Here is an interesting article by the NCAA itself. It is a couple of years old.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/08/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.html
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/08/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.html
Sons of Pitches
SILVER ELITE
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 Division I RE report.pdf
i am pretty sure someone on this forum probably has the time an inclination to read the above NCAA report, summarizing the revenues and expenses associated with college sports. 2004 - to 2014, breakdown by FBS Football, FCS football, no football, etc...
i am pretty sure someone on this forum probably has the time an inclination to read the above NCAA report, summarizing the revenues and expenses associated with college sports. 2004 - to 2014, breakdown by FBS Football, FCS football, no football, etc...
I don’t know the situation at every school, but big time DI schools make HUGE amounts of cash.
http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2017/03/from_penn_state_footballs_reve.html
Penn State football earned $75.5 million and had profit of $39.9 million. I know for a fact that big time SoCal high school football programs earn about $400k per televised game.
Sure, blame the women. Maybe the men had to go to "divorce court" since they cheated in the first place.
Great article from ESPN on 5 Myths about Title IX also agrees with Outside. Perhaps you should read it (link below):
"So what causes (men's) non-revenue sports to be dropped? King football and prince basketball. Football and hoops programs constitute 78 percent of men's sports budgets in Division I's Football Bowl Subdivision. In Division III, those sports take up just 41 percent of men's costs. Put another way, the need to spend money to stay in the big time crowds out other sports. But over the years, as Hogshead and others point out, administrators have found it more convenient to blame Title IX than football or men's basketball for cuts to non-revenue men's programs.
Schools must decide where to spend their money. And often, when they decide to cut non-revenue men's sports -- such as wrestling, swimming and tennis -- it's not so they can fund women's sports, but rather so they can pump more money into football. In 2006, Rutgers University decided to cut men's tennis, which had a budget of approximately $175,000. That same year, as The National Women's Law Center points out, Rutgers spent approximately $175,000 on hotel rooms for its football team -- for home games."
The article continues with more examples.
http://www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7729603/five-myths-title-ix
Multi Sport
DA
It's insane the amount of $$ these schools put into their facilities. I was at one on 04 and thought it was crazy but then went back again this year... it had tripled in size. What was their weight room was now their game room. I was told that it is a recruiting tool and that it was like an arms race in the ACC to see who has the best facility.
I feel like I’m living in bizzaro world. Anyone blaming men’s football or basketball for the death of the smaller men’s sports needs to take Econ and Accounting 101 because they are engaging in sophistry to justify Title 9. Men’s football and and basketball are PROFITABLE. They make EXTRA money, a portion of that extra money is allocated to non-revenue sports.
When the AD decides, I am going to spend an extra $100k on our kickass football program so we can win more games and make more money, here is what ACTUALLY happens.
1. The football budget goes up by $100k.
2. The non-revenue sports budget goes down by $100k
3. The AD has to ax a non-revenue sport.
4. Guess what? He is going to ax a men’s non-revenue sport, not a woman’s sport. Why? Because he can’t stay in compliance with Title 9 if he axes a woman’s sport.
How does ESPN Woman’s magazine interpret this? They blame football for “stealing” money from the non-revenue men’s sport and killing it.
What are the ACTUAL FACTS?
1. Football didn’t “steal” money from the non-revenue men’s sport because it’s football’s money. Football can spend their money on football instead of non-revenue sports if they want to.
2. With less money in the non-revenue sports budget, the AD has to make cuts while AT THE SAME TIME REMAINING IN COMPLIANCE with Title 9.
3. Again, Title 9 requires the bulk of money budgeted for non-revenue sports be given to the girls, and the boys get the shaft. This is fact.
To say Title 9 is not responsible for killing smaller men’s sports requires a bunch of obviously false and illogical assumptions, such as non-revenue scholarships are equivalent to football scholarships, or that football “steals” from the non-revenue sports budget when in fact just about the entire non-revenue sports budget is actually football money.
When the AD decides, I am going to spend an extra $100k on our kickass football program so we can win more games and make more money, here is what ACTUALLY happens.
1. The football budget goes up by $100k.
2. The non-revenue sports budget goes down by $100k
3. The AD has to ax a non-revenue sport.
4. Guess what? He is going to ax a men’s non-revenue sport, not a woman’s sport. Why? Because he can’t stay in compliance with Title 9 if he axes a woman’s sport.
How does ESPN Woman’s magazine interpret this? They blame football for “stealing” money from the non-revenue men’s sport and killing it.
What are the ACTUAL FACTS?
1. Football didn’t “steal” money from the non-revenue men’s sport because it’s football’s money. Football can spend their money on football instead of non-revenue sports if they want to.
2. With less money in the non-revenue sports budget, the AD has to make cuts while AT THE SAME TIME REMAINING IN COMPLIANCE with Title 9.
3. Again, Title 9 requires the bulk of money budgeted for non-revenue sports be given to the girls, and the boys get the shaft. This is fact.
To say Title 9 is not responsible for killing smaller men’s sports requires a bunch of obviously false and illogical assumptions, such as non-revenue scholarships are equivalent to football scholarships, or that football “steals” from the non-revenue sports budget when in fact just about the entire non-revenue sports budget is actually football money.
Sons of Pitches
SILVER ELITE
It would be interesting to know how these schools account for their revenue from the Pac 12 Network, or the Big Ten Network, etc.... as they all run 24/7 with replays and live sports of every kind, mens, womens, football, volleyball, soccer, cross country, track and field etc... I know the football programs claim the revenue from bowl games, and the revenue from the 3 and 4 letter networks.
coachrefparent
GOLD
Now I see the fallacy in your beliefs. The money is the school's, to do what they want, which they do. It doesn't belong to football. The school can do whatever they want within the confines of T9.
Without T9 they could do whatever they want with the money, even giving it all to women's scholarships, if they wanted to. But of course they wouldn't.
Multi Sport
DA
If your kids team raises money for their team does it belong to the club or team?
Stop. The school can’t do what they want with the money. Title 9 requires the schools to spend more on women’s sports than they otherwise would. You know this. You’re wrong on your point that schools are spending how they want to.
Not sure what your point is on school’s money vs. football money. Football generates the money and the football program has huge say over how that money is spent.
outside!
DA
Once again, most college football programs lose money, even back in the dark ages when I was in college. Our football team lost money every year, and the budget shortfall meant that non-essential programs like the student computer center had their budget cut such that there was no paper for the printers. But at least the schools that played our football team set some NCAA records.
Multi Sport
DA
Most lose money? OK, I'll bite. Whats your source
NCAA.
Multi Sport
DA
You have a new screen name?
Wish I had that kind of facility in college. I remember our weight room. Pathetic.
Sons of Pitches
SILVER ELITE
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 Division I RE report.pdf
Please look at page 37, this is a summary Revenue/Expenses for the Median Values for Division 1 FBS football schools for 2014. These are the power 5 conferences and the other 50 or so directional schools that make up all the Division 1 FBS series programs. The only two sports programs that generate a positive income are Football and Mens Basketball. All the other programs - men's and women's are sucking at the teat of the University. Men's Ice Hockey and Women's Basketball are the two biggest money losers, followed closely by Women's Ice Hockey and Women's Equestrian.
Please look at page 37, this is a summary Revenue/Expenses for the Median Values for Division 1 FBS football schools for 2014. These are the power 5 conferences and the other 50 or so directional schools that make up all the Division 1 FBS series programs. The only two sports programs that generate a positive income are Football and Mens Basketball. All the other programs - men's and women's are sucking at the teat of the University. Men's Ice Hockey and Women's Basketball are the two biggest money losers, followed closely by Women's Ice Hockey and Women's Equestrian.
Men's Ice Hockey turns a profit at a few schools that sell out big arenas, like Minnesota, but they are isolated instances.
coachrefparent
GOLD
Why would I STOP? Did you read my whole post? Why did you only post only the part that sits your foolish belief? Title 9 only applies to scholarships between men/women. Title 9 doesn't require any money from football being paid in scholarships for anyone. Of course they could spend all the money from football on the cafeteria. Are you are troll?
What college/University did you graduate from?
Did you know that in the 1960's, women were told that if they ran long distances their uteruses would fall out?
In 1972, Title IX was introduced to protect women against egregious discrimination. You seem to be suggesting we roll it back so that female athletes do not get any chance of scholarship money for sports participation in college. The men in football and hoops do deserve the lion's share, no doubt, even keeping in mind that those players actually have a chance to make lucrative careers in their sports after college. But you apparently object to any of the breadcrumbs going back to the women. You want it to all go back to the boys. But why? I am most certain that the men's non-marquee sports also make no revenue for the schools. The last women's college volleyball game I went to was packed, and so was the last women's college soccer game. That's about as well as the women can do at this point (or any athlete who doesn't play football or men's basketball). Yet you would like to take that away from the women because you wrongly believe they are disadvantaging boys' programs, and failing to see that men's football and men's basketball are, in fact, boys programs!
So once again, for your edification, this is from the Title IX informational page:"
Fact or Myth? Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports.
Myth. Title IX in no way requires schools to cut men's sports. "Nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance." (DOE) All federal courts to consider the question have agreed. Some schools have decided on their own to eliminate certain men's sports, but the law is flexible. There are many other ways to come into compliance. Some schools have cut sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, rather than controlling bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume a whopping 72% of the average Division I-A school's total men's athletic operating budget. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of cutting slightly into the $5 million football budget. But there are other options: A recent GAO study found that 72% of schools that added teams from 1992-1993 to 1999-2000 did so without discontinuing any teams.
Multi Sport
DA
You sure about that? Or is it the arena that turns a profit and the NCAA that also turns a profit from hosting the Frozen Four there. It was named by ESPN as one of the top ten venues, the only Ice Hockey arena to make the list so maybe you are correct. Still, it only seats around 10k so those ticket prices must be like going to a Lakers game.
Mariucci Arena is owned by the University. The tickets are appropriately priced since they sell out almost every game. They also get revenue from parking, concessions, team apparel sales, tv and radio broadcasts, and arena naming rights.
There is not much else to do there in the winter.