<p>Here’s a rundown of the athletic programs that broke even or generated a surplus in 2011-12:</p>
<p>[Most</a> NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/]Most”>Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies)</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>