[Ed Dantes]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nearly every schools sports program makes the school money. Whether it is directly (i.e. ticket sales, team sponsors, etc.) or indirectly ( school merchandise, higher enrollment, facilities used for non athletic purposes, etc.) through the athletic department.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that with the exception of Ohio State, Notre Dame and a handful of other schools, NO school sports program makes the school money.

Many schools use basketball and football to subsidize the non-revenue generating sports (namely, women's sports). However, many schools -- basically, all of them not in Division I-A, and many within -- can't even make a profit with their football team.

[belcherboy]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nearly every schools sports program makes the school money. Whether it is directly (i.e. ticket sales, team sponsors, etc.) or indirectly ( school merchandise, higher enrollment, facilities used for non athletic purposes, etc.) through the athletic department.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that with the exception of Ohio State, Notre Dame and a handful of other schools, NO school sports program makes the school money.

Many schools use basketball and football to subsidize the non-revenue generating sports (namely, women's sports). However, many schools -- basically, all of them not in Division I-A, and many within -- can't even make a profit with their football team.

Again, I just don't believe it. Athletic programs make countless monies in other ways, for other departments that they don't get credit for. It makes no sense if all the other schools are breaking even or with the exception of the "handful of schools" losing money.

Merchandising sales, Nike/Adidas contracts, local business sponsorships, increased enrollment (I did read an article before about how national championships boost school enrollment), donations of world class facilities, athletic facilities rented for non school functions, ticket sales, etc. Much of this cannot (and will not) be reflected in a teams intake. Call me foolish, but I refuse to believe that the VAST majority of athletic programs are a drain (or barely making it) to a school. At least that is what I am reading from your post. It just doesn't make sense to that just a handful D-I program are financially benefiting their school.

[Ed Dantes]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that nearly every schools sports program makes the school money. Whether it is directly (i.e. ticket sales, team sponsors, etc.) or indirectly ( school merchandise, higher enrollment, facilities used for non athletic purposes, etc.) through the athletic department.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that with the exception of Ohio State, Notre Dame and a handful of other schools, NO school sports program makes the school money.

Many schools use basketball and football to subsidize the non-revenue generating sports (namely, women's sports). However, many schools -- basically, all of them not in Division I-A, and many within -- can't even make a profit with their football team.

Again, I just don't believe it. Athletic programs make countless monies in other ways, for other departments that they don't get credit for. It makes no sense if all the other schools are breaking even or with the exception of the "handful of schools" losing money.

Merchandising sales, Nike/Adidas contracts, local business sponsorships, increased enrollment (I did read an article before about how national championships boost school enrollment), donations of world class facilities, athletic facilities rented for non school functions, ticket sales, etc. Much of this cannot (and will not) be reflected in a teams intake. Call me foolish, but I refuse to believe that the VAST majority of athletic programs are a drain (or barely making it) to a school. At least that is what I am reading from your post. It just doesn't make sense to that just a handful D-I program are financially benefiting their school.

I understand your argument, I just don't buy it. And since neither one of us has stats to back up the argument, I'll defer to someone who does. PurpleHaize? Anybody?

[badger74]

If you are in a top D-1 conference with some good teams you can get a few million a year. But it costs around $60-$100 million to be competitive at the top levels. Merchandising does not make that much. After Michigan a few others the numbers are pretty small (under 1 million)

Here's the numbers from a large program making a little money

http://www.uwbadgers.com/athdept/0607_bus_rep_6408.pdf

[belcherboy]

If you are in a top D-1 conference with some good teams you can get a few million a year. But it costs around $60-$100 million to be competitive at the top levels. Merchandising does not make that much. After Michigan a few others the numbers are pretty small (under 1 million)

Here's the numbers from a large program making a little money

http://www.uwbadgers.com/athdept/0607_bus_rep_6408.pdf

Thanks for the info. Merchandising is one measurable aspect of income gained from sports programs. How about enrollment? Can you measure the impact a sports program has on enrollment? Or how a sports program brings in big donors to and endowment or building programs? How about the fact that a college or university gets tons of free advertisement because of its sports programs (many of you sports fans can name 100 colleges that are no where near you, only because of their sports programs). There are so many benefits to having a sports program that brings money into other departments within a university that the sports program will get no credit for.

I'm still not buying that very many colleges are hurting themselves financially by having sports programs. I think any of the major conference colleges sports programs are generating plenty of money for the school (directly and indirectly), even after they pay for the money sucking sports. I'm sure there are numbers to prove both cases, but there are so many intangibles when discussing finances that I'm not sure even the universities themselves could accurately calculate how much revenue their sports programs generate. If they were such a drain, you would see many eliminated IMO. I think the people in the "know" at universities completely understand the huge money that comes from sports.

