One of the many reasons cross country is more economical than football...

I love cross country much more that football and at the high school level it is far more economical than football when you consider cost of stadiums, uniforms/equipment, and the fact that only two teams can vs one another. Unfortunately, and it pains me to say it, I think that once you get to college and pro level the cost of running a football program while much higher than XC is made up for by the huge amount of wealth that a football program brings in. Cross country generates almost no wealth except to nike and even they make more from football. This is of course assuming that the foot ball team is good. It would be interesting to look at the country as whole and see which college foot ball teams operate in the red and by how much because they would be your only hope for arguing that foot ball costs more.

The NCAA put out a report a couple years back. Only something like 20% of college football programs MAKE money, as in, profit. Many might bring a lot of money in, leading to a bigger budget, but will still spend more than they bring in. The vast majority of programs, especially those in DI-AA, DII, and DIII do not make money...they drain it.

Touche good sir i did not know that, interesting.

mighty porn stache wrote:

The NCAA put out a report a couple years back. Only something like 20% of college football programs MAKE money, as in, profit. Many might bring a lot of money in, leading to a bigger budget, but will still spend more than they bring in. The vast majority of programs, especially those in DI-AA, DII, and DIII do not make money...they drain it.