...26...22...24...

...how about we just say "around two dozen"...

Around two dozen.  That's how many schools in the NCAA can say their athletic departments are in the black.  That's it.

The other bizillion?  Guess you can't honestly say there are many "revenue" sports among them, right?

Of course there's a foosball program here and a thump-thump team there that bring in more than they spend, but the reality of it is that labeling a college program as a revenue sport is just another form of b.s. that spews from a d.a. a.d.'s mouth.

Newsflash!  We don't support collegiate athletics in order to break even!  We back these programs because they're part of the learning/growing process for thousands of our young people who attend schools as true student/athletes.

Thanks to the out-of-control spending on high-profile "revenue" sports, we may be approaching the point at which this "bubble" bursts.

(via Alex & Britt)

Read Richard Vedder's The College Sports Bubble here.

Even the NCAA’s own data suggest that only 22 major programs break even or make a profit. In the second-tier athletic conferences, such as the 13-university Mid-American Conference (MAC), schools typically need $10-20 million annually to balance their athletic budget, increasingly met by student fees that can approach $1,000 a year. A survey of students at MAC member colleges directed by David Ridpath suggests that most students are unaware of the extent of the fees, and unhappy when informed of them, given their general low level of interest in collegiate sports and the increasing financial strains of attending college.

That "$10-20 million annually to balance their athletic budget" isn't because sports like swimming are spending huge amounts on Strokemakers.  It's because schools go waaaaaaaaaay into the red by overspending on jockstraps for third-string punters and paying six-figure salaries for waterboy coaches.