|
ChipNDip posted:Nope . The figures they cited are for /all/ athletic funds and are only looking at individual years. 2014, for WVU for example, included payments to the Big East as part of our exit negotiations, we otherwise actually made money. And have very little in the way of "subsidy." Which CommieGIR referenced, though he somewhat exaggerates: atheletic fees, as % of total tuition are relatively small and they almost never go towards football programs at FBS schools (football programs, generally, are profitable if you're in the G5 -- see below) but instead pay the bills for everything else. The claim, specifically, he's talking about is the somewhat controversial claim about recruiting for non-athletes/visibility. On which the data is mixed. There is, sufficient evidence, to show that there are some benefits to athletic success, particularly for smaller schools without national namebrand. The bigger issue though, has to do with the disparities between the so-called "power 5" schools and everyone else. If you're in one of the group of five (the five strongest leagues in football, and more or less men's basketball) you're going to get something between 20-35m in T1 tv revenues and then additional if you get to sell your tier 3 rights. To put this in perspective, WVU from our media rights revenues alone, makes around 35--ish million a year. By contrast, down the road at Marshall, another D1 FBS program, their entire athletic budget is like 15-ish million, and their tv deal is something like 2-3m. The disparity gets even bigger when you look at the top 10 or so P5 programs, like Texas -- who are paid by ESPN to have an entire /network/ devoted to their sports. In that environment, where coaches are being paid millions and facilities are constantly needing to be upgraded, least you fall behind in the arms race and then not land a recruit, etc., it's easy to see why it's happening. Is there an easy solution? No. The biggest issue is cleaning up the NCAA and transforming it from a byzantine, feckless watchdog, into an organization that can effectively work to support athletes in a positive manner and keep a level playing field. But that's a much trickier, and lengthier post, than I am up for at the moment. One thing that could also help is partitioning D1 again between the Power 5 and everyone else. Though someone in TFF just got really mad at me for saying that without even reading it. So, good luck. Blut posted:That's a great article. It boggles my mind as to how all of these programs can be losing massive amounts of money, despite not paying the vast majority of their employees (the players). What state would their budgets be in if they had to pay players? Thety're not all losing "massive amounts of money" -- the chart just shows their total revenue and then if they're making money or not. But that said, new rules require them to basically pay a cost of attendance stipend -- essentially paying players -- though it's a far from perfect system, and there are already concerns about further disparities it could cause.
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Wellllllll..... No, he's talking about sports programs total -- not just football. There's a difference there. What I am saying is that football itself, as an enterprise, is generally break even or profitable, but the rest of the athletic budget isn't, and so they end up covering that. Now, the further distinction you can make, which I referenced earlier is that almost none of them, though, don't get some sort of subsidy from the academic wing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The American college system is also becoming increasingly corrupt and terrible in general. It's shifting away from "educate people to perform difficult, complex work" to "let's make as much money off of students as we possibly can." You know most universities operate in the red, yes?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
go3 posted:Universities run at a loss because just like in football there is a never ending 'arms race' for facilities and faculty They've largely always run at a loss because they're basically government agencies. They don't have to make money.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Well, for-profit ones that aren't 501(c)(3) organizations (like University of Phoenix) technically do, particularly since they can't get tax-deductible donations from alumni as a cash flow source. for-profit ones also don't have sports teams.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 03:03
|
|