Mr. Palmer is absolutely right; I just wish I had the figures handy. And, to take it a step further, I'm not so sure there are many basketball programs that generate a profit.
But, the phrase "revenue generating" has been used much with this discussion (and in general) when referring to football programs. It is a phrase also used for high school football (as well as with college and prep basketball.) However, there is a great difference between "revenue generating" - gate receipts - and "profit" - paying all the bills and having money left over. I often question local high school administrators in the Chicago suburbs why the track is not open to the tax-paying public, when the only real reason the eight-foot high fence surrounds the track is so the local school can collect tickets for five or six home football dates during the entire year. These gate receipts are minimal when compared to how much a football program is subsidized by the tax-paying public. On a related issue, there is often talk about paying college football and basketball players (from all the revenue - and profit? - they generate, which is actually subsidized from tax exemption status, student fees, state and local bonds, a budget financed by state tax dollars, etc.) For a long time now, I thought this would be a good idea. Because if football/basketball players get paid and can maintain college eligibility for the same sport, then that would allow a college triple jumper, sprinter, hurdler, or thrower a chance to earn money in the summer on the European track circuit, or a college distance runner to pick up some cash at a U.S. road race. Show them the money: College athletes the only losers http://chicagosports.com/columnists/content/column/0,2007,177969,00.html With all that said, might the answer for college track be in separating from the NCAA? Is the NCAA (and NAIA) a monopoly and possessing too much power, as was the AAU until the Amateur Athlete Act of 1977/78 broke it up in to separate governing bodies? This might also be a consideration for high schools and state associations. Patrick Palmer wrote: > philip_ponebshek wrote: > > > << "Don't blame the women for the cutting of men's sports," she said. > > "We're > > not the ones who pay million-dollar salaries to football coaches." >> > > > Larry Morgan replied: > > >>My wife and I argue about this topic all of the time and my angle is this: > >>If > >>hundreds of college football players earn and draw in these millions of > >>dollars each year through sold out stadiums and bowl games, then there is > >>no > >>>question as to what a coaches' salary is. > > > Yep. Until a few years ago, you could have put me in the "they're > > overpaid" camp. > > > Now, I'm firmly in the "they may be 'overpaid' in some egalitarian, > > societal sense. But to many Universities, given the star structure and > > revenues in College Football, they bring in what they're paid. > > I thought I was going to stay out of this, but there seems to be a > confusion between high revenues and high profit. The last statment > above is simply not true. > > Most football programs lose money hand over fist. (I believe that > Texas is one of the half dozen or so Div I programs that make money, > which probably accounts for Phil's views.) The great majority of > programs are financed by basketball. A few years, the U. of Michigan > -- which fills its 101,000 seat stadium every game -- got in trouble > because they only made one of the lesser bowl games and lost over a > million dollars on that game alone. A lot of money is flying around, > but the balance is negative for all but a very few programs. Football > is a very expensive sport. > > I think even Phil would be surprised to compare the balance generated > by the UT basketball team by that generated by the football team. I > don't know why the football myth is so persistent -- mostly, basketball > balances athletic dept's budget. > > The only financial justification that I have ever heard that makes > sense to me is that in many states, a lot of the voters never went to > any college, and their favorable or unfavorable impression of their > state universities is based on the performance of their athletic > teams. From this favorable impression, universities hope to gain > benefit in negotiations on their budgets in the legislators. > Unfortunately this is not very amenable to quantitative analysis. > > Pat Palmer > > (I have been involved in some title IX concerns, and was thinking of > providing a summary of the recent interpretations of the three prongs, > but it is just too boring. One comment, though: the reason > universities fear running afoul of title IX has nothing to do with > "political correctness" as some have suggested, or even fear of bad PR; > it is simply that defending themselves in this situation is incredibly > expensive with lawyers, audits, etc. -- easily a million dollars in > fees and staff time.)
