While a few schools manage a positive cash flow off sports, there are a number of studies that show sports do not add to the economic health of a campus. Here is an interesting article that allows you to check out your favorite school.
There are a few schools that have no sports. Are they any better off than those who have teams that break even or even spend more on sports than they take in? How about all those silly schools wasting money on chemistry labs or theater departments? Should they drop all departments that aren’t self supporting or even turning a profit?
if you don’t want to pay for sports, you can go to a school without them, yes?
sports are a big part of the college experience in many places.
Looks like only public schools are included in the list. E.g. the entire Ivy League is not shown.
The lowest percentage of athletic revenue from subsidies is found at schools in the “big” (D1 FBS) conferences, presumably from the big spectator sports of football and basketball. If schools drop unprofitable sports, that would likely mean that the only sports that they would want to keep are football and/or basketball at schools where they are “big” in terms of spectator revenue. I.e. no other men’s sports, and only enough women’s sports to meet Title IX requirements. Participatory (as opposed to spectator) sports would be largely limited to the intramural level.
Yes (ahem) @soccerguy315. I don’t believe any of those non-sports schools have 30K of students (except Phoenix).
Yup. Unless Central Connecticut State is the only participant in the Northeast Conference.
Interesting article. and Ga State is trying to acquire the Braves Stadium. Cha-ching!!