|
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 17, 2015 12:15:45 GMT -6
I think it's time for the NCAA to adopt Women's Football. That should bring a few Men's programs back to life. That or they could alter Title IX so that schools with football teams don't have to either significantly cut their men's scholarships or create a bunch of women's programs to make up for one team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 17, 2015 12:25:52 GMT -6
But the reality is that football at most institutions is a revenue generating sport that makes the money that subsidizes the rest of the programs. Investment needs to be made in that sport in order to keep it competitive with other football programs and generating revenue and supporting the women's sports. You can't have it both ways. You can't cut money from football to give to other sports and expect it to remain competitive and bringing in the needed revenue to support the other sports. How many FCS football teams do you think make a profit? I would guess only a few. Football is an incredibly expensive sport to field and I would guess it is usually a loss until you get towards the top of Division 1. |
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 17, 2015 12:50:04 GMT -6
But the reality is that football at most institutions is a revenue generating sport that makes the money that subsidizes the rest of the programs. Investment needs to be made in that sport in order to keep it competitive with other football programs and generating revenue and supporting the women's sports. You can't have it both ways. You can't cut money from football to give to other sports and expect it to remain competitive and bringing in the needed revenue to support the other sports. How many FCS football teams do you think make a profit? I would guess only a few. Football is an incredibly expensive sport to field and I would guess it is usually a loss until you get towards the top of Division 1. Actually, not very many to few FCS football programs turn a profit, at best they are revenue neutral to a loss. Get rid of the football program and see what kind of an effect it has on the rest of the university. Campus life in the fall would be much, much different. How will overall donations go for the rest of the athletic department? How will donations to the university in general go? What would the public perception of the university be? A good football program can be a rallying point for an entire university. Get rid of it and you might "save" money by not having a program that loses some money but your donations would dry up as well. Timely topic since we were discussing in the office the other day how important is college basketball, really? We easily knocked off the last few football national champions but couldn't remember who won the NCAA Bball tournament last year, couldn't name who was in the game, or even who was in the Final Four. Look at the dollars, look at conference realignment, football drives the bus in all these discussions. City colleges and private universities can not field football programs or de-emphasize them and get away with it but state universities cannot get by with doing something like that. UNO, Wichita State, Creighton, and Drake are different than USD, SDSU, NDSU, UND, Iowa, Nebraska, Iowa State, Minnesota, etc. Support for this university (or others like it) would crater if football was cut. Personally, I would have nothing to do with USD and would avoid admitting I ever went here. |
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 17, 2015 12:55:03 GMT -6
Actually, thinking about this, why do FCS schools take the big "payday" games? Because the money from those games goes to pay for the non-revenue sports. It is money the AD needs in order to balance the books. Accounting can be tricked out to make it say whatever you want it to say so I don't really put a lot of trust in the financials. I'd venture to guess that at most FCS schools and above football does generate revenue that supports the rest of the AD, otherwise you wouldn't saddle yourself with a loss just so to make a few bucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by yote14 on Mar 17, 2015 14:46:03 GMT -6
The Oregon football payday this year is more money than all of the women sports revenues added up for the past 5 seasons. maybe more. I get football costs more to field a team but without football most schools would have a zero following in sports unless they are a national contender in basketball year after year.
Title IX is horrible and ruining college sports at a lot of schools.
Also, supporters of college players getting paid need to look deeper into the numbers when they claim universities make millions from players who do not get anything in return......like a free education that costs others 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars. How many schools at all levels turn a profit each year in their athletic department. 30 or 40. It's not very many. and now we want to force universities who are losing money every single year to pay athletes. Another great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 17, 2015 15:35:34 GMT -6
Yote14, don't let them fool you, those Power 5 conference schools aren't losing any money. It's all great accounting tricks used to hide their non-profit status. When the next round of TV contraccts are negotiated for the Big Ten in a year or so it is projected the annual TV money per school will be between $40-50 million. That's alot of money and that is just TV money, now add in ticket revenue, licensing fees, etc, etc. Yet these schools still collect PSL's (personal seat licenses), booster club memberships, and the like. And then the AD's try to spin it how their budgets are so tight. Yeah, I'll listen to Herbster all day long about USD's budget and believe every word he is saying, but Gary Barta at Iowa? No way. In fact I think he is incompetent and should be fired. With the kind of money flowing through these Power 5 schools there is no reason to cut a single sport, in fact, they should be able to afford more sports offerings. No reason for any Big Ten school to still be without soccer, baseball, or hockey programs, both men's and women's. Not with the kind of money those athletic departments have flowing through them.
