I'm prepared to catch heck for this, but if this your conclusion, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with it. These "big time" schools spend the $$$ and the time/energy because it is a big-time $$$ producer for their school. They are making tons of money. How they choose to spend it, not spend it, etc. is really not important.

(Total made-up scenario is following, but you'll get my point)
Here is another way to look at it: SW Montana Technical Academy (new member of Big 12 BTW) grossed............let's say $45M last year just off of football (TV, donations, tickets, merchandising, game day sales, etc.). They then chose to pay their old coach $2M to get rid of him, their new coach $5M, and the assistants a total of $5M (old and new), they built a new wing on their indoor trainig facility for $15M, spent $3M on marketing and related fees, and had to "give" the non-money sports another $5M. That leaves a about $10M for the AD to use as "football expenses" or keep as profit. Well, flying the team around, etc., is expensive. So they only get to "keep" a couple million in the end.

That is the very definition of a big-time money making corporation, which these programs are. I'm not sure you are making as grand of a statement as it would first seem on the surface.

_________________

I think the point of this thread is that a lot of people think that universities are rolling in money. They aren't. Even Ugie seemingly still thinks that just because revenue is high for teams from 4-6 big conferences that they are all making a lot of money. They aren't and nothing indicates otherwise. Here are some updated statistics. http://www.businessinsider.com/ncaa-revenue-expense-report-2011-6 That's why most schools have to build into tuition an athletic fee to help pay for the athletic program.

As for the reason why they do it, it's about visibility, campus experience, alumni outreach, and the prestige of being in a better conference. To be honest, I'm not sure why the smaller FBS schools do it because you don't really get that. I guess it's cool to tell potential students that they can enjoy Conference USA football but I doubt it makes a big difference. That's why ultimately I think that they'll be a major split between the haves and have nots with some crossover to fill out the schedule. Most schools won't be able to afford an extra $3,000 to $5,000 a year per player for every sport.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

This is another reason why I would disagree. If you are stating that is why schools do it - then that is why the smaller schools do it: visibility, campus experience, alumni outreach. NIU has all of those due to their football program - just not the better conference.

I strongly disagree that those are the reasons why schools spend millions of $$$ each year on one sports team.

_________________

I really don't want to get into another NIU vs. Big Ten debate but do you really think that high school students are impressed when they are told that they can watch MAC football? Is NIU significantly better off than Illinois State which can't offer the same thing?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Those are different topics. Are you changing your stance now? It's not an NIU vs. Big Ten debate at all, but it's also not about ISU, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

-Is NIU more visible with their D-I football team than without it? No question.
-Is the campus experince better (in season) wit the team than without? Yes - to people who like to do that sort of thing. Bookworms would probably disagree, but this isn'tt about them.
-Is the football team a viable channel for alumni outreach? Of curse.


Where is the debate on your end, again? Again - I don;t think that's why school spend the $$ on "bigtime" football.

_________________

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaa-athletics-funding-analysis_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
99/120 universities are forced to subsidize the athletic department.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Athletic departments were never really designed to be money makers. The smallest of colleges has an athletic department that is entirely funded by general school funds because it is an accessory but necessary part of a campus. They fund it like they would fund the chess club. It makes life better for students which is the ultimate mission of the institution.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I agree with some of this, which is why I said the top 30-40 teams could turn a profit right now if they wanted to, so long as they didn't plow so much of the revenue back into the program. There's a short term/long term problem here, though, since the less you plow in, the less you'll get back in years to come (probably). Michigan takes the stance that they should accumulate the largest Scrooge McDuck vault possible. Ohio State plows it back, but they could do the same thing.

That only gets you about 2/3rds of the way through the BCS teams however. The great, great majority of the rest of the schools will never, ever turn a profit once you take out government money and student fees. I don't have a problem with that, necessarily, and I don't think it's a reason for disbanding the MAC or anything like that.

But that really wasn't the point of all this. The point was that statements like the Rick Reilly quote at the beginning of my post get repeated all the time in major publications, and they are just grossly untrue, whatever the disagreements might be at the edges. How many thousands of dollars does ESPN have to pay Reilly to get it right?

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I brought up ISU because they are a similar school that doesn't have the advantage of a prominent athletic program.
How significant is that though? I knew people who went to both ISU and NIU. Athletics just didn't seem to be big factors in the college experience and the post-college experience. Most of them rooted for UofI, or another school they had another affiliation with, or just didn't care.
Football is the #1 way of alumni outreach for Purdue. Last week, I received an invite to an alumni association tailgate sponsored at Penn State for the east coast alumni.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Thanks.

That makes two responses in a row from you that have nothing to do with your original point about visibilty, campus experience, or alumni outreach at a D-I school.



edit for next response: BTW - I get the same alumni tailgate invites for NIU games. I never realized they spent all of those millions of $$$ on me! I'm important to them!

