Which college sports make or lose money
by On the Banks on Dec 11, 2011 1:59 PM EST
in NCAA Football
Email
PrintI was curious about some of the points from today's NSL article, so I checked into this. Lo and behold, the NCAA updated its annual Revenues and Expenses report to account for 2010.
The salient points? After an awful 2009, athletics revenue bounced back in 2010 on a nationwide level. This squares what Tim Pernetti's pledge to reduce the athletics deficit. On average, salaries continue to trump facilities spending as driver of expense growth.
If you look at the tables on page 46, Rutgers in the bottom ten percent as far as money losers on DI athletics. There certainly is a problem. This blog was out ahead of everyone on that story. onthebanks.com and the Newark Star-Ledger just disagree on the causes (football vs. non-football), and on the solutions. This site's argument is that everything Tim Pernetti is doing, with stadium expansion and conference expansion, those are long-term strategies designed to reduce the athletic department's deficit. Could football live within its means more? Certainly, but in terms of priorities, they are hardly the biggest problem.
4 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What no NCAA bowling?
What this spreadsheet does is remind us that intercollegiate sports were never about making money. They are suppossed to be part of the “college experience”; generate school spirit; a means to promote the schools to a sports obessesed culture. The idea that fb and mens bb make money is the happy coincidence that they have a very large following which generates TV dollars. The idea that they are suppossed to cover the costs of all other sports is artificial. As long as the net return is reasonable (factoring the value of goodwill) where’s the gripe? (Unless you have an axe to grind, of course.)
there are always tradeoffs
how many people complaining about the subsidy would be mad if RU dropped sports, or skimped on athlete academics?
by On the Banks on Dec 12, 2011 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
Oh the horror!
Yeah imagine if we pulled a University of Chicago (and fullfilled the wishes of the haters) and dropped to D-3. The cacophony would heard on the Moon.
Where is it written that college sports must be profitable, or even self sustaining? We know now that execpt for a handful of programs that is not the case anywhere. And we also know that due to some very creative accounting some claim they are and are not close. The real question should be — to be answered on an individual school basis, not a one size fits all figure: what is the reasonable investment that a school should make on their intercollegiate sports programs? (And which sports should be included, too.)
by RUinChiTown on Dec 13, 2011 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
net positive
its also rare to hear people bring up the positive affect big time football has on the entire school recruiting process. students of all types like having a big time football program to follow and i think admissions rates reflect that.
i’ve also read that it holds true for d3 schools, which i have to assume are pretty much all “unprofitable”. yet schools are adding programs because a lot of the small liberal arts schools are having difficulty attracting male students.
also football rules. people should be forced to support it whether they like it or not. especially whiny philosophy professors (only half joking).
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON... BUY THAT MANSION. WE DONT NEED A CONDO.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
