Of 227 non-private D-I Athletic Departments - how many make money?

[tornado]

Only 22 of them - all the rest lose money - most then take student funds or taxpayer revenue to stay afloat.

So again - despite plenty of people saying their athletic programs are self-sufficient or self-funded....the vast majority of them are blowing smoke or lying..

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/story/2012-05-15/budget-disparity-increase-college-athletics/54960688/1

The data for private D-I schools is likely similar but not available for this study, except they DO NOT drain monies from taxpayers.

More

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/texas-athletics-spending-revenue/54960210/1

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/small-schools-financial-deficit/54959184/1

Here is the database

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1

The column labelled "Percent Subsidy" is how much of their athletic department's budget comes from student fees (tuition paid by kids just wanting an education) or from taxpayer funds..

As you note, the Illinois taxpayers fund 65.5% of the costs of the ISU Athletic Department, 64.5% of the costs of the SIU Athletic Department, 70% of the costs of the EIU Athletic Department, 69.3% for NIU, 74.6% for UIC, 76% for WIU, and 87.3% at SIUE!

Among the highest in percentage subsidized are UW-M (78.8%), VCU (79.2%), Towson (84.7% - what about their fundraising?), and EKU at 82.4%.

[tornado]

UCLA - who are NOT one of the college athletic departments that are self-sufficient, have made the same age-old false claim...about being independent from any taxpayer subsidies..

In making an official response to the uproar over giving an athletic scholarship to the son of multimillionaire Sean "Diddy" Combs - they claim that not one penny of the money given to him comes from anyone's pockets...

Here's part of the UCLA statement...
"Athletic scholarships, such as those awarded to football or basketball
players, do not rely on state funds. Instead, these scholarships are entirely
funded through UCLA Athletics ticket sales, corporate partnerships, media
contracts and private donations from supporters."

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/5/31/3055847/justin-combs-ucla-football-puff-daddy

But - this recent USAToday study proves that is a lie and that the UCLA Athletic Dept. does rely on millions of dollars
of "subsidy" from sources outside the athletic departments - including taxpayer subsidies.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1

[SFP]

I'm sure that the men's basketball and football team are generating plenty of revenue to cover their costs but if you count the other non-revenue producing sports than you can make your argument. It all depends on how you spin it. There's a reason that there is so much pressure put on basketball and football teams to win. Just about every other sports team is a drain on the budget.

[tornado]

A whole lot more detailed info...

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/07/3695045/an-inside-look-at-athletic-budget.html

The three programs they concentrate on rely heavily on taking money from the university general fund and from student revenues.
They are far from being self-sufficient - and yet this doesn't even begin to cover it, as they use everything from property and facilities that have been paid for by the general public and taxpayer to the campus security, etc..

Kansas State takes $1.51 million directly from the institution to support their athletic department and balance their athletic budget - plus $0.7 million more from the student revenues (tuition)

Kansas takes $1.58 million directly from the institution to support their athletic department and balance their athletic budget - plus $1.85 million more from the student revenues (tuition)

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2012/07/07/20/23/F32VS.So.81.pdf

Mizzou takes $2.68 million directly from the institution to support their athletic department and balance their athletic budget

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2012/07/07/20/24/11asHp.So.81.pdf

[Garland 22]

A whole lot more detailed info...

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/07/3695045/an-inside-look-at-athletic-budget.html

The three programs they concentrate on rely heavily on taking money from the university general fund and from student revenues.
They are far from being self-sufficient - and yet this doesn't even begin to cover it, as they use everything from property and facilities that have been paid for by the general public and taxpayer to the campus security, etc..

Kansas State takes $1.51 million directly from the institution to support their athletic department and balance their athletic budget - plus $0.7 million more from the student revenues (tuition)

Kansas takes $1.58 million directly from the institution to support their athletic department and balance their athletic budget - plus $1.85 million more from the student revenues (tuition)

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2012/07/07/20/23/F32VS.So.81.pdf

Mizzou takes $2.68 million directly from the institution to support their athletic department and balance their athletic budget
http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2...asHp.So.81.pdf

This whole study is just plain stupid. Poor reporting and puts state schools on watch to have every dollar scrutinized. People have to keep things in context.

Business is simple, to self fund you reduce operating cost, and increase income. There are very few D1 schools who couldn't turn profits with their basketball and football teams. Schools like UCLA where there is a rabid fan base could easily raise ticket prices, have several more "camps", roll out already un-paid student athletes for fee based autograph sessions, they could sell sideline seats, etc...they can also cut the baseball team, all girls sports, and maybe even the math program. It is pretty easy to move dollars from column B on the spreadsheet to column C.

