Justification for T&F at the D2 Level

I would not use that as an argument, because it would totally reveal my inability to do basic arithmetic. The fewer people u have on a team the lower operating costs will be. The school is not making money off these 50 kids tuition money because you are turning around and spending all of it and then some on travel meals the HC salary etc.

So what would you say then?

Title ix...but most DII HCs spend all their time recruiting men and have few women on the roster compared to men so dunno if he can use a large women's team to his advantage with admin or not, and his admin may not want to hear anything title ix related from a coach, he's probably better off politically sticking with the track brings tuition dollars in argument. Even if it's not true they gotta be smart enough to figure that out and this is DII admin we are talking about not HBS.

Partial scholarships represent 'coupons' at private DII schools.....so, in fact, the schools are making money. No way all that money is being plowed back in to the athletes. Track on the DII level is completely different for public and private institutions.

Quiz bowls and debate comps are way more cost efficient than tracks and athletic admin salaries..so, in fact, the schools are loosing money with track coupons. No private or public DII level athletic department made a profit in the latest 2013 ncaa fiscal report data. Let's say you bring in 25k from 50 athletes, it easily cost you 400k plus to get 50 students to and from meets, meals, uniforms, coaching salaries, and that's not including the cost of a track, stadium, athletic buildings, athletic admin costs, recruiting costs, sports info, electricity in your office, your continuing education cost, grad assistant cost blah blah blah. So after you take out the cost of being an athlete and the school deducts the cost of being a student...no profit is left. General students cost relatively less than track students, they don't require all the extras.

So you think every DII track team is fully funded, has a budget that allows them to travel every athletes, every weekend? You think most DII programs have more than one full-time coach (usually the head coach, paid peanuts)? Maybe a couple of part-time (I mean part-time pay for full-time work) and maybe one (if a school is lucky) to have a GA can account for a small amount of salary (but no benefits!). Traveling on broken down, school owned vans and eating pizza and oranges doesn't cost much. Really, what do you know about the average DII program? If schools weren't making money on tuition/fees and filling beds/desks, they wouldn't even sponsor a Track program.

Check out the accounting for non-scholarship football (Pioneer League). And, no, that is not comparing apples and oranges. It's the same theory, same money equation.

So exactly which D2 track team(s) are going to increase enrollment and school profits by recruiting and retaining students with pizza and oranges? which ever ones you think they are, you can look them up on department of education website and see how much they are spending on pizza and oranges. The private DII schools I'm aware of spend about what schools in the pioneer league spend. For all the money that is spent on track, schools could spend a fraction of the cost recruiting and retaining a regular student.

As for pioneer league accounting, (I think they are D1 no?), here are a pioneer schools stats (all available for download on department of educations website): Butler University:

General student population was 3864.

In 2012 they reported 71 men's track participants and 79 women's. They reported 1 full time head coach, at least 1 full time assistant, and at least 2 part time or volunteer coaches. Average women's team head coach salary was 55k, men was 250k (I would assume track makes closer to the salary of women's team head coach). avg for assistant is 28k & 17k.

Track Game day Operating expenses, excluding salary and a number of other costs, were: $188,144 ....I guess all those oranges and pizzas added up.

For all sports, 375 total participants, the school spent 4.6 million on scholarships, 2.5 on game day operating expenses, plus other expenses for a grand total of 18.7 million

375 x $32,000 ( full tuition & fees price at butler) would be 12 million. So... athletic expenses totaled 6 million more than what full tuition from all 375 athletes would bring.

ESPN has never covered or even mentioned a D-2 school in any sport.

Butler's D1 and they made heavy profits from basketball, I would assume.

Then I assume they spent those profits covering basketball expenses http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails.aspx?756e697469643d31353031363326796561723d323031322673656172636843726974657269613d33313364343237353734366336353732323037353665363937363635373237333639373437393236373236343734336433373266333233303266333233303331333432303336336133353332336133323330323035303464267264743d372f32302f3230313420363a35323a323020504d

I am the Coach at a d2 school. Do decently well (50k). Assistants total salaries equal 30k.

I have 95 student athletes on the roster and the school costs $47,000 per year. Average academic, need and athletic

scholarships for my athletes (not including loans because loans pay the school) is $30,000.

My operating budget is $100,000 for the year.

