Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

a convincing case for prioritizing football above all.

That would be this.

Originally Posted by 33girl

I don't want to think about the alum support my D-2 school would lose if we got rid of the football team - it would make the athletic funding situation even worse.

[Drolefille]

^^ The fact that your school's alums don't have their priorities in order doesn't mean that all school systems should fall prey to the football is king mentality. Many manage to survive without a football team, even after having one. I think your alums would get over it eventually.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

^^ The fact that your school's alums don't have their priorities in order doesn't mean that all school systems should fall prey to the football is king mentality. Many manage to survive without a football team, even after having one. I think your alums would get over it eventually.

Why should they have to "get over" anything?

I think your 'purist' stand, while commendable on some levels, really ignores a fundamental reality of the college experience for literally millions of Americans, beyond being basically impossible.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why should they have to "get over" anything?

I think your 'purist' stand, while commendable on some levels, really ignores a fundamental reality of the college experience for literally millions of Americans, beyond being basically impossible.

They shouldn't, it's simply my opinion. But similarly I'm far from sympathetic when people complain about how unfair Title IX is to men. And willing to call people who prioritize college sports over a college education - and base their donations on it - stupid.

[33girl]

Okay, for the record, all my school's alumni are not football-mad neanderthals who would spontaneously combust if the hallowed pigskin were vanquished from the campus. However, there is a semi-organized group of very involved and very generous alumni from the 1950s and 1960s, most of whom were football players. It is these fellows to whom I'm referring.

I just personally find it unfair that our men's track, cross country, tennis and golf teams had to be eliminated because there aren't enough women playing on the nine teams (3 more than the men) that were offered. That's not the men's fault.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Okay, for the record, all my school's alumni are not football-mad neanderthals who would spontaneously combust if the hallowed pigskin were vanquished from the campus. However, there is a semi-organized group of very involved and very generous alumni from the 1950s and 1960s, most of whom were football players. It is these fellows to whom I'm referring.

I'm aware of that; many schools have boosters or other groups like that. And I know I'm setting a very unrealistic expectation, but since I have no affect on the real world here, so I may as well put forth my ideal. My university had a football team, and now doesn't. I don't know what happened, when it happened, but there's still incredibly strong alumni support. Now maybe it lost that same group of people you're talking about, and maybe that group was never strong at my university, but still, it's been done although not for the reasons I suggest.

Is getting rid of football actually the solution? No, not really. Should some schools consider it? Probably.

[SWTXBelle]

Wish mine would. But no, they are going to D-1. They can't fill the current stadium, so the obvious solution is enlarge it. I keep hearing about all the money athletics brings in, but no one can quote me any numbers. If football were indeed such a great money maker I have no doubt the athletic department would be shouting it from the rooftops. Instead, supporters point to those few programs which do turn a profit, ignoring the fact that those programs have television deals that I will bet TX State will never be offered.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Wish mine would. But no, they are going to D-1. They can't fill the current stadium, so the obvious solution is enlarge it. I keep hearing about all the money athletics brings in, but no one can quote me any numbers. If football were indeed such a great money maker I have no doubt the athletic department would be shouting it from the rooftops. Instead, supporters point to those few programs which do turn a profit, ignoring the fact that those programs have television deals that I will bet TX State will never be offered.

Oh, your school's money will come from being the traveling whipping boy like my school, University of Louisiana at Monroe. We went D-1 when I was a sophomore. I think we had one to two home games a year so that the team could make money. A name change from Northeast Louisiana University to ULM wasn't far behind because it was preferred by the football system. They don't like directional names. Thank goodness we didn't have any history behind that name or anything.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Oh, your school's money will come from being the traveling whipping boy like my school, University of Louisiana at Monroe. We went D-1 when I was a sophomore. I think we had one to two home games a year so that the team could make money. A name change from Northeast Louisiana University to ULM wasn't far behind because it was preferred by the football system. They don't like directional names. Thank goodness we didn't have any history behind that name or anything.

They changed our name FIRST - and tried to convince us it wasn't because of the athletic teams. You can deduce from my screen name what I think of THAT. . .

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I keep hearing about all the money athletics brings in, but no one can quote me any numbers.

Well, for state universities, this is a matter of public record. One that I have offhand (as it's a good example) is the University of Iowa. Their 2011 fiscal year athletic budget, as reported to the Board of Regents:

Originally Posted by University of Iowa Athletics

FY 10 Estimates FY 11 Budget

INCOME:

Men’s Sports

Football $ 19,725,044 $ 19,897,100

Basketball $ 1,875,000 $ 2,301,500

Wrestling $ 4 07,068 $ 4 26,000

All Other $ 31,273 $ 30,000

Total Men’s Sports $ 22,038,385 $ 22,654,600

Women’s Sports

Basketball $ 1 33,992 $ 1 78,500

Volleyball $ 12,921 $ 10,000

All Other $ 13,000 $ 13,000

Total Women’s Sports $ 1 59,913 $ 2 01,500

Other Income

Facility Debt Service/Student Fees $ 5 00,803 $ 5 00,000

Learfield Multi Media Contract Income $ 5,085,086 $ 5,290,000

Athletic Conference $ 19,968,000 $ 22,196,000

Student Financial Aid Set Aside Reimbursement $ 5 45,200 $ 5 45,200

Interest $ 9 00,000 $ 1,000,000

Foundation Support $ 9,292,180 $ 9,228,149

Foundation Premium Seat Revenue $ 4,880,404 $ 5,180,598

Novelties–Bookstore $ 2,000,000 $ 1,768,680

General Income $ 2,150,000 $ 2,125,000

Total Other Income $ 45,321,673 $ 47,833,627

TOTAL INCOME $ 67,519,971 $ 70,689,727

EXPENSES:

