login
Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-01-22 1:48 PM in reply to: Sidney Porter |
Pro  15655    |  Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport!Of course, we all know that the Universities in this country are barely squeaking by. LOL |
| 2014-01-22 2:04 PM in reply to: Sidney Porter |
| 41 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Originally posted by Sidney Porter Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 LB, you think this is just because all the money goes to the big 3 (or 4, in these parts - hockey still counts here) men's sports? Or just the reeeeaaalllly big two? Do you see another reason? Matt There is no three or four. There are only two revenue producing sports in college athletics: men's football and men's basketball. That's it. Every other men's sport and every women's sport loses money. Men's football and basketball subsidizes all the other college sports. I'm assuming baseball was the third of your big three. Baseball loses money too. There might be certain outliers. Like maybe Syracuse's lacrosse team makes some money or Johns Hopkins' lacrosse team makes some money or Iowa's wrestling team or Boston College's hockey team makes some money. Places where you have a fanatical following in a niche sport. Even then I doubt they make money as travel costs to away games are what really costs a ton of dough. It's even worse than that. Even basketball and football aren't profitable at most schools. Definitely not the cash cow people think. Even the elite basketball programs like Duke and North Carolina don't generate enough to fund the school's overall athletic department. At a VERY few elite football schools like Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Oklahoma etc they basically have a license to print money. But that's maybe 10 or 15 schools at the most. Something like 23 of the 228 Public Universities athletic departments in Division 1 operated at a profit in 2012, all of them in the big football conferences. The money that the athletic programs are not as simple as gate and tv revenue less expenses. You get a certain amount of donations to the general fund when sport team perform well. Sports also drive university branded clothing (and other stuff). I would assume that you see people wearing UNC clothing even if they have no affiliation with the school. They buy and wear these clothes because they have a good basketball team. I assume that the university get a % of the licensing sales. Sure there are some residual benefits the school enjoys when the sports teams are highly successful. I'll use Alabama as an example since I went there. Since Nick Saban became the football coach in 2007, Athletic department revenues are up over 100%, admission applications are way up for the school overall, and the average ACT score and GPA of applicants has gone up significantly. Which is really cool but again, Alabama is an elite southern football school with a 101,000 seat football stadium, a rabid national fanbase, etc. There just aren't many programs around like Alabama football and UNC basketball that can generate that kind of revenue. |
| 2014-01-22 2:18 PM in reply to: RollTideTri |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Did you guys forget league revenue? It may be fair to say that football and basketball can't fund entire athletic departments.......but don't try to convince me they aren't very profitable for most, if not all, Div. I schools.
|
| 2014-01-22 2:42 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 41 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Originally posted by Left Brain Did you guys forget league revenue? It may be fair to say that football and basketball can't fund entire athletic departments.......but don't try to convince me they aren't very profitable for most, if not all, Div. I schools.
League revenue is factored into the revenue of the athletic department. I'm not trying to convince you, it's all published info. Unless these public universities ADs are cooking their books, most are not profitable, it's not really debatable. Football itself makes a profit at most of the 60 or so schools in the BCS conferences with big TV deals, bot not nearly enough to cover what the rest of the sports cost. Only a small handful of basketball programs are profitable. 20 million sounds like a lot until you realize these SEC school ADs have $100 million+ operating budgets. The football coaching salaries alone are 8-10 million. These departments are like huge corporations. Tons of money coming in, tons of money going out. Now whether it's good for public university sports programs to be run this way is a separate debate.  |
| 2014-01-22 3:22 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by Left Brain League revenue is factored into the revenue of the athletic department. I'm not trying to convince you, it's all published info. Unless these public universities ADs are cooking their books, most are not profitable, it's not really debatable. Football itself makes a profit at most of the 60 or so schools in the BCS conferences with big TV deals, bot not nearly enough to cover what the rest of the sports cost. Only a small handful of basketball programs are profitable. 20 million sounds like a lot until you realize these SEC school ADs have $100 million+ operating budgets. The football coaching salaries alone are 8-10 million. These departments are like huge corporations. Tons of money coming in, tons of money going out. Now whether it's good for public university sports programs to be run this way is a separate debate. Did you guys forget league revenue? It may be fair to say that football and basketball can't fund entire athletic departments.......but don't try to convince me they aren't very profitable for most, if not all, Div. I schools.