[flamesbball84]

If they were such a drain, you would see many eliminated IMO. I think the people in the "know" at universities completely understand the huge money that comes from sports.

The thing is, not many D1 schools will be able to cut much more than 0-5 sports. NCAA Divisions 1 schools have to offer a certain minimum number of men's sports and a certain minimum number of women's sports. Also, they have to comply with Title IX regulations, and since women's sports bring in a lot less money than men's sports, you'd end up having to cut more sports than necessary in order to stay within Title IX regulations. They have to offer 7 men and 7 women, or 6 men and 8 women and two sports open to both genders at a minimum (basketball, for example). So the school has to offer a minimum of 14 sports in order to be Division 1. So the number of sports a school can cut is very minimal.

Liberty, for example, would only be able to cut two sports as they currently offer the 16 varsity sports (unless they count cheerleading, then that's 17). So if you pay athletes, then Liberty won't be able to cut much to help pay the stipend.

Number of sports BSC schools offer (some of these schools have track listed, but I didn't feel like seeing if they had indoor and outdoor and they tend to operate on the same budget anyways):
CSU: 15
CCU: 16
HPU: 14
LU: 16
PC: 16
RU: 17
UNCA: 14
VMI: 15 (or 14 if they count mens and womens Rifle as one team)
WU: 15

So the other BSC schools won't be able to cut much in order to pay the athlete's stipend...

[Rocketfan]

Title IX is ridiculous......dumbest rule ever.

[belcherboy]

If they were such a drain, you would see many eliminated IMO. I think the people in the "know" at universities completely understand the huge money that comes from sports.

The thing is, not many D1 schools will be able to cut much more than 0-5 sports. NCAA Divisions 1 schools have to offer a certain minimum number of men's sports and a certain minimum number of women's sports. Also, they have to comply with Title IX regulations, and since women's sports bring in a lot less money than men's sports, you'd end up having to cut more sports than necessary in order to stay within Title IX regulations. They have to offer 7 men and 7 women, or 6 men and 8 women and two sports open to both genders at a minimum (basketball, for example). So the school has to offer a minimum of 14 sports in order to be Division 1. So the number of sports a school can cut is very minimal.

Liberty, for example, would only be able to cut two sports as they currently offer the 16 varsity sports (unless they count cheerleading, then that's 17). So if you pay athletes, then Liberty won't be able to cut much to help pay the stipend.

Number of sports BSC schools offer (some of these schools have track listed, but I didn't feel like seeing if they had indoor and outdoor and they tend to operate on the same budget anyways):
CSU: 15
CCU: 16
HPU: 14
LU: 16
PC: 16
RU: 17
UNCA: 14
VMI: 15 (or 14 if they count mens and womens Rifle as one team)
WU: 15

So the other BSC schools won't be able to cut much in order to pay the athlete's stipend...

I agree that it would cause problems to pay scholarship athletes, but IMO it is not because the athletic program doesn't generate enough money for the school to do it. IMO it is because the money is spent in other areas of the school.

[belcherboy]

I just want to say that I've completely changed my mind.

My friend (who is an assistant coach of mine) was talking to me about it again tonight at my basketball game (of which we beat a big school tonight...woo hoo). At South Alabama (when he played) each player was given a suit coat with the team emblem on it. He said after each home game they would shower and come to a reception room with the jackets on. They had name tags for where each player would sit. The players would put their coats on their chairs in front of their name tags. They would meet with alumni and other big names of the school around the reception room. When you would leave at the end of the night, there was an envelope in your coat pocket. He said there would be anywhere from $100-$500 in that envelope. After my buddy had ond of the biggest games of his life, at a sellout home crowd of 11,000 against Auburn, my buddy told me he had the game of his life. After the reception, he had $1000 in his coat pocket. His team got ranked in the late 20's his senior year and lost to Arizona by 5 in the second round of the NCAA tourney (my friend broke his foot in the championship game of the Sun Belt conference, which ended his season).

Now if South Alabama players are getting thousands of dollars, what are players from other teams getting?

[Purple Haize]

The bottom lines are these:

Most (90%+) athletic departments bring in more money then they spend.
Athletes are able to get financial aid over and above their scholarships
Athletic departments are NOT FOR PROFIT organizations, therefore "normal' business compensation rules do not apply.

[Ed Dantes]

The bottom lines are these:

Most (90%+) athletic departments bring in more money then they spend.
Athletes are able to get financial aid over and above their scholarships
Athletic departments are NOT FOR PROFIT organizations, therefore "normal' business compensation rules do not apply.

Well, I stand corrected.

[Purple Haize]

Nah, go ahead and have a seat. No need to stand on formality around me!

[flamesbball84]

Athletic departments are NOT FOR PROFIT organizations, therefore "normal' business compensation rules do not apply.

Good point, I never thought of that...