Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
At WORST, the effect is money-neutral, since the program takes in everything it needs to pay out. However, that ignores the associated profits that come with having fans in town to see games, the real value of national reputation, income and advertising from the Big Ten Network/other TV appearances, and assorted other benefits the school enjoys that are decidedly not money-neutral.
In fact, I can't see a single way in which Iowa would "save money" by eliminating sports. I can see dozens of ways in which they can and do capitalize on sports, though.
For a school like Iowa, who is at least break-even with its athletic programs, all of these ancillary benefits pile up purely into the profit category. I suspect that even a relatively large loss on sports still creates enough of the ancillary advantages to push the net total into a win for the school.
Now, step out of the mid-tier and into the OSUs and UTs of the world, and you're stacking money like it's your job. Thus, the haves/have-nots disparity - many schools get a tangible or ancillary benefit. Others bring in nine figures.
|
Yet many schools without football teams manage to draw students just fine. I'm not saying the system isn't working for Iowa, I'm just saying it COULD work differently just as well. And none of that even brings in the idea of paying student athletes for their time and effort at bringing the school $$$$. If all schools see is the money, then they're doing it wrong. Their priorities are out of whack, and maybe it's because they're not being financially supported by their states, but they're not a sports school, they're a university.
Also, when a budget matches up dollar to dollar like that, I flat out don't believe it. There's no way that's an accurate representation of money actually earned/spent.
Threaded Mode
