The trend is to privatize unprofitable sports.
The trend is to privatize unprofitable sports.
Of course not. Most large state schools are about 90% diploma mills with a semi-pro football team paying the tab though.
Privatized ?? In my state, the D1 schools charge large student activity fees to regular students to fund their dumb athletic ambitions !
prad6 wrote:
Of course not. Most large state schools are about 90% diploma mills with a semi-pro football team paying the tab though.
Big time college football teams don't pay the bills for anything else in the school. Even the other sports don't get much out of them.
They pay for "unprofitable" music and fine arts departments, too.
More of the taxpayers go to plays, concerts and art exhibits than watch collegiate tennis and golf matches..
As long as the taxpayer has to support the profitable sports as well, without getting any profit from it. They can support the unprofitable ones as well.
We support HS sports, so why not college?
Speed over 60 wrote:
More of the taxpayers go to plays, concerts and art exhibits than watch collegiate tennis and golf matches..
Let's see those stats that back up your claim.
Same question can and is often asked about high school sports, and with the growth of club sports, particularly soccer, many teen athletes do not, or are not permitted by their clubs to play high school sports.
Can we atleast acknowledge that when talking about football you need to actually be realistic.
Most(Likely all but like 5-10) college football programs lose money. As in all of the money that is brought in is spent on them and then more. So this idea that college football not only props up the athletic departments but even the schools themselves is just a myth.
Central Michigan University cut Men's Track & Field to save around $200k. 2 years ago the football program lost 4 million dollars in a year. They likely lost more money because they made a bowl game.
Very few football programs make money. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan(giant stadium). In this Covid year they are a drain everywhere. Canceling football for this season and all it's expenses would have been the cheaper solution. But you can't really cancel all of the expenses.
Indoor? wrote:
Can we atleast acknowledge that when talking about football you need to actually be realistic.
Most(Likely all but like 5-10) college football programs lose money. As in all of the money that is brought in is spent on them and then more. So this idea that college football not only props up the athletic departments but even the schools themselves is just a myth.
Central Michigan University cut Men's Track & Field to save around $200k. 2 years ago the football program lost 4 million dollars in a year. They likely lost more money because they made a bowl game.
Very few football programs make money. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan(giant stadium). In this Covid year they are a drain everywhere. Canceling football for this season and all it's expenses would have been the cheaper solution. But you can't really cancel all of the expenses.
Common tall tale.
post nups wrote:
Indoor? wrote:
Can we atleast acknowledge that when talking about football you need to actually be realistic.
Most(Likely all but like 5-10) college football programs lose money. As in all of the money that is brought in is spent on them and then more. So this idea that college football not only props up the athletic departments but even the schools themselves is just a myth.
Central Michigan University cut Men's Track & Field to save around $200k. 2 years ago the football program lost 4 million dollars in a year. They likely lost more money because they made a bowl game.
Very few football programs make money. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Michigan(giant stadium). In this Covid year they are a drain everywhere. Canceling football for this season and all it's expenses would have been the cheaper solution. But you can't really cancel all of the expenses.
Common tall tale.
I cant attest to the exact schools that the rule applies to, but yes, it is a fact that some big football schools revenue supports the other sports almost entirely. True here at U of M. >60% of athletic dept rev comes directly from pigskin. Its insane how much we spend on 4 mill $ coaches and gigantic budgets for Football, but I am Ok with it if it supports swimmers, trackers and the lot.
This topic keeps coming up here and the answer is always the same. Taxpayers DO NOT support collegiate sports. College sports are supported by revenue generated by athletic departments, private donations from alumni and other supporters, and student fees, most commonly called activity fees. The only way taxpayers support college athletes is in the case of a scholarship athlete attending a public school in his/her home state. In such cases about half (roughly, the percentage varies a bit from state to state) of that student's tuition is paid for by taxpayers just as the cost of all in state students is.
False.
Facilities are often, I suspect, paid for with tax$ and/or typical university income streams, tuition, mandatory fees, etc.
Perhaps the first hard question is should US taxpayers continue to fund so many foreign athletes and those countries Olympic development programs through the very generous NCAA athletic structure?
Not saying no foreign athletes but am saying limits in numbers
torygvnn wrote:
False.
Facilities are often, I suspect, paid for with tax$ and/or typical university income streams, tuition, mandatory fees, etc.
If you have data I'd like to see it. Suspecting is not knowing and only one of those revenue streams you mention are tax dollars. There may be some basic athletic facilities are funded by taxpayers, ones that are used by the entire student population and not just an athletic team. But, for example, Penn State's trustees a few days ago voted in favor of a $48 million renovation of its football training facilities. Money for that, for the Beaver Stadium renovation that they're pondering, comes from revenue the athletic department generated, not from tax dollars.
pots and pans wrote:
Perhaps the first hard question is should US taxpayers continue to fund so many foreign athletes and those countries Olympic development programs through the very generous NCAA athletic structure?
Not saying no foreign athletes but am saying limits in numbers
Again, taxpayers do not fund the presence of foreign athletes at any US school. Actually, those athletes cost the taxpayers of the state the athletes are attending less money than an in state student on an athletic scholarship does because the state pays half or so of the tuition for the latter and none for the former.
To say that almost all college football teams "lose" money is to not take into account many other sources of revenue other than ticket sales and TV deals.
1. Alumni Donations. Alumni are much, much more likely to send in a check to the school's general fund (or athletic dept) when the football (or basketball) team is prominent. When Johnny Manziel won the Heisman, Texas A&M brought in about $300 Million MORE dollars in donations than a normal year. Not the Athletic Department, the general fund. That's an extreme example, but it helps paint the picture.
2. Potential Student Marketing. Believe it or not, there are kids out there who are not 100% laser focused on getting the best possible education. They are average (or just above average) students who want the whole college experience. If you have a good enough football team (or a great one) to offer that fun, Saturday experience in the fall, then you have more kids wanting to go, more kids applying, and more kids willing to pay more for your college. All of that also elevates the perceived academic reputation (can be more selective with applicants).
The better the team, the more pronounced those effects can be, but even a mediocre team that makes a bowl game here or there can provide some benefits.
Of course, all of the real estate devoted to athletic facilities is tax exempt, denying tax revenue to the people; so others are paying more in real estate taxes to make up for what is lost to the educational institution's footprint.