clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Which college sports make or lose money

New, 4 comments

I 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.