It's a good thing no one said that.
No, you wouldn't. For instance, the IT department at virtually every company runs at a major loss. However, it provides a benefit to the entire organization that still makes it worth it.

_________________
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!

It has definitely been implied.



Yes, I would. For example, we have a product that is operating at a large loss at our company right now. It is not the product we are globally known for, but one that we offer nevertheless. This is a recent downturn in the product, and we are considering dropping it altogether. That's smart business.

EDIT: Furthermore, the IT department example you provide is a bad comparison. Any major company needs an IT department to maintain the information infrastructure of the organization. It is an organizational cost, much like plumbing or electricity. IT does not bring in any direct revenue, so it obviously does not "profit" anything for the company.

No it hasn't been. I've even provided statistics to you that are verifiable and the kind of thing you can't lie about unless you want to be fired or possibly go to jail. 99/120 schools lost money last year. Where are you getting that it's implied that every athletic department loses money?
That's because it provides no value outside of revenue. College athletics provide value above and beyond the actual cost.

_________________
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!

Apparently the same place where I supposedly suggested that all schools make money.



So even though "most" athletic departments lose money - millions of dollars, in some instances - the greater value outside of revenue is enough to maintain these money-pit programs for the university? I understand that many schools are non-profit organizations, but I highly doubt anything other than dollars keep those stadium lights on.

I don't remember anyone saying you said that either. Maybe I or someone else did. Feel free to quote it.
Yes. That's why they do it.

_________________
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, so please help me understand how the "greater value" provides money to the university to keep the athletic programs running. If the point is that the university views this loss as acceptable due to the other greater values, then I'll just have to accept that at face value.

Ok. Fair enough. I will ask you. How many universities out of 120 do you think are making money?
The value is in increased exposure. It's about creating a campus atmosphere that increases applications and provides a higher quality student body. It's about alumni relations and keeping the connection to your former students who now actually have money. I'm not even talking about the athletic department for that. The departments have events centered around football games.

It's not a coincidence that Michigan State is one of the top 100 universities in the country and Indiana State is not. Being in the Big Ten has major rewards on the academic side that they've used for decades.

_________________
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 think that Spanky's point is correct that more programs could turn a balance sheet profit. But even there, this only gets you part of the way.

Look at it this way: Ball State made about $700k from ticket sales and $1.4MM from donations last year. Their total operating expenses were $17.3MM. There is no amount of belt-tightening that could end that gap, and that's a pretty typical example, at least as far as minor FBS conference programs are concerned.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Universities as a whole? 120 out of 120 make a profit, in my opinion. Univeristy athletic departments? I honestly have no idea, but prior to our discussions I would have suggested most make some sort of profit. Even after our conversation I still feel that the majority do make money for their university. I understand the article you posted suggests that 99/120 athletic departments lose money; I just find that incredibly hard to believe.



Ok; I am finally beginning to see your point more clearly. So this is more of a "sake of the greater good" type arrangement with universities and their athletic departments?

I'm done trying to convince you. There are clear and verifiable statistics that show that most athletic departments lose money. It's not an opinion. Unless you think that universities are defrauding the government by lying then you should believe it. Public schools are required to disclose this information accurately.
That's not really my point but I'm starting to think you either don't want to or simply can't grasp the concept that schools are not solely concerned with having everything they do make them money. They aren't businesses but you seem to think they act like them.

_________________
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!

NIU will beat Army by 20 tomorrow.

_________________

That is absolutely ridiculous. Schools aren't concerned with making money in everything they do? Believe it or not, universites and colleges are businesses and need to make money to stay viable. That isn't my opinion, either; that comes from firsthand experience with working in that area in the past.

No. They aren't. They are willing to lose money as long as it provides a tangible benefit. For instance, intramural sports that are free to join.
I don't think we are talking about the same type of colleges any more.

_________________
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!

How much does that cost a university? Probably about as much as offering a choir, an art club, or any other extra-cirricular activity other than major sports. In other words, not much.

Colleges and universities are absolutely businesses. The parallels are obvious. Students are the customers, degrees are the products (just to put it as simply as possible). One could even argue that parents are the real customers, but same thing. Sure, the original purpose of an educational institution is for universal learning; a place where minds can meet. However, these typically non-profit oganizations have a profit margin that they need to maintain in order to remain open. They need it to survive.

Furthermore, these organizations have competition in the student market to get your kid's money and commitment. Colleges have recruitment officers to help "sell" the college to these students - especially student-athletes.

I'm going to try one last time Ugie. I think this should show you that:
1) Schools are willing to lose significant amounts of money on athletics.
2) Most schools don't make money.

I randomly chose Akron. Well, they are probably an average non-BCS school so it's not totally random.

They have expenses of $24,498,336.00.
23% of that is in the form of scholarships.
19% of that is in coaches salaries, and at a school like Akron they aren't paying anyone big bucks. The head football coach receives $375,000 a year with some possible bonuses adding some to that.
16% of that is in other expenses for personel, which I assume is training staff and other employees.
7% of that is facilities maintenance.
6% of that is in team travel.

I show that because I don't want to hear anything about how they are just spending lavishly. The cost of running a lot of sports is expensive.

They had operating revenue at $24,012,416.00.
6% came from ticket sales.
9% came from donations and guarantees.
4% came from NCAA revenue
4% came from institutional support(the university had to write a check to them for over a million dollars).

Now comes the part that should convince you.
67% came from student athletic fees. That's $16,199,911.00. That means that the Akron athletic department is subsidized by over 70% of the total amount they take in. They literally would run out of money on scholarships and facilities maintenance if they wanted to turn a profit.

You can choose almost any non-BCS school, and many BCS schools and see similar support coming from the university and the students.

_________________
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!

Referees, scorekeepers, people to organize and manage them, cleaning and field maintenance.
I don't think you are getting what I am saying. Obviously, they still have to worry about money coming in vs. going out. The point is that if they think it's good for the university they will often make a decision that hurts financially as long as it improves the campus experience or other benefits. That's why Akron gives so much money to the athletic department, but then again you also think they are making that up.

_________________
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 don't know how Intramurals were ran or organized at Purdue, but at (the much smaller) Bradley these programs were officiated and maintained by the students or Greek system. Often times these students were involved in a work-study program.



Millions of dollars would certainly hurt. I'll agree with you there, BRick.