|
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 653
|
Post by jackjd on Mar 17, 2015 18:28:39 GMT -6
Most colleges lose money on football (latest casualty is UAB). As a poster noted in this thread, its costs a lot to run a football program. Most colleges would be happy to break even every year but that's a challenge. Sure, there are programs that rake in the dough (a few years ago I read the stats on U of Texas sales of athletic gear, most of which was driven by the football team's success: UT made more on athletic apparel licensing than the entire athletic budgets of many schools. The number I recall was more than $13 million). The program that generally supports the rest of the athletic department is men's basketball. Some schools can make money with men's hockey but that's an expensive program too. I agree with comments made linking a football program with support for the university in general. For example, officials at SD Mines will tell you that when the football team makes a headline, alums notice and its easier to raise money. Here's an interesting discussion on the topic of whether college football really supports the rest of the athletic dept.: www.ethosreview.org/intellectual-spaces/is-college-football-profitable/Here's another article with some good statistics including support for the proposition that only eight public universities in the years 2005 through 2009 broke even or had net operating revenue. Eight. That's pretty dismal. Here's the link: www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspxMost articles on the topic overlook something that is obviously important: the entertainment value of college sports. I don't know how to put a value on that but I think it is very important. Some say Title IX is a bad law. I've probably thought that at times. But, I come from a family of all boys. I have only sons. I wonder what I would think if I had all daughters and they were denied some of the opportunities boys routinely have. I think that wouldn't sit well with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 18, 2015 8:14:08 GMT -6
Nobody is saying women should be denied opportunities. Would you agree that in this day and age there are sufficient opportunities for women to pursue collegiate athletics and earn a college scholarship? I would say there is opportunity. Keep the women's programs the way they are right now. The problem is there is demand for opportunities in college by men in sports like wrestling, soccer, hockey, gymnastics, swimming, but there are limited opportunities due to cuts or limits being put on those programs. Why? Because then a women's program would need to be created to offset the men's program. A women's program there really isn't a demand for, it's just created to keep the numbers "equal".
|
|
|
|
Post by yote14 on Mar 18, 2015 10:45:15 GMT -6
Good stuff jackjd. I've seen similar articles about the small number of colleges turning profits not only in football but overall within the athletic department and it had a similar number of schools at around 10 with Texas #1.
I agree Yote53 the top of the power 5 schools can trick the numbers a little and do make money. Not many. But at the end of the day 95% of schools do not make money from their athletics programs as a whole and individually. Especially at the FCS level. And if the numbers where being maniplulated that much then we need to get on our lawmakers who are giving large subsidies to almost every college to fund these programs if they are making so much money.
Title IX was good in theory but after years of it stripping opportunities instead of creating them I do feel like we need to rethink it a bit. Working towards equality is a must but ask USD baseball, Mens tennis, Mens soccer etc if they feel equal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 18, 2015 11:02:10 GMT -6
It's more than just the top of the top programs that make money. If you are in a Power 5 conference you make money on football, look at the TV contracts. If you don't then the AD is an idiot or your just cooking the books. Your athletic department overall won't make money. By definition they can't since they are supposed to be non-profit entities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 18, 2015 12:03:14 GMT -6
It's more than just the top of the top programs that make money. If you are in a Power 5 conference you make money on football, look at the TV contracts. If you don't then the AD is an idiot or your just cooking the books. Your athletic department overall won't make money. By definition they can't since they are supposed to be non-profit entities. I agree that those Power 5 schools with massive TV deals are absolutely making money, but that's just the upper echelon of collegiate athletics. I'm not sure there is even a handful of schools outside of that actually profiting off of their athletic department. I hear about all this money made off of Division 1 athletes like it is a fact when the majority of D1 schools are taking losses. Athletics are a great marketing tool for schools, but they are very rarely a source of income. |
|
|
|
Post by yote14 on Mar 18, 2015 14:45:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Mar 18, 2015 17:31:49 GMT -6
Wow this topic is out doing all the basketball topics even during the Summit Tourney. That is pretty crazy that wrestling draws more posts than a sport that USD actually sponcers.
|
|
|
|
Post by yoteforever on Mar 19, 2015 16:32:55 GMT -6
But the reality is that football at most institutions is a revenue generating sport that makes the money that subsidizes the rest of the programs. Investment needs to be made in that sport in order to keep it competitive with other football programs and generating revenue |
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Apr 8, 2015 16:56:55 GMT -6
|
|