We agree. The origional contention was that only a small percentage of DI football and basketball programs were profitable. That's just not true. Those programs are not losing money, for the most part......but no, most of them can't finance entire Atheltic Departments. Then again, we haven't even scratched the surface of booster clubs and "other" revenues from clothing, etc. that won't be attributed to specific programs. DI and DII college athletics are big business.....there is no denying that. Edited by Left Brain 2014-01-22 3:37 PM |
| 2014-01-22 4:02 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 41 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by Left Brain League revenue is factored into the revenue of the athletic department. I'm not trying to convince you, it's all published info. Unless these public universities ADs are cooking their books, most are not profitable, it's not really debatable. Football itself makes a profit at most of the 60 or so schools in the BCS conferences with big TV deals, bot not nearly enough to cover what the rest of the sports cost. Only a small handful of basketball programs are profitable. 20 million sounds like a lot until you realize these SEC school ADs have $100 million+ operating budgets. The football coaching salaries alone are 8-10 million. These departments are like huge corporations. Tons of money coming in, tons of money going out. Now whether it's good for public university sports programs to be run this way is a separate debate. Did you guys forget league revenue? It may be fair to say that football and basketball can't fund entire athletic departments.......but don't try to convince me they aren't very profitable for most, if not all, Div. I schools.
We agree. The origional contention was that only a small percentage of DI football and basketball programs were profitable. That's just not true. Those programs are not losing money, for the most part......but no, most of them can't finance entire Atheltic Departments. Then again, we haven't even scratched the surface of booster clubs and "other" revenues from clothing, etc. that won't be attributed to specific programs. DI and DII college athletics are big business.....there is no denying that. We agree on football (kind of), not basketball. Out of 300+ D1 basketball programs, I think 11 made a profit in 2012. Even in football, there about 15 "cash cow" programs that make big profits, and about 40 more that at least aren't losing money. That's out of 118 D1 programs. I guess we could quibble over whether that qualifies as "most, if not all" being very profitable  Anyway the original point I disagreed with was about all the other sports being funded by football and basketball, which is rarely the case. In any case I'm all for triathlon being recognized by the NCAA, no matter who is funding it |
| 2014-01-22 4:08 PM in reply to: RollTideTri |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by Left Brain We agree on football (kind of), not basketball. Out of 300+ D1 basketball programs, I think 11 made a profit in 2012. Even in football, there about 15 "cash cow" programs that make big profits, and about 40 more that at least aren't losing money. That's out of 118 D1 programs. I guess we could quibble over whether that qualifies as "most, if not all" being very profitable Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by Left Brain League revenue is factored into the revenue of the athletic department. I'm not trying to convince you, it's all published info. Unless these public universities ADs are cooking their books, most are not profitable, it's not really debatable. Football itself makes a profit at most of the 60 or so schools in the BCS conferences with big TV deals, bot not nearly enough to cover what the rest of the sports cost. Only a small handful of basketball programs are profitable. 20 million sounds like a lot until you realize these SEC school ADs have $100 million+ operating budgets. The football coaching salaries alone are 8-10 million. These departments are like huge corporations. Tons of money coming in, tons of money going out. Now whether it's good for public university sports programs to be run this way is a separate debate. Did you guys forget league revenue? It may be fair to say that football and basketball can't fund entire athletic departments.......but don't try to convince me they aren't very profitable for most, if not all, Div. I schools.
