<p>
</p>
<p>Increases in revenue probably are often reinvested in the revenue sports, but are you suggesting that any athletic department that claims not to lose millions of dollars is lying? Because that would have to be true if Men’s Basketball and Football didn’t make (usually large) profits.</p>
<p>Weren’t these the same professors who thought it would be a great idea if the Federal Government were to take over funding of Berkeley?</p>
<p>Where did you hear that?</p>
<p>well, unfortunately, Cal cannot cut the sports that lose money, because that would be AGAINST FEDERAL LAW. Title IX strikes again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the ones who wanted the federal government to bailout the “great public universities”? probably.</p>
<p>^
Birgeneau’s op-ed in the Washington Post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Robert</a> J. Birgeneau and Frank D. Yeary - A New Model to Help Finance Higher Education - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502468.html]Robert”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502468.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s nonsense. Berkeley is perfectly within its rights to cut money-losing sports, provided it cuts money losing men’s sports (of which there are plenty; only football and men’s basketball make money) as well as money losing women’s sports. If Berkeley chooses to keep football and continue to offer football scholarships, it must offer an equivalent number of scholarships to women in some sport or other.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree. And, we’re all going to hear some major screaming about Title IX if the ax falls on the sinkhole of women’s sports.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Every college football team that generates more revenue than expenses takes that additional revenue and pumps it back into the football program. </p>
<p><<<<
EVERY college football team??? NO…</p>
<p>That is not true. The Crimson Tide of Alabama is proud of the fact that its revenues do support other sports. Do you have any idea how much revenue is generated from just one televised home football game??? (and Bama has 7 home games this year)</p>
<p>And, I can tell you this…there are a lot of local businesses that would fold if their local popular university dropped football (or basketball team).</p>
<p>No, Birgeneau and Yeary are not “the same professors who thought it would be a great idea if the Federal Government were to take over funding of Berkeley.” Birgeneau and Yeary are not professors at all. Rather, they are in the administration; they are the Chancellor and Vice-chancellor at Berkeley. </p>
<p>In other words, they’re on the other side. Birgeneau is the one who approved the sports subsidy in past years, the same sports subsidy that the professors decry.</p>
<p>Yes of course they’re not professors - I was being somewhat facetious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are of course free to believe what you will, but in this case your beliefs simply do not coincide with reality. [Ah, there’s the rub!] Take a look at the Michigan Athletic Department financials. The Athletic Department pays all costs for for all intercollegiate sports, men’s and women’s, without a dime of subsidy from the taxpayers, from students, or from the University’s general fund. Where do they get the money to do this? From football and football-related revenues, primarily, and from basketball and men’s ice hockey secondarily. And even after paying for all the non-revenue or low-revenue sports—scholarships, coaches’ salaries and benefits, facilities, equipment, uniforms, travel expense, trainers and medical expenses, the whole kit-and-caboodle—in most years they still end up with a “surplus” (read: profit), a portion of which is typically contributed to the University’s general fund, often to the tune of $8 million to $10 million per year as a subsidy FROM intercollegiate sports TO the University’s general fund. Don’t believe it? Well, you could look it up. And Michigan’s not alone on this score, though certainly it’s been among the more successful over the years.</p>
<p>How many Division 1 Football programs are there?</p>
<p>List the ones that make money</p>
<p>I cut and pasted this from a google search- now again I love college sports especially the big 2 and think overall they add value to the college and the students experience but we should be honest they cost the schools. I happen to think the cost is generally worth it.</p>
<p>“Maybe five in the country make money (if you could get them to report their income and expenses honestly and fully). The other 112 or so lose money; some lose a great deal of money.” That’s for the major programs. The lower division schools, Divisions II and III and NAIA, spend a greater percentage of their universities’ budgets on their football programs, thereby losing a greater percentage of their budgets.</p>
<p>A favorite argument of those who argue that big-time NCAA football turns a profit is that teams that participate in Bowl games, especially the BCS games, surely turn a profit with the big payouts. A brilliant example of this fallacy is the University of Wisconsin, which, as winner of the 1998 Rose Bowl, received a payout of $1.1 million. Despite this, they lost $286,700 on the trip. This was largely the result of paying for “832 people to attend, including players, band members, boosters, and university administrators.” (Welch Suggs, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Chronicle of Higher Education (12 Nov. 1999)).</p>
<p>As for Title IX- here is a simple fix- cut the number of football scholarships from 85 to 75 or 80. This will help create an even playing field because the talent will be spread to more schools. The experience of cutting down from (I think) 100 to 85 is one reason that parity came to college football.
Exempt football from Title IX calculations since there is no equivalent sport for women.</p>
<p>If a school plays Division I football, are they required to offer all the scholarships they are permitted to offer?</p>
<p>CF- I do not think they are but I bet they all do.</p>
<p>Michigan does end up making a profit on its revenue sports, enough to cover the expenses of the non-revenue sports and still return some money to the general fund. But Michigan is an extreme outlier. Very few athletic programs turn a profit.</p>
<p>If Michigan’s football and bball stay in the dumps that profit will evaporate rather quickly.</p>
<p>According to a report prepared for the NCAA by an accounting professor at Transylvania University in 2007, 67 of 119 FBS (formerly Div. IA) football programs operated in the black in 2006. The average margin by which football-generated revenues exceeded expenses at those 67 financially successful programs was $8.7 million. On the other side of the ledger, the remaining 52 FBS football programs lost an average of $2,520,000 (measuring football-generated revenues against football-related expenditures, and not including student fees or other forms of subsidy from external sources). On balance, then, FBS-level college football is financially successful at a majority of FBS schools, but financial success is not spread evenly.</p>
<p>It’s another story at FCS and Division III schools, where football almost universally loses money and, like other intercollegiate sports, must be heavily subsidized. The difference is that FBS-level schools, especially those in BCS conferences (and Notre Dame, an independent) have lucrative television contracts, as well as larger stadiums, higher ticket prices, more revenue from things like concessions, parking, corporate sponsorships, and product licensing agreements, and bowl revenue (most of which is pooled within the conference and distributed to all member schools).</p>
<p>There’s a lot of confusion about this owing to failure to make these distinctions. Football is a money-maker, but pretty much only at FBS-level schools in BCS conferences (and Notre Dame). Everywhere else it’s a losing proposition financially—just like virtually all other intercollegiate sports. Only at a small handful of schools–19, I believe, at last count—is football profitable enough to pay the expenses of all intercollegiate sports, and thereby make intercollegiate athletics as a whole self-sustaining. But that’s a very different question. Men’s basketball is the only other NCAA intercollegiate sport that pretty consistently produces positive net revenue, though the revenue and profit margins are much smaller there than in football. Ice hockey is also a money-maker at a few schools, but on average is a net loser.</p>
<p>Women’s basketball is the biggest financial drain, with an average net loss of $1.3 million/yr. Other big money-losers include women’s ice hockey, crew, swimming, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, track & field, cross-country, volleyball, gymnastics, equestrian, wrestling, baseball, and softball. Golf, fencing, rifle, tennis, and water polo lose smaller amounts.</p>
<p>source: NCAA, Revenues/Expenses 2004-2006: 2004-2006 Revenues and Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report</p>
<p>Title IX…what a farce. I bet the same left-wing profs that want the athletic money were the ones who thought Title IX was a peachy idea. Get rid of all the sports except men’s football and basketball, and I bet nobody but the Title IX geeks would even notice. </p>
<p>How about those profs teaching even one more course per year…that would solve any financial problems right there.</p>
<p>Liberals are all for spreading other people’s wealth, but when it comes to throwing in some of their own chips into the pot, they howl like infants.</p>