New Mexico athletics in dire financial straits. All programs are vulnerable.
New Mexico athletics in dire financial straits. All programs are vulnerable.
This seems to be happening at a good amount of schools lately. I know eastern michigan and eastern kentucky just had the same thing happen to them but luckily their running programs weren't cut. What's causing these schools to go over budget so much to where they have to cut muiltple academic and athletic programs?
Man, this could be a major blow to 22 year old runners in the UK.
I see what you did there, that's a good one.
"At this point, we owe it to everyone to look at everything from basketball to football to baseball," said athletics director Eddie Nunez, adding that everyone from students to faculty will have a say in how the university proceeds.
Those would be the most expensive sports, the ones that caused most of the debt, and the very ones that are untouchable.
I'm sure they'll go over the weak ones where savings are minimal, but will they dare to hit cross country and track, despite their (inter-)national championships? I think so but it would be a shame.
Franklingirl wrote:
Man, this could be a major blow to 22 year old runners in the UK.
excellent
I believe the public has no understanding of the basic economics of college football. The media dwells on the big TV revenue dollars flying around, but they don't see the annual operating expenses or the massive capital spending programs.
I'd love to see a massive rollback of athletics in higher ed. Roll it back to true amateurism. XC, track and tennis are the models. Typically true student athletes. Minimal expenses, minimal to zero revenue.
Right now at so many schools the tail (athletics) is waggin the dog (the academic institution)
Lastly, academic institutions in general are a black hole for money. It's never enough. Why do students need such over the top nice facilities?
Potential transfers everywhere are concerned....
How are Tennis and track the models of amateurism?
Division I Tennis is probably the most foreign dominant sport in the NCAA, and those guys are all on scholarships and a lot are not that interested in education beyond eligibility.
New Mexico is a great program. It will be interesting to follow how this plays out. Just based on the rosters football and baseball by far benefit the most New Mexicans, but they are also two of the least competitive programs athletically and are probably #1 and #2 or #1 and #3 in terms of over all expense by team.
For the record I view out of state and international recruiting as one and the same; neither bothers one bit me but I can also see why some people get frustrated with state schools carrying foreign and out of state rosters.
John Utah wrote:
I believe the public has no understanding of the basic economics of college football. The media dwells on the big TV revenue dollars flying around, but they don't see the annual operating expenses or the massive capital spending programs.
I'd love to see a massive rollback of athletics in higher ed. Roll it back to true amateurism. XC, track and tennis are the models. Typically true student athletes. Minimal expenses, minimal to zero revenue.
Right now at so many schools the tail (athletics) is waggin the dog (the academic institution)
Lastly, academic institutions in general are a black hole for money. It's never enough. Why do students need such over the top nice facilities?
Other than being cheap from a scholarship perspective, track and field is a money pit. Huge number of athletes travelling, expensive facilities (if they have a dedicated indoor facility), etc. I'm all for the amateur side of the NCAA, though. The best approach to that is to eliminate the ageist policies employed by the NFL and NBA that turn the NCAA into a risk-free farm system for their sports.
As far as UNM is concerned, all of those people arguing on the boards that the tax payers weren't footing the bill for their barrage of foreign athletes were incorrect after all and need to go eat some crow. Importing athletes is expensive.
Kinda serves them
Right for buying championships with foreign talents. The bill is due lobos.
Anyone have any idea what the % is of student fees goes to fund athletics?
I know that at least two states have passed laws capping the % of student fees that can be used to fund athletics
Sliding Scale wrote:
How are Tennis and track the models of amateurism?
Division I Tennis is probably the most foreign dominant sport in the NCAA, and those guys are all on scholarships and a lot are not that interested in education beyond eligibility.
New Mexico is a great program. It will be interesting to follow how this plays out. Just based on the rosters football and baseball by far benefit the most New Mexicans, but they are also two of the least competitive programs athletically and are probably #1 and #2 or #1 and #3 in terms of over all expense by team.
For the record I view out of state and international recruiting as one and the same; neither bothers one bit me but I can also see why some people get frustrated with state schools carrying foreign and out of state rosters.