We agree. The origional contention was that only a small percentage of DI football and basketball programs were profitable. That's just not true. Those programs are not losing money, for the most part......but no, most of them can't finance entire Atheltic Departments. Then again, we haven't even scratched the surface of booster clubs and "other" revenues from clothing, etc. that won't be attributed to specific programs. DI and DII college athletics are big business.....there is no denying that. Anyway the original point I disagreed with was about all the other sports being funded by football and basketball, which is rarely the case. In any case I'm all for triathlon being recognized by the NCAA, no matter who is funding it We're on the same page. And I still think the NFL and NBA should be funding their "minor leagues" to a large extent. |
| 2014-01-22 4:19 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 41 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by Left Brain We agree on football (kind of), not basketball. Out of 300+ D1 basketball programs, I think 11 made a profit in 2012. Even in football, there about 15 "cash cow" programs that make big profits, and about 40 more that at least aren't losing money. That's out of 118 D1 programs. I guess we could quibble over whether that qualifies as "most, if not all" being very profitable Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by Left Brain League revenue is factored into the revenue of the athletic department. I'm not trying to convince you, it's all published info. Unless these public universities ADs are cooking their books, most are not profitable, it's not really debatable. Football itself makes a profit at most of the 60 or so schools in the BCS conferences with big TV deals, bot not nearly enough to cover what the rest of the sports cost. Only a small handful of basketball programs are profitable. 20 million sounds like a lot until you realize these SEC school ADs have $100 million+ operating budgets. The football coaching salaries alone are 8-10 million. These departments are like huge corporations. Tons of money coming in, tons of money going out. Now whether it's good for public university sports programs to be run this way is a separate debate. Did you guys forget league revenue? It may be fair to say that football and basketball can't fund entire athletic departments.......but don't try to convince me they aren't very profitable for most, if not all, Div. I schools.
We agree. The origional contention was that only a small percentage of DI football and basketball programs were profitable. That's just not true. Those programs are not losing money, for the most part......but no, most of them can't finance entire Atheltic Departments. Then again, we haven't even scratched the surface of booster clubs and "other" revenues from clothing, etc. that won't be attributed to specific programs. DI and DII college athletics are big business.....there is no denying that. Anyway the original point I disagreed with was about all the other sports being funded by football and basketball, which is rarely the case. In any case I'm all for triathlon being recognized by the NCAA, no matter who is funding it We're on the same page. And I still think the NFL and NBA should be funding their "minor leagues" to a large extent. Right on. It's a strange dynamic between college athletics and the pro leagues for sure. Most of the issues stem from colleges wanting to maintain the illusion of amateurism. Don't even get me started |
| 2014-01-23 11:43 AM in reply to: LarchmontTri |
| 631 | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! I went to a D3 school, Mt Union. Since I have left they have won 11 national titles (lost in 6 title games) in football. Enrollment is up from around 1400 to 2500. I barely recognize the campus with all of the new buildings. The general fund is up even in poor economical times. More alumni donate money because the football team wins. That does not show up in the athletic department books but it is the root cause of the profits. I am sure that the football team loses money on paper but the school makes money. |
| 2014-01-23 11:49 AM in reply to: RollTideTri |
Expert 2547  The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Women's triathlon is now an NCAA sport! Originally posted by RollTideTri Originally posted by Left Brain League revenue is factored into the revenue of the athletic department. I'm not trying to convince you, it's all published info. Unless these public universities ADs are cooking their books, most are not profitable, it's not really debatable. Football itself makes a profit at most of the 60 or so schools in the BCS conferences with big TV deals, bot not nearly enough to cover what the rest of the sports cost. Only a small handful of basketball programs are profitable. 20 million sounds like a lot until you realize these SEC school ADs have $100 million+ operating budgets. The football coaching salaries alone are 8-10 million. These departments are like huge corporations. Tons of money coming in, tons of money going out. Now whether it's good for public university sports programs to be run this way is a separate debate. Did you guys forget league revenue? It may be fair to say that football and basketball can't fund entire athletic departments.......but don't try to convince me they aren't very profitable for most, if not all, Div. I schools.
Don't confuse the bottom line reported with an inability to fund all programs. The donors $$ often falls into a separate entity. Some athletic departments are completely separate from the University, and some are together. So if the royalty agreements are funneling to the University along with the conference share, it's easy to show athletic dept numbers lower than what they have available. I went to one of the bigger earners in the NCAA, but I would assume that small school D1 programs might not be profitable from a pure revenue standpoint, but you factor in grants, tuition share, etc and they are doing just fine. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| Men and Women and Sports Equality Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| |||
| Reebok Women's Triathlon-Seattle: Raising money for Ovarian Cancer Research |
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK