<p>I found this article fascinating and don't quite know what to <em>conclude.</em></p>
<p>Points worth pondering:
*OSU is one of only 19 universities turning a profit on sports.
*Ergo "revenue sport" programs at most D1 big-time-athletics schools are NOT self-sufficient.
*Who would the "profitable 19" play if only profitable programs are justified?
*Do we care?
*Aren't athletics a key element in the education of our young adults - "mens sano in corpore sanis" (forgive my Latin, it's rusty)? Whether or not they turn a profit?
*What is the right balance between $$/student vs. $$/athlete budgets?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ergo "revenue sport" programs at most D1 big-time-athletics schools are NOT self-sufficient.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>or, the revenue sports fund themselves and some, while Title IX takes away from academic funding. You have to have a lot of sports that lose money to make up for 85 football scholarships. The US government is keeping many schools from being financially responsible.</p>
<p>A big football / basketball program is a huge draw for many prospective students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Points worth pondering:
*OSU is one of only 19 universities turning a profit on sports.
*Ergo "revenue sport" programs at most D1 big-time-athletics schools are NOT self-sufficient.
*Who would the "profitable 19" play if only profitable programs are justified?
*Do we care?
*Aren't athletics a key element in the education of our young adults - "mens sano in corpore sanis" (forgive my Latin, it's rusty)? Whether or not they turn a profit?
*What is the right balance between $$/student vs. $$/athlete budgets?
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>Good for them.</li>
<li>No. It means that non-revenue sports are a giant drag on most budgets. Only a very few schools(at least D1) aren't profitable in FBall and Bball.</li>
<li>Considering there is value added, both measureable and not through athletic programs(athletic facilities for intramurals and basic health, etc.; and school pride, corresponding donations, and on and on), I would say that many many more are profitable, you just have to account for the costs for the facilities that would have to be replaced.</li>
<li>Yes, based on attendance - there are 102,000 that care enough to spend a good chunk of money for the privledge of watch only one of those 36 sports on fall satudays.</li>
<li>Very much so, in my opinion.</li>
<li>I would take a look at the top ten hardest Universities and LAC's to get into, as they seem to have the market working in their favor. Obviously this is far from foolproof, but the most desirable schools would seem to be able to make the case that they are meeting the demands of the market most efficiently.</li>
</ol>
<p>And then there's Rutger's.
Pouring huge sums of money into football.
Taking away tennis, swimming and fencing teams.
Larger classes, shorter library hours, less merit $.
I guess you could say it's an investment in the future - but it sure seems like their priorities are screwed up right now.
I actually like college football - my son is at PSU. But this just doesn't seem right...</p>
<p>At some schools, some of the revenue that comes into the athletic department does go the academic program. When an athlete gets a scholarship, that money doesn't come from the U but rather from the athletic department. So each term the athletic department "pays" the University for those students' tuition. </p>
<p>I don't know how this figures into the "profit" analysis but these scholarships are a definite obligation and under such a setup, an athletic department that was only "breaking even" or "losing money" may still be putting in more money to the University's budget (via these scholarships) than it is taking out.</p>
<p>The discussion about money is interesting but there is much more to college athletics than money and much of it goes far beyond the conventional wisdom. If you read the book titled "The Game of Live" authored by two academics get ready for some eye opening conclusions.</p>
<p>The big one is that the impacts of intercollegiate athletics on the campus culture is far greater at small LAC's than at the big Div 1A universities. How can this be so you ask? Well you need to read the book but let me give you a few reasons. </p>
<p>At OSU(since we are talking about my dear alma mater) about 2.5% of the student body participates in intercollegiate athletics. At a college like Amherst College about 32% participate or about 13 times more on a %age basis. Well some will argue that the student athletes at Amherst are true student athletes while those at a college like OSU are there to pave the way to professional stardom. Well I agree that almost all the Amherst student athletes are student athletes in the purest sense of the word. But like their Amherst counterparts, a vast majority of Div 1A athletes are true student athletes, performing in anonymity, not on scholarship and with not athletic related aspirations after college.</p>
<p>And if you look at the data presented in "The Game of Life" athletics have a greater impact on the campus culture at colleges like Amherst in other ways. While Amherst does not award athletic scholarships they certainly do recurit athletes and the data indicates that the relaxed admissions standards have a greater impact on academics than at the large Div 1A colleges, ie that bottom 25% SAT quartile would be significantly higher should athletic recruiting be eliminated. Eliminating athletic recruiting at a large Div 1A college would have a far less impact on the bottom quartile cutoff.</p>
<p>The "GofL" authors also studied post graduate data of students and found that those participating in intercollegiate athletics were significantly less engaged in alumni activities and community service activities than their not athletic counterparts. The same might be true of Div 1A grads but the impact is minimized because of the relatively low %age of students participating in athletics.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents. But i recommend that folks here read the book cited. It quite interesting.</p>