<p>Big</a> sports wins mean big money for campuses - Local/State - NewsObserver.com</p>
<p>Interesting article discussing the benefits of big-time sports programs at colleges.</p>
<p>Interesting – especially if you consider that an article published during the NCAA basketball tournament noted that only one Division I football program in the country earned money last year, and that basketball was the only money-making sport.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you may be misquoting the article; I remember reading it as well and it stated that only one D1 athletic department made money last year. Football is a huge cashmaker for lots of schools-Texas, Florida, Ohio State, all earn tens of millions of dollars each year from their football programs.</p>
<p>They don’t mention how every sport that is not football and basketball loses massive amounts of money for their schools. Part of the money made from football and basketball probably goes to funding the money-sucking sports.</p>
<p>They tend not to include the ancillary costs of the football / basketball programs. For example, I used to be familiar with the finances of a major university’s athletic program. The football program made almost all the money, simply because of the size of the stadium plus tv revenue shares plus bowl game revenues. Basketball made some. Hockey might. </p>
<p>But not included in the direct costs were a variety of things spent on athletics, like the cost of the athletic dorms or the cost of academic tutors, not even the cost of the very expensive athletic study lounge (designed less for academic excellence than for making required grades for eligibility). It was very difficult to figure out the actual net because so much was not carried directly on the AD’s books. I remember food was in there for some sports but not for others.</p>
<p>…never mind that, capital expenditures excluded, the unc athletic department operated $6 million in the red the year prior to this $400,000 net royalties windfall. outside the football powerhouses its big money in, bigger money out.</p>
<p>*especially if you consider that an article published during the NCAA basketball tournament noted that only one Division I football program in the country earned money last year, and that basketball was the only money-making sport. *</p>
<p>OK…that’s ridiculous!!! I know that the football teams of Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC, etc, etc, all made millions last year.</p>
<p>*They don’t mention how every sport that is not football and basketball loses massive amounts of money for their schools. Part of the money made from football and basketball probably goes to funding the money-sucking sports. *</p>
<p>True…and the female sports are huge money drains.</p>
<p>*Perhaps no school has enjoyed more success of late than the University of Florida, which claimed national football titles in 2006 and 2008 and basketball championships in 2006 and 2007.</p>
<p>The payoff has been huge. Those four national championships resulted in more than $2.8 million in extra revenue.</p>
<p>Read more: <a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/25/453148/big-sports-wins-mean-big-money.html#ixzz0m9xmZiQ1[/url]”>http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/25/453148/big-sports-wins-mean-big-money.html#ixzz0m9xmZiQ1</a>
*</p>
<p>Something is wrong with those numbers. Florida certainly netted more than a total of $3M for those 4 championships.</p>
<p>The money quoted there was EXTRA money made on royalties alone. Football programs and successful men’s basketball programs are HUGE moneymakers for schools. They fund all of the other sports at the schools. Those that say they are a drain on resources couldn’t be more wrong. The money given from boosters and alumni to successful programs is enormous. Also, consider how many more students (not just the athletes) go to a school because they have successful football programs. They want to be a part of something of something great. Applications and alumni money increase after a successful year. This is one of the best ways to increase the academic level of a school as well. With more applications, the university can choose from a bigger pool of applicants.
Consider University of Texas football where revenue was over $87 million last year. Over $41 million was GIVEN to the athletic department from alumni donations. For 2006-2007, Notre Dame football was contributing over $21 million towards academics at the school. How many people knew about Butler basketball before this year? Royalty revenue has already tripled and they are expecting a big increase in both alumni donations and applications next year.
Creating successful football and basketball programs is good business for the entire school.</p>
<p>And yet, every time sports economists look at the data, they discover that college athletic basketball teams, and college athletic departments in general, don’t make money. I can’t link to it because it’s a blog, but Google “The Sports Economist,” and check out the March 18 post on Accounting Madness for an example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Big-time sports schools have taken to charging a sports fee to all students, a sports tax, if you will. </p>
<p>(Sports economists study, obviously, the economics of sports. One doesn’t go into that field unless one is sports-crazed. These are not football and basketball haters.)</p>
<p>Florida has its Athletic Department financial statements online. It is shocking to me how nonexistent the financial contribution it made to the University as a whole was in the year when it had essentially the greatest success possible (national championships in both football and men’s basketball). THAT year, the department essentially broke even.</p>
<p>Now, I’m sure there were lots of psychic and reputational benefits to the rest of the University from the Gators’ athletic success, but if the winning and extra revenue don’t translate to cash flow in a season like that, when the hell will it? And if there’s never any cash flow, then how can anyone talk about economic benefits?</p>
<p>I’m sure Geno from UConn would feel that his team beats the odds for women’s sports. Definitely not a money sucking drain there :)</p>
<p>If previous posters are suggesting that these schools would be better off financially without big football programs, that is complete nonsense. To be perfectly clear, I am not referring to the profitability of the “athletic department”. The “athletic department” includes many other sports that drain the contribution from the football program. Many of these other programs either wouldn’t exist or would be substantially reduced if it weren’t for the football program. The Florida football program resulted in substantial cash flow for the university after winning 2 national championships. You are looking at the wrong numbers if you are looking at the profitability of the “athletic department”. The article above focuses on Holy Cross and UNC basketball. Again, the author discusses the profitability of the “athletic department” and has no real numbers about the costs of the other sports programs.</p>
<p>"It’s pretty easy to have a profitable basketball team when all of your revenues count towards the bottom line but many of your expenses don’t. "</p>
<p>There have always been huge costs in college sports that are never correctly attributed to the athletic department or the individual sport. And while the claim is continually made that sports boosters make big contributions to the school, my experience is that sports boosters tend to make big contributions to the Athletic Department, and even so, these programs still lose money and require mandatory student fees at many schools. </p>
<p>At the University of Florida, 2009 students paid a mandatory $1.90 athletic fee per credit hour – $57 per student per year for a student taking 15 units. They have nearly 50,000 students. In return they get discount tickets to athletic events. The athletic department records it as a revenue. From my view, it is just a tax. If they were really profitable, they wouldn’t need to tax general students in order to support the athletic program.</p>
<p>The higher the revenue, the higher the cost. I know at our not so great university, although at times we’ve made it to the NCAA basketball tournament, Sweet 16 once in the 15 yrs we’ve been here, the bball coach is paid more than the President and the fball coach almost as much.</p>
<p>We are also a stepping stone in that the bball and fball coaches have some success and move on to bigger name programs. </p>
<p>So the costs are huge. We are currently in a severe economic crisis in the state and consequently for the university, but talks of layoffs, forced time off, hiring freezes, and rationing supplies has not stopped construction on a new fball stadium.</p>
<p>You can play with the huge amounts of money just like any statistics. What is counted? Are we talking revenue or profit? What other sports are supported? Net profit of specific programs or AD? Big progams also have big scholarship programs and recruiting costs.</p>
<p>That should tell you how unprofitable the “other” sports are at these schools. They drain the money made by the men’s football and basketball programs. The original post of this thread was about the money made from big-time programs.
Also from “The Sports Economist” that was referenced previously: “We can certainly argue whether college officials run athletic programs collectively without an eye towards profits. Football and men’s basketball are different beasts. These programs foot the bills not only for themselves, but also for the myriad non-revenue sports, so college officials make decisions with an eye towards profits in those programs.”</p>
<p>Lots of football programs lose money. Dan Fulks was the professor hired by the NCAA to analyze football finances in response to a congressional inquiry:</p>
<p>“For the 2006 fiscal year, 19 institutions in Division I-A football reported a profit from athletics, with an average of $4.3 million, according to Dan Fulks, an accounting professor at Transylvania University who analyzes athletic finances for the NCAA. Those 19 included many SEC schools, he said. The 99 other schools lost an average of $8.9 million.”</p>
<p>16 D-1 schools had a profit from their football programs that year. 99 D-1 Schools (that would be 86% of the D-1 schools) LOST money on their football programs. </p>
<p>And I still maintain that many real costs of college athletics are not charged to the athletic department, and football and basketball have more of these costs than any other sports. For example, at CU, which had massive legal expenses related to the football team, those expenses were not charged back to the athletic department. Similarly, the expenses of NCAA academic representatives aren’t necessarily charged back, and the athletic programs are often not charged for the capital expenditures associated with their programs, or for the liability insurance costs that would not be incurred were it not for these programs.</p>
<p>You are mis-stating the results. 86% of the “athletic programs” lost money…not the football programs.</p>
<p>If you read the report, it says: Between fifty and sixty percent of football and men’s basketball programs have reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for each of
the three years reported.</p>
<p>The median FBS football program generated approximately $2.1 million in PROFIT
The median FBS men’s basketball program generated approximately $1.3 million in PROFIT
The median FBS women’s basketball program LOST approximately $1.3 million</p>
<p>In fact, ALL Division 1 programs WITHOUT football had negative revenues in 2004, 2005 or 2006. The average negative net generated revenue (expenses in excess of generated revenues) in 2006 was $6,607,000. The net losses have increased steadily over the three year period, from $5,461,000 in 2004.</p>
<p>To summarize again: Big-time football programs MAKE a lot of money for schools</p>
<p>This article was just more proof of this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To summarize again: They cook the books. They report revenue, but they don’t count costs.</p>
<p>The writer’s article you refer to offers exactly zero evidence that the UNC basketball team is not profitable.
In fact, the same writer shows here that the UNC men’s basketball team has a 62% profit margin (INCLUDING EXPENSES).</p>
<p><a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm[/url]”>http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm</a> </p>
<p>You obviously don’t want any facts to get in the way of your opinion.</p>
<p>Florida has its Athletic Department financial statements online. It is shocking to me how nonexistent the financial contribution it made to the University as a whole was in the year when it had essentially the greatest success possible (national championships in both football and men’s basketball). THAT year, the department essentially broke even.</p>
<p>What do you mean? Of course Florida football and basketball made a contribution to the university…it covered the shortfall for the OTHER sports. By doing so, the university didn’t have to do it. </p>
<p>Therefore, whatever money the UF had budgeted to cover the money-losing sports (the other male sports and all womens sports) was now available to the University for other things. That is a contribution. :)</p>