How much profit does a track program bring in to a large university? You'd think they could afford more scholarship runners.
How much profit does a track program bring in to a large university? You'd think they could afford more scholarship runners.
I would be willing to bet a decent amount of money that there is not a single track program in this country that is profitable. The vast majority of athletic departments lose money overall, unless they have particularly big/successful football and/or basketball teams.
What about the tuition $$$ from the student-athletes on the team. Where does that figure?
Title 9 Full Inches wrote:
What about the tuition $$$ from the student-athletes on the team. Where does that figure?
It does not. Basically all sports except football and men's basketball (with exceptions to those too) are subsidized entities that lose money for the university. But that's ok.
Easy answer no, not close. Non-revenue or little revenue producing.
Igy
What about Penn or Drake? No football scholarships likely limits track scholarships at Drake, and Penn has no scholarship athletes. Their huge meets might offset the rest of the program costs.
I bet UW makes enough money to be comparable to a Volleyball team being counted as profitable. They host numerous college and high school meets yearly
Track profitable?
Are you kidding me?
Do the math....host a meet make a few $$$$ after expenses. Now deduct what they pay the coaches. Oh the program is now losing money and you haven't even paid for uniforms, travel expenses to meets or equipment.
One hurdle costs $200, a PV set up is close to $20000, etc
They lose buckets of money
The legendary Olympics Four make money. I don't know about the rest of the NCAA.
There are virtually zero Div I track programs that make money for the university. The only exception would be one that is in a situation like several Div II, III or NAIA schools. Those schools are filling seats that wouldn't be filled otherwise. If the team is big enough, it will offset the costs of the program. I was at a Div II school that cleared nearly $1,000,000 a year due to our track program, after you took out scholarships/salaries/budget/academic scholarships-grants/utilities/etc. We had about 100 athletes, nearly 50 were walk-ons.
Track can be very profitable at the right places, which is virtually no div-I that I am aware of.
This is an interesting topic, especially at the DI level. Obviously no college track and field program is profitable in the traditional way we think of it like football or basketball (not even Oregon). But track and field can be profitable financially depending on how you look at it.
If a school is at the maximum scholarship allotment (18 for women, 12.6 for men - 30.6 total) and only has less than 40 athletes on each roster then it is a pretty substantial loss to the university in terms of revenue (figuring an average tuition cost). But at the DI level, where most track athletes have been recruited and track/cc is one of the main reasons they chose that school, if you have a team with large rosters (50+ on each side) then the track program will start earning quite a bit of money for the SCHOOL. The problem is most school administrators have no idea this is the case at the DI level (they certainly do at smaller colleges) and most AD's don't care because that money doesn't come back to the athletic department.
Also schools get a check from the NCAA for meeting their requirements of participation. Not sure how much that is but it's a decent little chunk of change.
AD's need to promote this to their bosses. If a university has a team of over 100 track athletes and they decide to cut the program, the school will lose money because of it. I feel like college track coaches have not done a great job in promoting this. School presidents should WANT track teams with large rosters - it is an overall positive thing financially for the institution.
Possible exceptions wrote:
What about Penn or Drake? No football scholarships likely limits track scholarships at Drake, and Penn has no scholarship athletes. Their huge meets might offset the rest of the program costs.
Drake doesn't make any money off of track in any way - if anything they lose money. The Drake Relays is its own independent event - even though it happens to be held at Drake University, my impression was that they never actually "host it" or control any of it. Plus, the AD has said that they lost money hosting NCAAs and USA champs (they told the NCAA they didn't want to host anymore and Oregon stepped in. They were going to build an indoor track and warm up facilities for these events but when they saw they were losing money, they redirected those funds to a basketball facility, a profit generating sport). I don't know where the Drake Relays profit goes, but I know for sure that it doesn't create a "profit" for the track team.
BTW, football doesn't limit the number of scholarships.
If anyone is it has to be Oregon.
So they actually make money from the nike uniforms? Does the NCAA give them money for hosting? Would you consider the money from USATF for nationals and trials as income for the track team?
The best way for a team to make money would be for a super large endowment specifically for the track team. If Phil Knight gave $100,000,000 to the track team to endow them for forever, then they could turn a profit many years. That would be $5 mil in income per year. That Would turn a profit most years I think....
How did you make money? You aren't counting the students tuition as income right? That would make 0 sense.
Boston University might actually be profitable with their indoor track. Each winter they host two massive invitationals a year each with over 3000 entries at $20 per entry (you don't get a break for doing multiple events). They also host an opening meet, three all-comers meets in December, a six-team meet, an invitational that's growing in size, and a last chance meet. They make a killing.