So my athletes pay approximately 1,615,000 in tuition dollars and my program including salaries costs the school $180,000.

I should be getting paid more.

And before you say that I did not include scholarship in my costs I did. The total discount rate for the school was $30,000 meaning each kid was still paying an average of $17,000 to attend. $17,000x 95 = 1,615,000.

You did not include facility cost, van maintenance, track & training equipment, admin salaries etc that will put you well over 180. What is the cost of tuition and fees? The school is not getting back money from book costs, food, and in many cases room/board money- somebody has to eat those costs they are not profit.

You are overestimating the cost of overhead. And who cares what the ancillary cost like fees, book and room and board are, that just clouds the water because those expenses only add to the benefit of athletic recruitment because the student pays for those.

You can't really win and argument that track loses money at a small school, unless your team size is very small, and then you should lose your job. The only student better than a track athlete is a full tuition paying student.

On the other side, you full tuition football and basketball athlete loses money hand over fist. The whole argument that the DI football player makes money for the school is bogus, because it doesn't matter who is in the uniform, the athletic department will still make money.

your situation is probably better than most. most schools make more money because coaches are paid less, budgets are smaller etc...

for example

here is one current situation i know of

HC-32000

2 part time assistant totaling 16,000

budget for men and women cross and track is around 70,000

no track or facility cost.

do not pay for books

$7 bucks a meal on travel very few overnights in CC

school cost 32,000

average athletic scholarship is close to 4000 with 45-50 kids and no one is on a full ride.

3.5 scholarships for women and 3.2 for men (national max is 12.6)

Largest scholarship is 10,000

average cost each kid pays is around 10,000

This program would not exists if it did not pay for itself and then some

your an idiot, ESPN has mentioned multiple schools from D2, for example many major D1 programs play D2 schools prior to the start of their seasons.

Because you can't use cost of attendance (which includes ancillary costs) when estimating how much students pay the school. There is only one for profit school in the NCAA, Academy of Arts and sports are not their cash cow, online courses that have low overhead are. Let me know when university of Phoenix adds a track team.

C- wrote:

You can't really win and argument that track loses money at a small school, unless your team size is very small, and then you should lose your job. The only student better than a track athlete is a full tuition paying student.

Track absolutely loses money. It is a non-revenue sport, therefore any costs for coaches, facilities, travel, etc. are spent without any return. There may be endowed programs out there, but these endowments typically cover a prominent coaching positions, not assistant positions or other overhead costs.

Students who run track would be replaced by students who don't run track. Simple as that. The number of schools with 100% applied/admitted/attended ratios is zero. There are always students willing to attend and pay tution without sucking up resources earmarked for athletics.

You are 100% incorrect. Many schools are suffering from enrollment declines currently and are struggling to meet enrollment goals. Non revenue sports such as track and field and swimming and diving are very valuable because many students will walk on and all will pay towards their education. At small schools

A revenue sport such as basketball would lose money as attendance and concessions do no remotely support the cost of running the programs.

At many schools the non revenue sports are the revenue sports. Tuition dollars. Virtually all room and board costs are profit for schools.

Year har har wrote:

You are 100% incorrect. Many schools are suffering from enrollment declines currently and are struggling to meet enrollment goals. Non revenue sports such as track and field and swimming and diving are very valuable because many students will walk on and all will pay towards their education. At small schools

A revenue sport such as basketball would lose money as attendance and concessions do no remotely support the cost of running the programs.

At many schools the non revenue sports are the revenue sports. Tuition dollars. Virtually all room and board costs are profit for schools.

I understand that sports are used to attract students, especially at the DII and DIII level. It's like having a brand new fitness center or a top-of-the-range dining hall. It's all part of marketing.

However, I find it hard to believe that if the track team suddenly went belly up, the enrollment at the school would be exactly 50 students less. It would actually be very easy to chart this decline with the recent axing of many cross country and track programs. But I bet if you looked at the actual numbers you wouldn't find any difference. A school that didn't have a track team wouldn't be on my list, but for the other 250 kids in my high school class who went to college and didn't run track, it would still be an option.

I will concede that the school might still earn money on each track student, even after all of the expenses (travel, coaching, equipment, etc.) are factored in. (It would be interesting to see how capital costs such as a track facility would affect this.) This would be on a case-by-case basis.