Men’s Sports

Football $ 16,198,717 $ 16,143,273

Basketball $ 4,577,833 * $ 4,576,072

Wrestling $ 1,117,711 $ 1,132,858

Other Sports $ 3,809,754 $ 3,793,655

Total Men’s Sports $ 25,704,014 $ 25,645,857

Women’s Sports

Basketball $ 2,600,072 $ 2,902,480

Volleyball $ 9 06,103 $ 1,039,802

Other Sports $ 7,239,108 $ 7,378,263

Total Women’s Sports $ 10,745,284 $ 11,320,546

Other Expenses

Training Services $ 1,518,635 $ 1,594,692

Sports Information $ 6 39,127 $ 6 38,598

Admin. & General Expenses $ 9,432,561 $ 9,689,942

Facility Debt Service $ 9,467,742 $ 11,100,546

Transfer-New Facility Costs/Reserves (Kinnick) $ 7 00,000 $ 1,000,000

Academic & Counseling $ 1,565,094 $ 1,576,130

Buildings & Grounds $ 7,747,515 $ 8,123,418

Total Other Expenses $ 31,070,674 $ 33,723,325

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE $ 67,519,971 $ 70,689,727

Iowa is a little different because it accepts no general-fund money from the school and is athletically self-sufficient, but for a (probably) second-tier athletic school, the numbers are staggering, and even these are dwarfed by the likes of Texas and Florida.

Football drives the train, though, so there's good reason why a Texas State or UL-Monroe wants in on that particular action: it's absurdly profitable. That profitability opens new doors - admissions requests go up, endowment and donations increase, etc.

I can understand, on some level, why DF and others feel this is "dirty money" but there are about a dozen better arguments to counter that (increased opportunity for non-traditional students, destruction of regionalism in the student population, etc etc etc), plus the tangible cash benefits so greatly outweigh any of the intangible negatives or "seedy feelings" in my mind that it becomes a no-brainer.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, for state universities, this is a matter of public record. One that I have offhand (as it's a good example) is the University of Iowa. Their 2011 fiscal year athletic budget, as reported to the Board of Regents:



Iowa is a little different because it accepts no general-fund money from the school and is athletically self-sufficient, but for a (probably) second-tier athletic school, the numbers are staggering, and even these are dwarfed by the likes of Texas and Florida.

Football drives the train, though, so there's good reason why a Texas State or UL-Monroe wants in on that particular action: it's absurdly profitable. That profitability opens new doors - admissions requests go up, endowment and donations increase, etc.

I can understand, on some level, why DF and others feel this is "dirty money" but there are about a dozen better arguments to counter that (increased opportunity for non-traditional students, destruction of regionalism in the student population, etc etc etc), plus the tangible cash benefits so greatly outweigh any of the intangible negatives or "seedy feelings" in my mind that it becomes a no-brainer.

Doesn't actually look like it's a real gain. Iowa would probably save money by NOT having sports, men or women. That's not the right answer either, but it's really not about the fact that it's "dirty money" coming in, it's how it's spent, handled, and then how the students are prioritized - poorly - because of it.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, for state universities, this is a matter of public record. One that I have offhand (as it's a good example) is the University of Iowa. Their 2011 fiscal year athletic budget, as reported to the Board of Regents:



Iowa is a little different because it accepts no general-fund money from the school and is athletically self-sufficient, but for a (probably) second-tier athletic school, the numbers are staggering, and even these are dwarfed by the likes of Texas and Florida.

Football drives the train, though, so there's good reason why a Texas State or UL-Monroe wants in on that particular action: it's absurdly profitable. That profitability opens new doors - admissions requests go up, endowment and donations increase, etc.

I can understand, on some level, why DF and others feel this is "dirty money" but there are about a dozen better arguments to counter that (increased opportunity for non-traditional students, destruction of regionalism in the student population, etc etc etc), plus the tangible cash benefits so greatly outweigh any of the intangible negatives or "seedy feelings" in my mind that it becomes a no-brainer.

@ the bold - this seems to be the greatest driving force to build the school's football program. When you have a team with a winning season(s) then admissions go up.

Case-in-point: Texas. When they started winning a lot of football games admission requests went up, and they became very selective on their admissions requirements. For a while they only accepted the top 10% of students from their hs graduating class. This weekend I heard UT has now gone up to top 8%.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Doesn't actually look like it's a real gain. Iowa would probably save money by NOT having sports, men or women. That's not the right answer either, but it's really not about the fact that it's "dirty money" coming in, it's how it's spent, handled, and then how the students are prioritized - poorly - because of it.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

I'd trust the numbers more if they hadn't been posted by the athletic department - who knows what they consider expenses? TX State doesn't have the athletic department budget on the athletic dept. website that I can find. I found the entire budget on-line, but can't get it to print so I can check it out. I would be SHOCKED if the athletic department were self-supporting, but feel free to prove me wrong.

[Drolefille]

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.