It's Club Soccer - Don't Complain About it

Once again, most college football programs do not earn more money than they spend especially if you factor in ALL of the costs associated with football like the value of the publicly owned land where the stadium sits, etc. What color goose is that? The facts are that women are still not treated equally in any category in this county, even though they make up more than half of our population.
 
outside! said:
Most college football programs are not "lucrative businesses". They are in fact funded by student fees, like every other college sport.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JJP said:
I can’t believe you are blaming football, which along with men’s basketball, produced the money that funds women’s scholarships, as the reason why male athletes have fewer scholarships. Without football and men’s basketball, there’s no money to fund any scholarships. You are creating a false equivalency between REVENUE EARNING scholarships and NON-REVENUE EARNING SCHOLARSHIPS. Title 9 is obviously the only reason why men’s sports outside of football and basketball have so little funding.

I don’t have an issue with women’s sports receiving football money. My opinion is, non-revenue sports should split the money equally between the boys and girls. Because the way things are done now, a lot of men’s sports, like wrestling, men’s track and field, gymnastics, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball are getting wiped out at the college level.

It’s like college men’s sports have gone to divorce court and got stuck with all the bills and child and spousal support and then we don’t even get to play or watch our own games. It sucks.
Click to expand...

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
 
LASTMAN14 said:
That explains why Alabama is partly successful. There facility is beyond most.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
JJP said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
coachrefparent said:
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.
Click to expand...
If your kids team raises money for their team does it belong to the club or team?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJP
coachrefparent said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
outside! said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most lose money? OK, I'll bite. Whats your source
 
Multi Sport said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wish I had that kind of facility in college. I remember our weight room. Pathetic.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top