div1 football vs no football schools

Student Lounge College Life
21

<p>Sadly enough, I get to use one of my classes for this: </p>

<p>"300 DII and 400 DIII schools expect and get losses from their sports endeavors
The 326 DI schools see sports as a potential money-maker though few (55) actually achieve this goal
2001: 40 in I-A, 9 in I-AA and 6 in I-AAA
2001 overall average losses: $0.6 MM in I-A, $3.4 MM in I-AA and $2.8 MM in I-AAA
40 schools in I-A that made money, averaged $5.26 MM, the other 77 lost on average $3.8 MM"</p>

<p>From my class lecture slides when I took Sports Law. (all information comes from "The Business of Sports" by Scott R Rosner & Kenneth L. Shropshire.)</p>

22

<p>It depends on you, the Majority of males will try to apply to bIg Football or Basketball schools. Just for the Atmosphear, This is why most Specialized schools in the same areas will have like 70% females.</p>

<p>You could always go to a football game to see if you like the college atmosphear.</p>

<p>Not all the same thogh.An example being not all D1 schools are good.</p>

<p>University of michigan=110k fans
University At Buffalo= maybe 133 fans</p>

<p>Both D1</p>

<p>The Big schools are the ones seen on NBC, ABC or ESPN ESPN2 or Even ENPNU</p>

23

<p>"i'd rather go to a school that is well endowed in general, and have them pass that money on to everyone by way of cheaper tuition.. not just scholarships for student athletes."</p>

<p>"yeah, and like i mentioned above.. then you have to upkeep this and that and your tuition goes up."</p>

<p>Not exactly Fendergirl. My school's football team cost $18 million in the past fiscal year to support. However, it brought in $27 million after the $18M is costs were deducted. Of course, most of this money will be funneled back into the Athletics program, though this will hopefully result in more winning teams and subsequently, more money. Even aside from the profit garnered from ticket sales, licensing contracts, bowl game payouts (which are in the tens of millions), concession sales, merchandise sales, etc., winning teams inspire pride in alumni and cause alumni donations to increase. One alumnus here donated $50 million simply because he watched our quarterback win the Heisman.</p>

<p>Successful football programs are cash cows for their schools (why do you think the University of Michigan is so much less state-reliant than other state schools). While what a previous poster said is true about only 40-50 schools only turning a profit on football, it's misinformed to say that those who attend schools with football programs are paying higher tuition for athletic scholarships and field upkeep. In fact, I can point to new construction projects underway that are only in existence because of football money.</p>

<p>Some schools (Notre Dame) who aren't even that good have exclusive, multiyear, multimillion dollar contracts with television stations to broadcast their football games. You don't think that (and the aforementioned) offset the cost of the program? Come on.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
i'd rather go to a school that is well endowed in general, and have them pass that money on to everyone by way of cheaper tuition.. not just scholarships for student athletes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i'm not necessarily trying to argue against you here... but schools generally prefer to use their endowment money on things that the entire campus can use for many years... for example, building a new library, upgrading some technology, endowing a new professorship, renovating the dorms, etc. they might have high per capita spending on the students, but that comes in terms of campus amenities and such rather than scholarships. </p>

<p>on another note, i think another way you can put this is that spending some endowment money on the athletics program helps the school gain some national visibility, which can bring in more applicants, or that having athletics can create some school pride for all the students (the same people who are potential donors in the future). </p>

<p>but yeah, i guess there's two sides to this:</p>

<ol>
<li>you have schools with football programs so successful that they bring in enough money to cover their own program AND more</li>
<li>you have schools with football programs so poor that they continually lose money because they can't generate enough revenue</li>
</ol>

25

<p>
[quote]

Some schools (Notre Dame) who aren't even that good have exclusive, multiyear, multimillion dollar contracts with television stations to broadcast their football games. You don't think that (and the aforementioned) offset the cost of the program? Come on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Notre Dame is a great football team. what are you talking about.</p>

26

<p>No, Notre Dame USED to be a great football team. Which is why they still have TV contracts.</p>

27

<p>no they still are a great football team</p>

28

<p>mm... notre dame has a great football program overall, but they've been mediocre at best in the recent years... until now! </p>

<p>but they still got a big "state" flag planted in the middle of their field hehe</p>

29

<p>i'm fairly certain that my college has no debt on any of it's facilities, and we literally have doubled the size of our campus in the past few years.. and since you have no debt on facilities, this keeps tuition low.. thus paying about 9,000/year for a private liberal arts education... which is almost the same as giving everyone the same "scholarship" by way of a discounted education.. if that makes any sense.</p>

30

<p>I congratulate your school on its progress fendergirl, but I just have problems with the assumption you make that students who go to schools with athletic programs pay higher tuition as a DIRECT result of such. At best, it is only an assumption and you haven't shown any evidence to prove this is so. It's so easy to see big athletic programs and think about the costs they must incur, but again, if run correctly, profit comes as well -- be it monetary or in other forms such as what kfc4u said -- national visibility. In fact, I'd be willing to bet (but like you, I'm going only off of pure assumption) that athletic budgets are ENTIRELY separate from academic budgets and further, are self-sustaining if not profitable. If this wasn't the case, then what would be the point of having athletics for non D-1A schools?</p>

31

<p>Notre Dame is the biggest name in college football and under their new coach will be a major player for many years.</p>

32

<p>Yeah Weis is super awesome coach for Notre Dame. Herbstreit says that they will be like the ND of old, with a dyansty and stuff.</p>

33

<p>Come on, Weiss couldn't beat an inferior Michigan State team at his packed opener AT ND. Just wait and see what SC does. And no, it is not the biggest name in college football. Want to argue against that statement? Name a top-10 recruit they've attained in the past 5 years. </p>

<p>The biggest names in college football are SEC schools, FSU, Miami, USC, UMich, OSU, and UT. There's no "biggest name" and Notre Dame isn't even on the list of contention for that title. No top recruit in awhile has wanted to go to ND. Sure, Weiss is a good hire but you don't just reassemble a team in shambles over the course of one offseason. Look at Nebraska.</p>

34

<p>USC is not on the top yet, sorry but you dont take the top of the list from winning thr rose bowl and then winning it again 24 or so years later then the Orange the year later. Yes they are good, but not up their if ya ask me.</p>

<p>consistency makes you good.</p>

35

<p>themegastud, i went to a d3 school and we didn't have to pay anything to go to any games... so they didn't make any money from that... when our basketball team made it to the D3 final four, they were giving out free tuition scholarships to random fans in the crowd. and as far as i know, none of the players on our teams recieved scholarships to play (although I could be wrong on that.. i didn't play a sport so i'm not entirely sure)... so i really don't see our athletics program making tons of money for our school. </p>

<p>i know it's not right to assume that sports programs drive up tuition, i'm sure it can go either way. it's not like that's the only thing in the equation, i just have this feeling that thats at least part of it.. although like i said, i could be wrong.</p>

36

<p>Fender girl, theirs a Big difference between D1a and D3.</p>

<p>D1=100k+ is the crowd(depending on school)
D3=100+</p>

<p>just thoght id point that out.</p>

37

<p>USC has more national titles in football than any other school except Notre Dame (both are tied at 10). Good research there, buddy. Way to REALLY misreport the facts. Further, it is #2 in Heismans behind Notre Dame... a statistic which may change as the two Heisman frontrunners in the nation are from USC, and assuming one of them wins (a likely outcome considering Sports Illustrated's latest Heisman watch said "Matt Leinart is looking impossible to beat", will either make USC tied for the MOST Heismans, or make USC only the second school to produce a double-Heisman winner. Additionally, it has the most rose bowl appearances. It has the most rose bowl wins. USC also has the third-highest bowl winning percentage. USC's dominance of the Rose Bowl is also the greatest by any college of a single bowl. I could go on. </p>

<p>I don't think I've ever seen a more wrong post on College Confidential... and I've seen some pretty bad ones.</p>

<p>In closing, USC is the consensus pick to win a third straight national championship - something that has NEVER been done. If this happens, USC will have set THAT record, set the sole record for the most football titles of any college, and likely have produced a Heisman winner along the way. Do you still discount the school's football legacy?</p>

38

<p>forgot what's the economics terms for this (themegastud, maybe you know this), but thinking in terms of ticket sales...</p>

<p>d3 = 5,000 fans = not many tickets sold = loss on athletics investment</p>

<p>mid-major d1 = 50,000 fans = enough tickets sold = breakeven on athletics investment</p>

<p>powerhouse d1 = 90,000 fans = tickets sold to near-capacity = profit on athletics investment</p>

<p>and same goes for television contracts, apparel licensing and sales, etc.</p>

<p>fendergirl is correct ... from her perspective as a student attending a d3 school, because the athletics department will probably lose money if not breakeven. there's really no room for making a profit. hey, the school may actually have to raise student fees to finance the cost of fielding a football team. </p>

<p>but once you get past breakeven point, then there's room for profit. thus, raising student fees seems outrageous to someone like themegastud, who attends a big d1 school.</p>

39

<p>Your school and its successes have been known to turn some profits of their own kfc4u ;). </p>

<p>Speaking of which, I'm surprised 7112, with his jaw-dropping dearth of college sports knowledge, hasn't criticized UCLA's lack of basketball heritage. I can just picture him saying "just because you won in '95 and now have Ben Howland doesn't make you a good team. It's consistency that counts."</p>

<p>Actually, because I'm still so amazed 7112 said that, I'm going to copy and paste this. My apologies if some of the feats are repeated.</p>

<p>AMERICA'S BOWL TEAM
"USC has a remarkable record in bowl games. The Trojans have the nation's third highest bowl winning percentage (.651) among the 67 schools which have made at least 10 bowl appearances (behind only Utah's .700 and Georgia Tech's .667). USC is just 1 win behind Alabama for most bowl victories, 29 to 28. Troy's 43 bowl appearances rank fourth behind only Alabama (52), Tennessee (45) and Texas (44). USC once won 9 consecutive bowl games (the 1923-30-32-33-39-40-44-45 Rose Bowls and 1924 Christmas Festival); only Florida State has won more in a row (11).</p>

<p>USC's overall post-season record is 28-15. The Trojans were a bowl participant each year they were eligible from 1972 to 1990.</p>

<p>Troy has appeared in an unprecedented 29 Rose Bowls, where it has a 21-8 mark. That's not only the most Rose Bowl wins of any team, but also the most wins by a school in a single bowl. USC has won 8 of its last 10 Rose Bowls. USC has also appeared in 11 other bowls--the Christmas Festival, Liberty Bowl, Bluebonnet Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Aloha Bowl, Florida Citrus Bowl, Sun (John Hancock) Bowl (twice), Freedom Bowl (twice), Cotton Bowl, Las Vegas Bowl and Orange Bowl (twice). "</p>

<p>Bearing this, along with the fact that USC has the most national championships under its belt, in mind... how's that for consistency, 7112?</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
sorry but you dont take the top of the list from winning thr rose bowl and then winning it again 24 or so years later then the Orange the year later.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>mmm... actually, in the past 24 years, USC and Notre Dame have both been to exactly 16 bowl games. Notre Dame has won 6 of its bowl games, while USC has won 8. USC's last rose bowl win was 2003, but they also won in 84, 89, and 95. the last time notre dame won a bowl game was 1994. </p>

<p>not that i'm supporting USC or anything (haha)... just trying to clarify the facts. i don't see how between notre dame and USC, one could be counted as top and the other not, or how one can be consistent and the other not (based on your 24 year time-frame and also for both programs in general).</p>