Most "popular" sports (well...football & basketball) at big universities bring in boatloads of cash. It only becomes a problem if the university doesn't have the funds to support the academic departments and diverts cash hopelessly towards sports instead. If spending a couple million on coaches generates tens of millions more revenue for academic use, I'm cool with that. The more popular the team, the more money is made on licensing, and that's where the big money lies. Upfront sales from sporting events (tickets, food, parking, etc...) is only a small fraction of it.
Only 7 universities in the US have sports programs in the black, counting sports merchandise. the vast majority suck money, land and time. Some terrifyingly so.
Well I'll be damned. Our football coach is one of the highest paid public employees in the country, I always assumed it was a huge money sink, but apparently we have the most profitable college sports in the country. Til
My concern is with their financial relationship relative to the university budget as a whole, for which the subsidy column is the important one; excess revenue doesn't make it back into the general fund very often.
Accounting in different ways, analyses have come up with numbers such as "10" or "22" financially profitable NCAA teams; still the vast minority.
If you think that women's sports cost more than a drop in the bucket compared to a Coach+Assistant Coach salary, you did not read the breakdowns in detail.
Yes! One of the most interesting things about universities, as opposed to some other entities, is how money moves between departments. The tuition needs to be distributed to appropriately pay the teachers.
While they are paying "list" price for the student's education, that often doesn't meet the costs, and another student could often fill the same seat for more revenue.
Though at the (many) schools where athletics takes a cut of every student's tuition, this means that they are paying themselves money in a weird roundabout way.
Boosters are people or organizations that donate money to a sports program, along with other things like organize fundraisers or other things to help out the local teams.
For example one of the bigger ones is Paul Bryant Jr, son of Bear Bryant of the University of Alabama. Paul Jr has given 10s of millions of dollars of his own money along with raising over $100M for the school's sports programs.
It only becomes a problem if the university doesn't have the funds to support the academic departments and diverts cash hopelessly towards sports instead.
Sports contribute to the product students are paying for. Campus landscaping doesn't make money for the school either but no one thinks that shouldn't be paid for.
There's a reason people go to a university instead of devry.
Oh thanks for the clarification. I only want to watch sports and don't want an education, so I guess universities like Ohio State, Georgia Tech or Notre Dame provide low tier education and top tier sports for someone like me! After all, with enrollment of 60k+, no one would go to a university like Ohio State for the academics...football is life!
Enough sarcasm (since you didn't understand my previous comment). If you choose a university solely for watching sports, sorry, but you're a fucking moron. The whole point of college is an education. The experience is an aspect of it, but education should be your number one priority, otherwise you're wasting money. TV and the internet exists for watching your favorite teams.
The people who care about sports should fund sports by watching them. Don't steal from every students tuition (or taxes/muni bonds) to pad the wallets of a few rich men and sustain a insolvent business.
Should every department of a university be required to maintain a profit? should the art department? The theater department? Should all these only subsist on the tuition of those who take the courses?
How about museums and libraries often maintained by universities? Should a Library show they have enough usage by all the students in order to stay open?
How about dorms-- often subsidized by the university at large; should residence fees be raised so they can cover the cost of the dorm completely?
Athletics provides an opportunity for students who might not have otherwise been able to to attend a university. It provides an intangible benefit to some of the students, just like a statue on campus would. If you disagree with how some of the money flows (to coaches and whatnot), that's fine. But to attack the concept of collegiate athletics just because you do not get a tangible benefit from it is selfish and absurd. I never took a theater class nor did I attend a play, but I don't complain that part of my tuition paid for the building of the theater.
Athletics is fundamentally different from Academics. It has no place here, historically, practically or rationally.
The argument from scholarship funds is inherently flawed because the money that now goes to athletics could easily subsidize students more likely to succeed, or simply lower tuition, and thus one of the major barriers to higher learning, for all.
Mine too, barely, but we are in the overwhelming minority.
The best explanation I have heard is, the main job of a university president is to talk rich people into giving the university ludicrous amounts of money. If he can't talk a board of rich people into giving him ludicrous amounts of money, he is not as good.
Our prez here at purdue cheated by appointing the board before they chose him, but he is an awful human who hates us all, hates free speech, and wants to fire the faculty.
It's available to be gotten, not a click away. While people might be curious it does takes a bit of effort which means it's effectively not available, given people's propensity to be lazy.
65
u/ameis314 Jul 14 '15
Why if they were already public?