Ohio U. TF- The Real Story - Behind the Axe

Goofball...I was responding to some genius who said there is probably only 10 football teams in the USA that make money. I put the MAC in bold just so people could easily see where they stood.

If you want me to list 10 teams that "PROFIT" I'll give you the website to the Big Ten, ACC, SEC, PAC10, Big 12, etc...conferences and you can take your pick of any 10.

Dauby wrote:

Goofball...I was responding to some genius who said there is probably only 10 football teams in the USA that make money. I put the MAC in bold just so people could easily see where they stood.

If you want me to list 10 teams that "PROFIT" I'll give you the website to the Big Ten, ACC, SEC, PAC10, Big 12, etc...conferences and you can take your pick of any 10.

let's see it, because I doubt it will show expenditures on it. You are only seeing incoming. all those teams do not make money. BGSU ended up with an 8 million dollar debt after they made money in a "bowl game" several years ago. football steals - except for teams like Ohio State.

this might be helpful

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=20864

Dauby, I don't know you, but you're trying to make a serious thread into a personal one. Why can't you contribute positively instead of looking to pick a fight?

I don't know the actual numbers of teams that make a "profit" from football, but it is far fewer than you or the common fan thinks. For example, not one MAC team makes a profit.

When considering the tremendous amount of expenses Big Ten programs (for example) incur, I am willing to bet they don't all turn a profit. Indiana, Illinois, and Northwestern would be my first guesses. I also doubt Oregon State makes a profit. And even with Arkansas success this season, I would guess they spend more than they bring in.

Before you spout off at me again and turn this into a mud slinging thing, just consider ALL the numbers that go into a program (coaches salaries, equipment, travel, tuition/room/board, advertising, facilities to name a few). And not to mention recruiting. Millions fly out the door in a hurry.

My senior year in undergrad I did a research paper on the topic of which football teams in the NCAA profit. You definitly hit it on the head Kieser, not many at all.

mid-major XC sucks too. outside of Iona and Portland, no team is every going to compete for a title.

and if boise state can make a BCS game, why not the a MAC school. The difference between Boise State is they have the money thus avoiding games against top schools (and don't tell me getting Oregon State at home is legit) whereas the MAC has limited funds and is forced to play the Big Ten.

you are drunk.

I thought about the Boise State example. I might contend they don't have another school to compete against in Idaho for football talent. Here in Ohio (I live in the fine city of Cleveland), OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, ND, Penn State, Pitt, WVU, Indiana are all within a five hour drive. Not to mention Ohio is football crazy, which explains why players on college teams all over the country (USC, Texas, Florida, etc...) have Ohio players on their teams.

Eastern Michigan made a good run at NCAA's a few years ago, but only finished around 10th when I believe they expected to finish higher. Miami and Central have also made runs at the top ten in recent history as well (maybe falling just short). Also, it is very common to have NCAA track and field champs come from the MAC. We score All-American's every year - more than football can say.

If I had to bet, I'd say a MAC team has a better chance of winning XC or track than does a football team.

I wasn't making it personal at all. You said something along the lines that 10 or so football teams turn profits...

Notre Dame

Texas

Michigan

Ohio State

USC

Oklahoma

Florida

Wisconsin

Nebraska

Florida State

Miami

Ok...there is 10 or so off the top of my head, without looking up that I GUARANTEE make massive amounts of PROFITABLE money.

And what you are completely not considering is this...

I am a huge CC/Track fan. It is a damn shame that OU lost their program. But if all programs were based on their ability to make money or even break even, you could kiss the entire SPORT of running goodbye.

Even at the largest schools in the nation...the Ohio State, ASU's, Minnesota, Stanfords, Arkansas, etc... ALL LOSE MONEY.

If the universities were basing things off of a money making standpoint there would be Football, Men's Basketball, Women's Basketball...and MAYBE Baseball. PERIOD.

I don't agree with the cut what so ever, but don't make it seem so shocking. OU was lucky the program even began!

A club level team is a great idea. It's what people do all over Europe & the rest of the world. We in the USA are few of the lucky ones where school will pay education cost to compete.

A pay-to-play option may also work. Maybe the NCAA would allow for more loan money to be distributed.

But, get off of your soap box and trying to make this out to be me picking on you. Your statement that 10 or so college football programs make money was ridiculous. Many schools can THANK their football programs for footing the bill on competition cost.

I would guess most sports loss money... are we offering sports to make a profit?

Dauby, you embarrass ohio in all aspects of life, and im sure im not the only one who thinks this... also is you were a huge track/xc fan was you'd probably know who keiser was.

