<p>Donations break $180 million
Total for 2006 fiscal year hits record high</p>
<p>I know, I know. Notre Dame is unique. But here's quantitative evidence that winning football teams bring more revenue than losing ones.</p>
<p>Notre Dame's varsity athletic expenses last year were $48.2 million.</p>
<p>Football is a [url=<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/04/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/%5Dmoney-maker%5B/url">http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/04/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/]money-maker[/url</a>] at the University of Texas, too.</p>
<p>Well, idad, I sure wish my investment portfolio was doing as well!</p>
<p>What logic attributes all or any of the donations to football?</p>
<p>^Exactly, when i can, I donate to my alma mater, Michigan. But as good as their football team is, I'd be appalled if someone assumed that this was why I was giving, rather than to support their academics.</p>
<p>Stickershock ... I don't think anyone agrues that the top 25 teams make big bucks at football which includes ND ... some will argue the top 50 do. Catch #1 ... 125 teams play D1 football which leaves 75+ with D1 football programs that lose money. Catch #2 ... the 2000+ schools that play D1AA, D2, and D3 also lose money at football. Catch #3 ... thoe 25 schools that make serious money at football tend to have the LEAST varsity sports programs so they certainly aren't leveraging their football money across the athletic program in a way that schools with less bucks do.</p>
<p>OK, so ND makes big bucks at football ... but what about Utah State (which is a far more typical than ND)?</p>
<p>When any college makes the news for any number of positive reasons, donations go up. It seems to stir those feelings of loyalty & nostalgia. Alumni donating to their schools during a winning football season aren't doing so to support the team. They've been inspired to open their checkbook & this is the goal of any marketing effort. Winning football teams are very, very effective marketing tools. Not to mention the increase in applications & media attention that spills over into coverage of academic strengths & gives validation to the overall mission of the school.</p>
<p>garland, wasn't it Michigan that used to run those NASA commercials where their fight song was playing in the space capsule? That was totally cool, I thought. Stanford is also big on emphasizing the student part of the student-athlete equation. And many others.</p>
<p>If Utah state & other schools are draining academic resources to field a crummy football team with no fan support, that's another issue altogether. (Sorry to any Utah fans. Off the top of my head, I don't know how solid the program is.)</p>
<p>Most Division 1 schools are draining resources to support football including Rutgers.</p>
<p>3togo,</p>
<p>Not true for all the D1A schools. I would suggest that you look at Stanford, ND, BC and a few others. They have very broad sports programs with over 25 varsity teams. Stanford has won the Directors Cup a lot recently and these 3 and a number of other D1A schools have fairly high graduation rates for their student athletes.</p>
<p>Here is a link to the "reshuffled" top 25 for football and men's and women's basketball. The reshuffling is based upon top 25 rank than rechuffled according to graduation rates.</p>
<p>The latest news on football is that it is valuable to schools in other ways. Schools that have been struggling in the admissions department have found that adding a football team is one of the most cost effective and successful ways of bringing up the admissions numbers. Crazy, isn't it?</p>
<p>The smaller schools, in particular, are hurting in male admissions everywhere. Such schools, by adding a football program, even a non scholarship one, start drawing young men who want to play college ball. They loved the game as highschoolers, but are having trouble find a school where they can play. And where the football players come, the girls follow as well. </p>
<p>In many of the non flagship state Unis, football can make a big difference between the school being a suitcase/commuter school and a true university community. I remember my friend (who could not care less about football), noting that a school with the program was just more "alive" than those that do not.</p>
<p>Schools like Emory, Swarthmore.. a number of others have done just fine getting rid of the sport. Their academic pull and other factors have kept them in the running as desireable schools. But there are thousands of schools in the US that are hurting for students, and an active university community that is well demonstrated by attendence at a football game will draw kids better than nearly anything else.</p>
<p>My little ones, by the way, are Ben Rothelsberger (sp?) fans and are excited to his alma mater play at my son's uni. THough it's snowing in Buffalo, I understand they are gearing up for this game on Family Weekend.</p>
<p>interestedad,</p>
<p>It is good to know ND's expenses. What was their revenue for all of their sports? I suspect that their revenue across all of their sports is greater than their expenses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Schools that have been struggling in the admissions department have found that adding a football team is one of the most cost effective and successful ways of bringing up the admissions numbers. Crazy, isn't it?
[/quote]
It's true that there are many students who want the rah-rah school spirit a football team can bring. A friend's D left one perfectly fine Uni largely because of her perceived lack of school spirit (no football team), went to a CC for a year, then transferred to UCLA - all largely due to the football team.</p>
<p>Conversely, my D at UCSD is happy that there isn't a football team there because she thinks a Uni should be mostly about academics and doesn't want to see the money spent on the football team or athletes and also doesn't want her fees to go up which would happen if they established a football team.</p>
<p>ND got $15.75 million for the Fiesta Bowl alone. Their NBC contract is worth about $9million a year. They just built a $70million science building with sports revenue. They absolutely run at a profit.</p>
<p>Total revenues were $57.6 million. I believe that includes annual gifts to the athletic program. </p>
<p>I'm not sure whether or not the $48 million in expenses includes the $12 million in athletic scholarships. The federal reporting says that scholarship expenses may be included in total expenses.</p>
<p>I'm glad when a football program turns a profit. It's almost like having a professional sports team that invests some of its revenues in education!</p>
<p>Personally, I think the entire system would be better off with a professional model: each school hires professsional athletes to wear the school's colors. Drop the charade that the top Div 1 revenue sports are stocked with "scholar-athletes". It would be a much more honest system.</p>
<p>I think they should consider the CURRENT players professionals, and pay them. Some may get more out of their education than others. Some college is better than no college. Degrees in basketweaving are better than no degrees at all. But they should be paid for their services.</p>
<p>Agreed. This programs already feature professional players, on campus to do nothing but play for the team. The fact that they are not paid (at least above the table) is an injustice to the athletes.</p>
<p>idad -- It's not a charade at all. Some schools abuse it. Some schools turn out Rhodes scholars who got their undergrad chance with an athletic scholarship. Don't criticize the scholar-athlete model itself. Criticize the programs that deserve scorn.</p>
<p>Does that $57 mill include revenue from all the bookstore clothing and assorted tchotchkes? Does it take into account that unless an alumnus contributes a set dollar amount each year, he can't enter the football ticket lottery? I'm guessing the 57mill figure is lower than reality. ND knows their football team is a cash cow and does a brilliant job of exploiting this. It's what they do with the $$$ that shows their commitment to academic integrity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Criticize the programs that deserve scorn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think I just did!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Drop the charade that the top Div 1 revenue sports are stocked with "scholar-athletes".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So every top Div1 program is guilty? You're quite wrong about that.</p>