How much money do you think will be generated by Puffy's kid playing basketball for UCLA? My guess well more than his scholarship will cost the university.

I pay taxes and hope the taxes go to the schools and provide a well rounded educational experience for my kid. Sports is a big part of that, lets let the institutions managed themselves, not the Kansas City Star.

[tornado]

the context I see as most impressive is how much money most schools lose on athletics - and how much of those losses are a DIRECT result of being FORCED by government mandates and "Titles" that FORCE the schools to do something that costs enormous amounts of money.
Can you imagine how much money each of these schools could and would save if they weren't forced literally at gunpoint to fund HUGE money-losing endeavors and sports.

It is estimated that Texas alone would likely generate well over $100 million profitably were they not required to fund big money-losers like women's rowing.
Texas' varsity and junior varsity ("Novice") women's rowing roster has over 73 student-athletes on it!!!!!
BUT -- they have the OK from NCAA to give out as many as 112 rowing scholarships!!!!!!!!

http://www.texassports.com/sports/w-rowing/mtt/tex-w-rowing-mtt.html

http://www.texassports.com/sports/w-rowing/mtt/tex-w-rowing-mtt-alph.html

http://athleticscholarships.com/womens-rowing-scholarships/the-university-of-texas-at-austin/

They even advertise this...
"The rowing team is divided into novice and varsity squads,
and no previous experience is necessary to compete for the award. (Scholarship)"

[FlyingSpaghettiMonster]

Can you imagine how much money each of these schools could and would save if they weren't forced literally at gunpoint to fund HUGE money-losing endeavors and sports.

Literally.

[ChewaBrave]

I've heard the tales of Title 9 black helicopters, repelling in and taking hostages till the women's lacrosse team is put back in operation.

[FlyingSpaghettiMonster]

I've heard the tales of Title 9 black helicopters, repelling in and taking hostages till the women's lacrosse team is put back in operation.

[tornado]

Once the government controls the funds - then they can force any action or agenda they want...
which is something people need to think about in regards to health care - and what the government may force on everyone down the road...rationing, restriction of services, limits on number of children, mandatory services (China has it, including mandatory sterilization), end of life care for whoever they choose to give it to, etc...it's only a matter of time until things get imposed in the name of "righteousness" that are abhorrent to others...and if you are Catholic it's already started.

[tornado]

here's the annual report for WIU - a state school...
there's a lot of good stuff about WIU basketball and Coach Mo...

but here are a couple facts from the report that are surprising and one that's astounding

-Coach Mo had WIU's best and most successful season in 15 years and they went to their FIRST post-season tourney ever

-Their fund raising is up substantially and their new "Leatherneck Club" (like our Braves Club) is generating hundreds of thousands of $$ in revenue for the Athletic Dept.

-In the past year they have upgraded their facilities in many ways - new weight room, new turf on the FB field, new office space, new practice courts & lockerrooms.

-but if you scroll to page 12 they state where the funding comes from in Athletics, and they are honest
(unlike the folks at ISU who repeatedly claim their athletic are ALL 100% self-funded, a claim that is so far from true it's laughable.)

Here's what they state....

FUNDING SOURCES FOR LEATHERNECK ATHLETICS
($10.8 million total operating budget for intercollegiate athletics - something that ONLY the athletes use - NOT the typical student)
Self-Generated Funds - 21%
State Appropriated Funds - 26%
Student Fees - 53%

http://www.goleathernecks.com/fls/12000/programs/Annual%20Report%202011-2012.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=12000

(WIU competes in the Missouri Valley Football Conference)


I don't have too big of a problem with this - at least they are honest..but clearly they are using $8.53 million per year in TAXPAYER money to run their athletic department - $2.8 mil is from "State Appropriated Funds" - money that obviously comes from state coffers and taxpayers' pockets...
and $5.7 mil is from "Student Fees" - or the money unwitting students are CHARGED for tuition that is expropriated from what they believe they are paying in tuition fees for their education that are instead taken and spent to play ball - especially play unpopular, money-losing forms of ball in order to comply with Title IX.

[tornado]

Almost ALL state and public schools regularly lose money n their basketball programs anyway...then why do they come up with the lame excuse...

"LOSING MONEY" as the reason not to play in the CBI or CIT ??

http://www.pantagraph.com/blogs/redbirds/isu-basketball-no-shame-in-calling-it-a-season/article_e6dd8944-8f77-11e2-8c51-0019bb2963f4.html