TENNIS: Yes, I'm 100% for cutting foreign athletes out of public schools. If that's done then what remains is a very inexpensive sport where very few players have any prospect of turning pro. Likewise tennis provides basically zero revenue potential for the school. Furthermore, I think it's safe to say that most tennis players are good students, similar to XC, swimming, etc. That's pretty much amateur athletics. What am I missing?
joedirt wrote:
John Utah wrote:
I believe the public has no understanding of the basic economics of college football. The media dwells on the big TV revenue dollars flying around, but they don't see the annual operating expenses or the massive capital spending programs.
I'd love to see a massive rollback of athletics in higher ed. Roll it back to true amateurism. XC, track and tennis are the models. Typically true student athletes. Minimal expenses, minimal to zero revenue.
Right now at so many schools the tail (athletics) is waggin the dog (the academic institution)
Lastly, academic institutions in general are a black hole for money. It's never enough. Why do students need such over the top nice facilities?
Other than being cheap from a scholarship perspective, track and field is a money pit. Huge number of athletes travelling, expensive facilities (if they have a dedicated indoor facility), etc. I'm all for the amateur side of the NCAA, though. The best approach to that is to eliminate the ageist policies employed by the NFL and NBA that turn the NCAA into a risk-free farm system for their sports.
As far as UNM is concerned, all of those people arguing on the boards that the tax payers weren't footing the bill for their barrage of foreign athletes were incorrect after all and need to go eat some crow. Importing athletes is expensive.
If track and field is a money pit, then how does basically every high school in the country make it work? If the answer relates to building expensive indoor facilities I would say not to build them. Problem solved.
John Utah wrote:
Lastly, academic institutions in general are a black hole for money. It's never enough. Why do students need such over the top nice facilities?
This is my biggest issue and one of the reasons why I have zero interest in donating money to my school. Instead of gradually updating and renovating buildings, it's constant "new, new new" and the old buildings fall 30-40+ years in disrepair.
IMHO, schools need to start actually having a budget - Spend only what comes in and alumni donations go to helping students, not building buildings and rec centers, etc.
IllinoisPhotographer wrote:
John Utah wrote:
Lastly, academic institutions in general are a black hole for money. It's never enough. Why do students need such over the top nice facilities?
This is my biggest issue and one of the reasons why I have zero interest in donating money to my school. Instead of gradually updating and renovating buildings, it's constant "new, new new" and the old buildings fall 30-40+ years in disrepair.
IMHO, schools need to start actually having a budget - Spend only what comes in and alumni donations go to helping students, not building buildings and rec centers, etc.
I agree 100%
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
Anyone have any idea what the % is of student fees goes to fund athletics?
I know that at least two states have passed laws capping the % of student fees that can be used to fund athletics
UNM students are pumping $4 million a year into athletics through fees right now.
NOT Becca Lobo wrote:
UNM students are pumping $4 million a year into athletics through fees right now.
Thanks!
Was able to find the actual 2017-2018 budget. Only 11% of your student fees go directly towards athletics (supposedly). The largest chunk goes to...Debt services. Wonder if that includes any athletic buildings/complexes/etc
https://bursar.unm.edu/documents/StudentFees2017-18.pdfThe NCAA did a study of FBS institutions in 2013. Only about 20 out of 123 FBS programs generate more revenue than they cost. Across institutions football was the most profitable sport (56% of FBS football programs turn a profit), men's basketball was next (about 50% generate a profit), all other sports lost money. Men's sports were mostly profitable (a little over half of D1 men's programs turn a profit), women's sports were money pits. Only a handful of track and field programs in the country are revenue neutral at best. Most are money pits. Among schools with football, the schools would have to spend $1.48 for every $1.00 in revenue. Among schools without football, the schools would have to spend $4.77 for every $1.00 in revenue. The cost per athlete is also much higher at schools without football ($45,000 per athlete) than those with football ($36,000 per athlete).
Track and Field is one of the worst offenders. Median revenue generated by a combined men's and women's XC and track program is $129k per year, against median expenses of $2.085 million, the median combined loss is $1.219 million (I am a little curious as to why the numbers don't add up. It is likely they are including indirect revenues against the expenses before they calculate the loss). Regardless, it is a money pit.
Link to the study: