The majority of the time, their contribution is a net loss to these multi-million dollar institutions. The median DIVISION I – FBS institution's athletics department runs millions in the red. This being a UT thread, I guess no one cares lol.
That's because of all the non revenue producing sports that football supports. Football is in the black.
That isn't true at all. Without subsidies and cash donations, almost no schools are making a net profit. The biggest expense by far is salaries and benefits. Basically football coaches salaries. Second expense is grants closely followed by expensive football stadiums. Football has by far the most scholarships as well. Median student athletes drain more money than they bring in unlike a research assistant or teaching assistant.
4 years? That seems crazy. At least most students go into it knowing that's the policy. Maybe they won't care. Hopefully we don't see any transfers out or decommitments.
Can't find a list offhand, but here's the top 10 universities based on % of undergrads living on campus: http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...iversities-where-most-students-live-on-campus Harvard is at the top with 98%, meaning basically everyone does so all their years. Princeton, CalTech, and Columbia are all above 95% and the rest of the list is basically a who's who of universities. I think people from all these places manage to do OK with life skills. (note: this list of schools doesn't necessarily require people to live on campus) It will be interesting to see how many people transfer OK. I've said for a long time that the whole program needs to be burned to the ground and started over, so I don't have a problem with this, but I agree that it sucks for them that it's not what people signed up for.
Are you referring to subsidies to the athletic program or the football program? It was always my understanding that football is net positive (at most major programs) and the majority of the other sports don't generate much revenue and are supported by what the major sports do and those donations (especially women sports). If you are saying most football programs are in the red I'd like to see some numbers on that. Now, I can absolutely see tons of football programs at non-major schools not making much money. For example, I wouldn't be shocked if TSU football didn't make anything.
According to the NCAA: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html In the 2009-10 season, 22 football programs made money. In 2008-09, it was 14. The article suggests things were trending positive, and with all the new media deals in the last 4 years, I imagine that number has gone up some, but I don't know how expenses have gone over that timeframe either. I also don't know if this includes donations or not, or how those are allocated to football vs general donations.
I have not seen anything recent to contradict this, but I know most Division 1 football programs were making money not counting subsidies. Most athletic departments weren't making money due to other programs losing more money than football made. I do believe UT is still one of the 10 or so football programs making enough money to support the entire athletic department without subsidies from university. The problem most universities have is that they don't group programs together. Because football has a ton of scholarships, there has to be an equal number of scholarships in women's sports. I don't have a problem with the way UT runs their athletic department.
Article title appears to be incorrect. From my interpretation of article text and looking at the NCAA Report, the 22 refers to athletic programs that participate in Division 1 FBS football. From the NCAA report the article is based on, 69 football programs (58%) have generated revenues (a.k.a not subsidized) with a median profit of 9.1 million dollars for these programs. The 42% of football programs don't generate revenues over expenses and have a median lose of ~2.9 million. The median Division 1 FBS football program generates 3.1 million dollars from the NCAA publication. The median losses for all women's athletics is about 6.4 million. So while Bandwagoner is correct that the median athlete costs the university money, Bandwagoner is incorrect in stating Icehouse is incorrect.
HTML: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Edwin Freeman finally committed <a href="http://t.co/wgOpfxRf8U">pic.twitter.com/wgOpfxRf8U</a></p>— Coach D (@CoachD_44) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachD_44/statuses/423916827257737217">January 16, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well I guess that doesn't work anymore or I'm an idiot but regardless Edwin Freeman committed to Texas. https://twitter.com/CoachD_44/statuses/423916827257737217
WR Emanuel Porter decommits from Texas, recommits to TCU http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ts-tcu-horned-frogs-decommits-texas-longhorns Texas commit Otaro Alaka is visiting Texas A&M this weekend. http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?sid=880&script=/content.asp&cid=1597703 sweet...
sportaddict27: S/LB Edwin Freeman commits to Texas over offers from Texas A&M, Baylor, and others 4 star line baker Edwin Freeman commits to UT after a visit from Charlie Strong today. Nice pick up!
Strong is definitely changing the culture from the orange slices and "clap clap clap" of good effort from Mack Brown. I just hope the players and staff are receptive to it. He seems to have set high expectations and standards.
Expectations too high for coddled, social media 2.0 kids man, bring em' on over to Texas A&M where you get to party with Lebron and puke on Archie Manning. Get arrested? No worries, fun uncle Summy will make you the starting QB so you can win Heisman and sell autographs. Good luck with grumpy old "no fun" Strong.
Here's the thing about how programs "lose money". Yes, on the books athletic departments lose money and I am sure that there are many that do and some sports at certain schools that are not doing well at all. *Note: I wrote my undergraduate thesis on the subject which included interviews with financial heads of college athletic departments. It's not an award winning piece, but did increase my knowledge on the subject. In the income statement for your athletics department, there's a line item that essentially means "contributions from the general university" or something similar. This is not an actual cash/payment transaction but it is more of a hypothetical. What this number represents is the benefit provided by the athletic department for the university as a whole, this would include publicity, advertising, merchandise sales, etc. So, for a particular school I was working with, the athletic department was sponsored by Nike. The only merchandise revenue directly attributable to the athletics department was any items sold within stadiums AND Nike appareal sold at the University bookstore (and presumably university bookstore online site, but not confirmed). So an Adidas shirt that says "University Football" was not directly attributable to the athletics department income statement. So the line item for the contributions represents this income that's not directly on the Income Statement as well as all the publicity/advertisment/etc an athletics program represents. Here's the key, the line item value is a "plug" and they can chose whatever amount they want. The main university I was studying decided to have their plug number equal a certain sum that after adjustments their total athletics department would "lose money". I could go into even more detail but that's the key. On paper, yes they are losing money. Some athletic departments are guaranteed to be losing a substantial amount. Are 90%+ of athletic departments losing money? More than likely, no.
