And don't start with the "sports bring in so much money" crap either.
...Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011.
The median subsidy increase for those 10 programs was a little more than $160,000. Relative to these programs' budgets, that's a small amount, but the increases were part of a huge rise in the subsidies provided for major-college sports programs as a whole. Subsidies for all of Division I athletics rose by nearly $200 million compared to what they were 2011. That is the greatest year-over-year dollar increase in the subsidy total since USA TODAY Sports began collecting finance information that schools annually report to the NCAA; the first year of those data covers the schools' 2004-05 fiscal year...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/ Most college athletic departments are a net drain on the budget. Three years ago, the NCAA issued a report that found most athletic departments operate in the red. A more recent analysis by Bloomberg found the same thing: 46 of the 53 schools it looked at subsidized their sports programs. The money usually comes from sources such as student activity fees, such as that charged at Virginia Commonwealth University. Earlier this year VCU jacked up its fee by $50 to help fund the Rams basketball program.
A story last year in USA Today reported that "at least six schools—all in Virginia—charged each of their students more than $1,000 as an athletics fee for the 2008-09 school year. That ranged from 10 percent to more than 23 percent of the total tuition and mandatory-fee charges for in-state students." Yet some students never attend so much as a single basketball or football game—never mind a lacrosse match or rowing competition.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/14/stop-funding-college-sports
Myth: The money earned from college sports helps other parts of the university.
Reality: Because athletic department expenses usually exceed revenues, any money earned by college sports teams stays in the athletic department. Moreover, athletic departments admit that they have no intention of sharing their revenue; an NCAA survey reported that fewer than 1 percent of all athletic programs defined their "fiscal objective" as earning money "to support nonathletics activities of the institution."
Rather than financially help the university, most athletic programs siphon money from it: for example, the enormous maintenance costs of stadiums and other facilities-used exclusively for athletic program events and by their elite athletes-are often placed in the "Buildings-and-Grounds" line in the university-wide budget, and the multi-million dollar debt servicing on these facilities is frequently paid by regular students in the form of mandatory "fees."
To cover athletic program losses, schools must divert money from their budgets and other financial resources. Thus funds that could go to academic programs, student scholarships, faculty and staff salaries disappear into the athletic department deficit.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/hschein/www/readings/athletics/collegesports.html
DOES COLLEGE FOOTBALL MAKE SCHOOLS RICHER OR POORER?
Short answer: It enriches the powerhouses, but the larger story is mixed.
In August, the NCAA released a financial breakdown of college athletics programs from 2004 through 2010. In those years, hardly more than half of the roughly 120 teams in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the old Division 1-A, generated a profit from football. Those teams netted a median gain of $9.1 million. Among the programs stuck in the red, their median loss was $2.9 million. So for elite football schools, the game is a cash cow capable of subsidizing less remunerative sports. For the gridiron also-rans, it's just one more expense.
IS COLLEGE FOOTBALL BAD FOR ACADEMICS?
Short answer: Winning teams appear to be bad for grades, but good for graduation rates.
The results weren't pretty. When Oregon won more, men's grades dropped relative to women's. When they lost, men's grades recovered. In a survey that accompanied their grade analysis, 28% of male students reported drinking more when a team won. About 20% of women said the same. Shotgunning a celebratory postgame beer, it seems, isn't conducive with studying for an economics final.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/would-colleges-be-better-off-without-football/250691/
= new reply since forum marked as read