_________________

That's shocking to me as it is considered a significant part of professional revenues.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I will almost always quote you when I'm responding to you.
You get invitations to the alumni tailgate at Toledo and Akron?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Most merchandise sales go directly to the university because they own the trademarks.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Ok. In that case, yes I agree, NIU's football team is much more visible on a national level than ISU's. I misunderstood what you were saying.


edit: I get invites to watch a freakin Cubs game in San Francisco with the NIU alumni group. I pass on those too.

_________________

Then that would be a "hidden" revenue stream that didn't show up in an AD's report, right? ('Hidden' is a bad term.)

_________________

Imagine how they will hounding your kids when their tightfisted old man finally takes a well deserved dirt nap. The Spanky School For Asexual Reproductive Studies at NIU.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Here's the article on when Michigan signed with Adidas. It's not an insignificant amount of money, but well behind tickets, donations, television revenue, etc, and that's even at Michigan. Getting the equipment itself for the team is almost as valuable as the merchandise proceeds.

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/07/um_leaves_nike_for_adidas.html

Schools own the trademarks but they just license them for the upfront $$$.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I'll never send my kids to NIU. They aren't visible enough and their athletic conference sucks.

_________________

_________________

Here's the article on when Michigan signed with Adidas. It's not an insignificant amount of money, but well behind tickets, donations, television revenue, etc, and that's even at Michigan. Getting the equipment itself for the team is almost as valuable as the merchandise proceeds.

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/07/um_leaves_nike_for_adidas.html

Schools own the trademarks but they just license them for the upfront $$$.[/quote]

Is that deal inclusive of sales? It looks to me like they are getting cash and materials equivalent to $7.5 million per year for the endorsement (placement on shirts, shoes etc.). The story doesn't address it either way. Logically, it would be insane for a school to recieve a fixed amount rather than a blended fixed rate for the endorsement (which provides the desired exposure) and percentage of sales.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

From what I can tell, there is a royalty at about 8-15%, depending on the contract. This article on a recent Alabama deal makes it sound like the contract price already takes the expected royalty into account, though I'm not completely sure.

http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/05/alabamas_nike_deal_comes_with.html

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

But that's the point; nothing shows that these select schools aren't bringing in a good chunk of change. Furthermore, "4 - 6 big conferences" make up a good number of top schools, which was my point-of-reference the entire time. Spanky and good dolphin have echoed my stance in what they have presented as well.

Regardless of whatever articles or URL's one can find on the internet, I still simply cannot buy the notion that major schools don't make a ton of cash. It simply doesn't make sense.

99/120 schools are subsidized with millions of dollars from the university and from "student athletic fees". You can't say that nothing shows it. These are public records. To be honest, I'm confused as to what your point actually is. It seems like you think that having a high amount of revenue is the same as having a high amount of profitability.
You can read the financial statements of all of the public universities that Irish Boy posted. These aren't random guesses. The financials are readily available except for private schools and even those are estimated fairly accurately.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

No, I understand that completely. What I don't understand is how - despite donations, merchandising, TV deals, etc. - school expenses outweigh the revenues.



Then how in the world do those schools justify keeping their athletics? If these schools lose so much money, how does it make any damn sense that each and every year the institution miraculously finds some way to throw teams out onto the field?

I hate to say it like this, but it's because they have a lot of expenses. Planes vs. buses, better quality food service and athletic training, and other expenses are expensive.
Exposure, alumni relations, prestige of conference affiliation, and overall campus atmosphere. Just like it's good for a university to have a strong science program it's good to have a strong athletic program. There is a reason why every Big Ten school is rated in the top 100 universities and why Nebraska will have a quick improvement on it's rating once the added benefits start to come in.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I wanted to see a post to this answer also, haven't seen one.

I seen where most women's sports, don't bring in money, I was wondering does UCONN and Tennesee women's basketball make money.

I also agree with the person that put about when talking realignment, the other sports are never talked about because football brings in most of the money, and for the smaller schools, they agree to play the big programs, because they get paid to play these games. Usually get trounced, but make about 100,000 for the game.

That figure is really, really low.

_________________

I did forget to mention guarantees from larger to smaller schools, which can sometimes be a quite substantial part of a smaller school's budget (though a relatively small part of the large school's budget).

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I don't think are stances are in agreement. I accept IB findings for the most part. I simply add that its not a suprise that an department that wasn't supposed to make money and isn't expected to make money doesn't make money.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I don't disagree. However, I also propose that the suggestion or implication that "every school athletic department loses money" is very hard to swallow.

Perhaps I am looking at this from too black and white of a perspective; that is, I'm viewing the school as a company that provides a product or service. If one of my branches or services cost me millions of dollars every year, I would obviously restructure the service or close that branch.