It just probably doesn’t make enough to support the other sports that do lose money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is their not true parity?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>OK…so the 30 mil in debt was for all sports…So, I now understand that football isn’t making enuf to pay for the other sports (including the Title IX money drains) </p>
<p>I think there has been some serious misspending going on.</p>
<p>I know at my kids’ college, football pays for itself AND pays for other sports.</p>
<p>BTW…if Cal is in bad shape, the Cal States that still have sports teams must be really hurting.</p>
<p>But the sports program is not the same as football program. The only 2 sports that make money are typically Men’s basketball and Football, particularly football. It seems unlikely to me that the losses in the other 25 sports are only ~$5 million, especially when Women’s basketball alone can lose as much as $1mil.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Right!! I agree. The other sports are the money drains. I think this point gets hidden because it’s not PC to point out that the women’s programs are often serious money drains.</p>
<p>^ Well, it’s not just women’s programs that are “money drains.” At most schools, football and men’s basketball are the only sports that generate a surplus. Swimming? No way. Tennis? Not a chance. LaCrosse? Nope. Soccer? Nah. Rugby? Forget it. Track and field? Never. Ice Hockey? Well, men’s hockey produces a small surplus at a handful of schools where the sport is very popular, but they are few in number; at most schools, it’s a drain. </p>
<p>But it’s odd that we choose to focus on the big-time football and basketball powers and decry the fact that their revenue-positive sports don’t generate enough to fully support all the revenue-negative sports. It’s a bit of a confidence game; you point out that the athletic department as a whole loses money and suddenly you have everyone believing that football and men’s basketball are losing money, when nothing could be further from the truth. </p>
<p>What’s the athletic budget at Harvard, where does that money come from, and what’s its “deficit”? I’ll bet it’s bigger than Berkeley’s, because football and mens’ basketball don’t produce all that much money at Harvard and similar schools; but they pride themselves on the breadth and comprehensiveness of their athletic programs. That means a lot of costs, and not much revenue. Someone’s paying those bills, and I’ll bet it’s not football or men’s basketball revenue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I saw a similar point on a Cal sports blog after the San Francisco Chronicle had a similar article a few days ago. It’s just politically much easier to attack the big time sports, even if in this case the issues aren’t relevant to them.</p>
<p>I agree. It’s not fair to attack football or basketball when those are the only 2 sports that really ever bring in money. I only mentioned the women’s sports as being “drains,” because all of the women’s sports are drains, while the other men’s sports are less so because the other men’s sports get less scholarship “heads” because football and basketball get the most. Schools can and do “split” sports scholarships among players - a shock to some players/families who were expecting full-rides.</p>
<p>I don’t know how the ivies fund their programs, but they don’t offer scholarships either (which I know is only a small part of budget). Of course, the ivies have profits from mega endowments to help cover any such losses.</p>
<p>I doubt ivies are paying their coaches what PAC 10 and SEC (and others) are paying out. I could be wrong, but I haven’t heard of any Pete Carroll or Nick Saban salaries in the ivies.</p>
<p>The big money from college sports comes from TV, not just from ticket sales. I have no idea, but are all/many of the ivy football/basketball games aired on TV? Are they popularly watched? If so, each home game brings in big bucks. I was shocked to learn how many millions Alabama makes for each home football game - and this year Bama has 7 home games - a lot!</p>
<p>There’s also money to be had from licensing of logo’d hoodies, t-shirts, hats, etc that adoring fans buy in droves when teams are winning.</p>
<p>There is also some money from the product endorsers. Nike grabs all the traditional powerhouse teams; the other companies (Adidas, Under Armour, etc) get the rest. I don’t know how much money is involved there, but there’s a reason why the coaches seem to be like Tiger Woods wearing “those brands” anytime you see them unless they’re wearing a suit. Plus, I doubt the coaches ever wear the same shirt twice at any game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to the NCAA, only 25 of the ~300 big time programs cover their full costs; thus, it’s rare.</p>
<p>The Cal football program runs a $12MM surplus after Tedford’s salary is accounted for.</p>
<p>btw: in addition to men’s football and basketball, the men’s golf team is pretty much breakeven since the actual costs are low – essentially travel and golf caps/shirts since players have their own equipment, and courses are usually donated.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>And my kids’ college IS one of those 25. :)</p>
<p>(it pays to be a highly ranked Div I football team.)</p>