04/20/24
August 24, 2010
Only 14 FBS Schools Made Money on Sports: A new NCAA report finds that only 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the previous year. Sixty-eight FBS schools turned a profit on football, while 52 lost money. No school without football made money. "Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," said the leader researcher, Dan Fulks of Transylvania University.
This, of course, will be used (again) as an argument for why football and men's hoops should be exempt from Title IX regulations.
Eyeroll in advance.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:47 PM on August 24, 2010
One of the perks of attending Central Michigan is that entrance into every sporting event, even football, is free for students. When you combine it with being located in the middle of nowhere and playing in the MAC it would be astonishing if Central turned a profit on athletics.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:52 PM on August 24, 2010
Still free at Central? Sweet. I love it.
posted by NoMich at 02:05 PM on August 24, 2010
One of the perks of attending Central Michigan is that entrance into every sporting event, even football, is free for students.
Actually, I think you just pay it as part of your tuition. I remember my school wanted to move from students paying for tickets to all students paying for tickets as part of their tuition. Those students who had no interest in attending games weren't please with the increased tuition that game with the privilege of attending games for free.
posted by bperk at 02:10 PM on August 24, 2010
He said the PTA expects parents to 'contribute' $600 per school age child and that students on any sports team (and probably similar activities like band) have to pay for the privilege.
I have a kid who just started high school. Every one of his classes has supplies parents must provide. I think parents are paying for all kinds of stuff now that used to be funded by the school district.
posted by rcade at 02:24 PM on August 24, 2010
Link to report for those who like pages and pages of numbers.
This, of course, will be used (again) as an argument for why football and men's hoops should be exempt from Title IX regulations.
I may be misreading or miscalculating, but according to report expenditures on men's v. women's athletics looks like this (median values):
Men not including football and basketball = $10.5 million
Women not including basketball = $11.9 million
Men not including football = $14.5 million
Women = $13.9 million
Men including football = $26.4 million
Looks to me like they already are exempting at least football.
posted by graymatters at 02:46 PM on August 24, 2010
I have a kid who just started high school. Every one of his classes has supplies parents must provide. I think parents are paying for all kinds of stuff now that used to be funded by the school district.
As an aside, I resent the inefficiency of this. We have to send a ream of colored paper, which costs about $12 at Staples. The school could buy the same thing wholesale and save a ton of time and money for all of us. The same goes for all the other foolishness that elementary kids have to send (tissues, pencils, and glue sticks). I'd rather give them $20 and be finished.
posted by bperk at 03:27 PM on August 24, 2010
As an aside, I resent the inefficiency of this. We have to send a ream of colored paper, which costs about $12 at Staples. The school could buy the same thing wholesale and save a ton of time and money for all of us. The same goes for all the other foolishness that elementary kids have to send (tissues, pencils, and glue sticks). I'd rather give them $20 and be finished.
Working in a school, budgets don't always work like that. You give $20 for office needs, and odds are it ends up in the great big General Fund Of Random Needs. Instead, you bring the paper, and we know we have it.
Plus, it's a way for the district to cut the budget or, in the case of private schools, work with a reduced budget due to decreased enrollment and endowment giving. And those cuts get passed on to you.
posted by jmd82 at 09:07 PM on August 24, 2010
said the leader researcher, Dan Fulks of Transylvania University.
You Septics have a Transylvania University?
I just have to get a degree from there.
posted by owlhouse at 10:17 PM on August 24, 2010
And how much money did the Psychology department bring in to the schools? Or the English department? Is the only reason to have sports to bring in money, or could it be that these are just part of the college needs like any other department. Are they counting tuition brought in by the non-athletic major who decided to come because there was a badminton team?
posted by opel70 at 08:43 AM on August 25, 2010
College departments like English and Psychology have to generate revenue also -- the money to pay the professors and run the classes has to come from somewhere.
posted by rcade at 09:33 AM on August 25, 2010
The money comes from research grants and endowments that the professors have to acquire.
posted by yzelda4045 at 11:58 AM on August 25, 2010
Well duh, they're also the only two sports with meaningful TV contracts.
As public universities throughout the country struggle with double-digit tuition increases, employee furloughs, teacher layoffs and enrollment caps, scrutiny of those institutional subsidies for athletics are increasing.
Last week this would have surprised me but over the weekend I spent time with a friend who is both a parent of school age children and a university professor (school of business). He said the PTA expects parents to 'contribute' $600 per school age child and that students on any sports team (and probably similar activities like band) have to pay for the privilege. College students will probably end up having to do the same if their sport is not a revenue generator.