Wednesday, June 15, 2011

If I'm reading this correctly...

...schools without football lose the least?

How can that be? Athletic directors keep telling us how important it is to keep pumping resources into that money-maker Mama Boucher calls foosball. They wouldn't be doing that if it meant wasting millions of dollars, would they?

Turns out there are only twenty-two (22) institutions that generate enough revenue to offset expenses. That's right, twenty-two. Think of all the D-I men's swim programs that have gone extinct because of "budget" issues.

The median net surplus at those 22 institutions was about $7.4 million (ranging from $211,000 to $41.9 million), compared with the median net deficit for the remaining Football Bowl Subdivision schools of about $11.3 million. That gap – almost $19 million – is significantly higher than the $15.6 million separation in 2009.

Read more here.

We've been told that sports like wrestling and men's swimming are being cut due to budget problems. Of course, football generates income and is therefore immune to cuts, right?

Could there be another reason "non-revenue" sports are being cut?

Hint: Look between Titles VIII and X...


Anonymous said...

Is it possible - and I really don't know - that other revenue - such as endowments by alumni can be tied to feelings of comraderie that are brought about through football? Not many college kids go to watch a swim meet - but many can tell you all about the football games they saw during their undergrad adventures.

Button said...

absolutely true. while not huge, there is a core of support for sports like swimming and wrestling. many students relate well to these athletes and support the sports.

i'm not advocating cutting football. i'm just tired of the way administrators attempt to brainwash john q. public into thinking it's some sort of cash cow.

they need to admit that college athletics costs more money than it brings in - always has, always will.

we know the value of athletics and i think folks are willing to take that loss, as long as the athletic departments are honest about it and allocate resources wisely and equitably.

there's no reason for a fourth string punter to be on full ride while a talented male swimmer is told he can't walk on because of a roster cap.