<p>Of course, I'm not talking about Ivy League institutions (or other research universities at that level) or elite liberal arts colleges, but the tier(s) below.</p>
<p>We all know that online education is becoming increasingly available, and that the survival of some brick-and-mortar, non-elite colleges is threatened. However, I seem to remember some people on other websites arguing that the survival of non-flagship publics and lower-level privates depend on their athletic successes (or failures) to an extent. Only, to what extent would you believe that to be true or false?</p>
<p>I can’t believe that’s true. What do you even know about the athletics of most LACs? I don’t know much except (sometimes) what division they are in. Athletics really only help large Public Us, and that is really only football and basketball.</p>
<p>There are schools that gain access to better students when their athletics (especially football and men’s basketball) gain some success (Alabama, Texas-Austin, UConn), but for many D1 schools, especially the ones who are at the bottom of either FCS or FBS, athletics is a drain on their budget.</p>
<p>I highly doubt this. First and foremost these types of institutions (non-flagship and privates) rarely have lucrative television deals so revenue streams are pretty small. Perhaps you mis-read what people were saying?</p>
<p>I think less that 25 programs might be profitable (or I read something like that) and all were Big 10, SEC, Pac 10 type programs with big TV contracts. Most athletics are not profit centers and only a few generate revenues and for many small colleges an expense. </p>
<p>But I also can’t imagine a college campus in the US where there was no swimming, no tennis, no basketball, ho soccer or football, no you name it. In the US very few communities have programs established that young people can participate in to replace those activities when they are away at college. Many communities don’t even have community rec centers. I imagine a college with nothing but class and studying would have a very narrow margin of interested potential students. There’s alot more hours in a day than 8 hours of class and studying.</p>
<p>Honestly, all but a handful of the most well know D1 schools lose money on athletics (read Unpaid Professionals for a way too detailed look at finances, including donor money and sponsorships).</p>
<p>Unless you’re an elite athlete hoping for a post collegiate career in your sport, the records of your prospective college’s athletic teams are probably of little concern. </p>
<p>Colleges with highly visible and successful sports programs may get more applicants just because of their “brand name” status. This small handful of schools, however, can only accommodate a tiny fraction of all college students. The vast majority will attend schools with unremarkable athletic programs.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that athletics give a bump to lesser known colleges IF they have a winning program. Here is an actual example. Ferris St. played in the NCAA hockey national championship game last year. I personally know kids who had never heard of the school that have since applied. Same thing happens when Appalachian St. wins several football national championships.</p>
<p>At some places - even places you wouldn’t expect - the athletics department isn’t as self-sustaining as people would have you think, and requires the support of other departments and alumni giving to survive. But the extent is going to depend entirely on the school. My alma mater recently decided to completely withdraw from Division III and focus all the money that had been going into intercollegiate sports into developing our fitness center and sponsoring fitness programs for students. Not many students at my undergrad played Division III; our teams weren’t particularly good at anything and we were probably spending more money than we brought in, so our survival definitely is not threatened by removing athletics.</p>
<p>However, a place like Penn State or UGA may depend more heavily on athletics. Even still, I’ve heard that even some of the big Division I universities spend more money than they make on athletics, especially with top coaches making more than some college presidents.</p>
<p>And a college without intercollegiate teams (or even athletics in general) isn’t a “college with nothing but class and studying.” There are thousands of other recreational activities besides intercollegiate sports.</p>
<p>Athletic Departments are not intended to make money. They tend to spend every nickel they make, no matter how much they make.</p>
<p>Most operate with a large subsidy from the college, so they are a drain on resources rather than a revenue source. Plus at public U’s, the cost of a student’s education is subsidized by taxpayers, so every scholarship athlete who would not be a regular admit (at big-time football powers, a majority of the players) is taking away resources/seats that could have gone to a more qualified student.</p>
<p>If you look at successful athletic departments like U Florida or U Texas, they bring in revenue in excess of $120M/year, but they don’t have $50M/year expenses like a typical program, instead they run the expenses up to match or nearly match revenues. Florida even gets a subsidy from the college. They also have built-in subsidies that are counted as revenues, like student athletic fees that are mandatory whether you attend games or not, and rent-free use of facilities or land.</p>
<p>There are very few, if any, colleges whose very survival is dependent on the athletic program. Some schools with very profitable athletics, or who depend heavily on donations from football or basketball-crazed alumni, might have to tighten their belts a bit and adjust their spending to align with their reduced income. For schools with unprofitable sports programs dumping them would probably amount to a net financial boost.</p>
<p>Most college athletic departments operate in the red and require subsidies from other parts of the university’s budget. And even some profitable athletic programs receive subsidies, as noted in the USA today article.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yes and no. At Michigan, for example, the dollar value of the state subsidy is much less than the value of the tuition discount the university gives in-state students. If you eliminated scholarship athletes, you’d kill the lucrative football and men’s basketball programs which are now sufficiently profitable to support the entire athletic department and still generate a surplus. Thus Michigan’s currently profitable athletic program would run in the red, as do all D-III athletic departments and the Ivy League, where athletic scholarships aren’t permitted. You could go a step further and eliminate intercollegiate athletics entirely; then you’d eliminate most of those pesky athletic department costs that are currently being paid out of football and basketball revenue (though you’d have a lot of pricey athletic facilities needing to be mothballed, which incurs some cost, and I’m not sure exactly how you’d re-uses a 110,000-seat football stadium). If you then opened up those seats previously held by scholarship athletes and “preferred walk-ons” recruited for athletics but not getting scholarships (which is essentially the way they do it in the Ivy League and D-III schools, where recruited athletes have what amounts to “preferred walk-o” status, often recruited under special admissions standards), that would in principle make more places available for higher-stats in-state students. But the legislature doesn’t appropriate funds to the university on a per capita basis, it just appropriates a lump sum; and none of the state’s money goes to the athletic program. Since the state appropriation likely would not increase, the net effect would be to reduce the amount of state subsidy per in-state student, and the school would then probably need to raise tuition to cover the difference. The few additional in-state students who would be admitted would arguably be better off, but the larger number of in-state students already attending would probably be made worse off.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some do, some don’t get mandatory student athletic fees. As for “rent-free” facilities, again that’s going to be a mixed bag. At the most successful (i.e., lucrative) programs, the athletic facilities are built exclusively with athletic department money. So it’s a bit like saying if you buy or build a house, you get to live in it rent-free; while technically true, it’s potentially highly misleading, as no one would think it makes sense to require you to pay for it twice, first by buying or building it, then by paying rent on it.</p>
<p>In many public universities, the budget for athletics operates separately of the general fund budget, and does not contribute to it. The money from the revenue sports keeps the non-revenue sports afloat, and also permits very high pay to winning coaches.</p>
<p>Can you explain how countering the postulation that universities are dependent on athletics for survival is “singling out athletics”? I for one would certainly equivalently counter the argument that universities are dependent on drama or chess club for survival.</p>
<p>The “operates separately” part is rarely true. Almost all college athletic departments receive a subsidy from the university, as previously noted. In many cases, this subsidy is tens of millions of dollars per year. In addition, there are indirect subsidies as well in many cases.</p>