Ok, Ok

Dauby makes at least one good point (sorry Dauby - just one!)

The argument to keep a sport should not be based on the following:

- making money (most do not - we have established that)

- rankings at the national level, etc

These have little to do with why a university should maintain a well rounded sports program. Programs should not be based on revenue they supposedly generate - but they should be able to fund themselves technically - schools should not be going into major debt to maintain football teams.

national rankings are nice, but not necessary to keep a team around that offers opportunity for students to participate. If the women's track team is nationally ranked and the men are not - that is not a reason to cut the men's team. (right?)

so, the argument should always return to opportunity.

DIII never has these arguments - and they aren't drawing in money and getting large national exposure for their all-americans. what they do offer is opportunity within certain guidelines.

down with dauby wrote:

Dauby, you embarrass ohio in all aspects of life, and im sure im not the only one who thinks this... also is you were a huge track/xc fan was you'd probably know who keiser was.

By Kieser...you may be referring to a Kirtland native Fred Kieser who ran the marathon. And, you'll notice that I said I was a huge TRACK/CC fan. Last time I checked the marathon was never a big event on the Track.

I have however mentioned MANY times that I despise the marathon. Does that clear things up for you?

down with dauby wrote:

Dauby, you embarrass ohio in all aspects of life, and im sure im not the only one who thinks this... also is you were a huge track/xc fan was you'd probably know who keiser was.

this statement is simply not true, and maybe you are the only one that thinks this.

16x wrote:

down with dauby wrote:

Dauby, you embarrass ohio in all aspects of life, and im sure im not the only one who thinks this... also is you were a huge track/xc fan was you'd probably know who keiser was.

this statement is simply not true, and maybe you are the only one that thinks this.

Nope, I tend to feel that way as well.

Mr. Bob Parks:

Did Ben Reese fully retire from running? I assume he did, but not long before his fade away, he seemed serious about a comeback. He sure seemed talented. Also what happened with Mark Dailey? He seemed a can't miss pro and did well for a couple years, but fell off some when he moved from Michigan. You guys were fast but I still liked racing your team. Everyone appreciated your enthusiasm and expertise.

Thanks

There are small schools, Div II and Div III, that MAKE money. Take small budgets, few scholarships and grants, and high tutition costs mixed in with large roster sizes and you have profit without having to bring in any gate dollars. There are quite a bit of schools that don't max out enrollment and a lot of the athletes on these teams went to their specific school for that track/cc team, meaning those seats would be not filled if the sport wasn't at the school.

If some of the larger schools could take on more walk-ons you could start to hedge your expenses. In addition, many teams probably could budget their funds better. Don't give the administration any good reasons to need to cut.

For Div I and maybe Div II, the club system might be the best way to go about things.

yes, I can see where even scholarships can become a burden to a school, and teams such as basketball really limit opportunity. Perhaps basketball does not spend nearly the same amount as football, but they keep less than 20 players on a roster and very small number of walk-ons. How does this become opportunity for a student body?

The track and cc teams I were on never cut. We accomodated everyone - they could stay if they could do the work. It was nice and we were also very good because of walk-ons. I don't know what it is like today - I wouls suppose almost all teams have a good number of walk-ons in track and cc.

I see the face of collegiate sports changing - and I think cutting sports is just the volcanoe. The way we think and fund sports is nothing like the Rutgers vs Yale football teams of the past. I see track teams in the midwest travelling to Stanford and taking 6 athletes. I see non-scoring meets all the time. I see athletes "sitting out" this competition to rest for the next. I don't recognize our sport anymore. If we aren't going to score and we aren't going to run our top athletes at all meets for the purpose of scoring - then what are we doing? Is it a club now? Is the individual now greater than the team?

Maybe we should examine what we have done to our sport. Maybe this makes our sport seem strange and odd to football athletic directors who want scores and wins.

so the spell checkers, that would be volcano.

16x wrote:

down with dauby wrote:

Dauby, you embarrass ohio in all aspects of life, and im sure im not the only one who thinks this... also is you were a huge track/xc fan was you'd probably know who keiser was.

this statement is simply not true, and maybe you are the only one that thinks this.

This is correct - I don't hold anything against Ohio because of Dauby. He only embarrasses himself. Dude, don't take everything so personally.

Meanwhile, back on the topic, there are a number of really excellent arguments being made here. The one thing that a lot of administrators fall back on is the sheer mass of attention that football and men's basketball bring to a school -- exposure, public support, etc. Where would Notre Dame be without football? Just another good regional liberal arts college.