Only a dozen or so universities in the entire nation make money on their sports teams, even when including indirect funding sources like alumni donations. Universities are paying their coaches so much in the hope of winning the lottery of becoming one of those handful of schools that make money from sports. The other thousands of American universities would be much better off if they dropped intercollegiate athletics. It’s a huge money sink, only a very small percentage of their enrolled students participate, and few athletes obtain an education in the process.

John Bagley, at 1:15 pm EST on March 13, 2006

John Bagley is absolutely correct — available evidence shows that almost all colleges and universities lose mony on sports teams. More importantly, money spent on intercollegiate sports diminishes the amount that could be spent on education. “College football is to higher education as bullfighting is to agriculture".

bob, at 1:51 pm EST on March 13, 2006

Bart J.—

Your link on Toma provides no data to disprove the widely verified assertion that few schools make money on sports. you’ll have to dig out your copy of _Football U._ and provide some quotations and Toma’s sources of supporting evidence.

NCAA president Myles Brand is quoted as saying that “only about a dozen athletics departments earn a profit” in a December 19, 2005 _NCAA News_ article by Greg Johnson that you can find easily with Google. One would assume that the president of the NCAA would have some knowledge of this issue. Other _NCAA News_ articles also confirm that most programs lose money.

Thane Doss, at 7:15 pm EST on March 13, 2006

Sorry, Bart—

I didn’t know you were playing a game yourself, and assumed that the link you provided was supposed to lead to some sort of support for your implicit assertion that sports make money for colleges, as opposed to losing it. My mistake for thinking you understood the concept of burden of proof. Unfortunately, you’ve still provided no data to support your own assertions, so we will score them as pointless.

Yes, Mr. Toma is indeed described as an associate professor of higher education with a UGA email address at the web link you’ve provided, and it lists some of his work, but there’s not a word about profit or loss by college sports programs at that site. Were I to assert that David Baltimore is president of Caltech and to provide a link that shows this, would you then consider the case that college athletics lose money to be proven beyond a doubt? It would be as direct and to the point as your own “argument,” after all. What the heck is it that you wish to say Toma says, and specifically where does he say it? Until you can come to recongnize that stating your points and supporting them are essential parts of academic argument, you should be repeatedly failing freshman composition.

I do see that you were able to use Google to find the article I referenced, and presumably in the process, you saw a large number of others listed that also demonstrate that sports are a money loser for nearly all athletic departments involved. You don’t seem to have referenced them, though.

Sorry if it disappoints you that I refuse to follow your red herring list of questions, but in the face of documentation opposing your stance, you have provided no evidence whatsoever at this point. If you simply believe you need no substantiation, it’s pointless to argue with you.

Thane Doss, at 8:45 am EST on March 14, 2006

Collegiate sports — lose money?

A quick check for the “facts” about collegiate sports revenues led me to the following. Certainly more time would yield better results, but these at least provide some relatively reliable comments from people who should know.

“Most intercollegiate athletics programs lose money. Outgoing NCAA president Cedric Dempsey recently reported that the shortfall between expenses and income across 970 NCAA schools now exceeds $1 billion annually. This creates a demand for longer seasons and more bowl games, and puts incredible pressure on coaches and players to win at all costs. Meanwhile, the escalating cost of coaches’ salaries in the top sports and the construction of expensive new facilities often require subsidizing athletics programs from universities’ academic budgets.” — John Hennessy, President of Stanford University http://www.stanfordalumni.org/new.../2003/janfeb/upfront/presidents.html

“Faced with prospects of an athletics program deficit that could reach $47 million by 2010, a University of Virginia task force recommends creating formal ‘tiers’ for the University’s 24 varsity sports to bolster the University’s strongest programs and reduce support for some lower-profile sports.” “According to an NCAA report, only 46 percent of Division I-A schools nationwide reported budgetary surpluses in 1999, and 54 percent reported a deficit. The ranks of those in the red included the University of North Carolina and the University of Michigan, among the most successful athletics programs in the country.” U. Virginia Athletics Department report, April 2001 http://virginiasports.collegesports.com/genrel/040601aaa.html

“The study also reveals that expenses are increasing at a greater pace than revenues for most leagues. In 2002, only four conferences (Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, Mountain West) reported average revenues greater than expenses, and only three (Big 12, Big Ten, SEC) reported average net profits of more than $1 million. Only the SEC schools have reported profits in each of the 10 years of the study. SEC revenues over expenses have ranged from a low of about $1 million in 1998 to almost $6 million in 2002. “On the flip side, five leagues (Big East, Conference USA, MAC, WAC, Sun Belt) have reported a net deficit in all 10 years of the study and the Mountain West has reported expenses over revenues in nine of the 10 years.” (NCAA News, April 2004)http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!u...ws/2004/20040412/active/4108n02.html

Martin, at 5:40 pm EST on March 14, 2006

Re: More facts

Bart –

You are still playing games. Please stop.

In your message you challenged the author of the previous post to “name names, show calculations, and cite experts.” I took a few minutes to do a quick search and found some articles that came pretty close to what you wanted. Names – the president of Stanford U.; calculations – millions in “net deficits;” and experts – the NCAA research staff.

Now you ask if I am “criticizing” or “advocating.” I am doing neither. This should be obvious to you. Please do not read into my message anything more than a simple attempt to provide what you asked for. I would appreciate not being criticized simply because I tried to be helpful.

You also asked if I was “happy now” with respect to colleges being non-profit. All I can say is that if my university were facing a projected deficit of $47 million in its athletics program, I would at least know why I have to bring my own whiteboard markers to class.

— Martin (who has tired of the game and will post no more responses)

Martin, at 4:50 pm EST on March 15, 2006

NCAA.org: profitability debated

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ne...ten+not+realized+-+8-29-05+NCAA+News

Well .. it appears, there is a difference of opinion about how “profitable” sports are. My, my, my.

In the end: coaches get paid more because they have a higher risk of being fired; there is no concrete evidence that spending on athletics affects spending on academics, or vice-versa; academics who bring in grants and students get more institutional support; minor sports (men’s and women’s) are being dropped due to costs; any college president whose budget has serious problems is fired; Title IX requires women’s sports be supported; no college is forced to participate in NCAA sports; and life goes on.

Bart J., at 6:10 am EST on March 16, 2006