|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Apr 5, 2010 7:43:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by go12 on Apr 5, 2010 7:56:26 GMT -5
It would be nice to see a study like this on all sports that are the supposed "revenue generators." I've heard for years that most universities are losing money every year...
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyboil on Apr 5, 2010 9:31:14 GMT -5
Sounds like it's time for a gov't bailout.
|
|
|
|
Post by nubiewantec on Apr 5, 2010 10:00:22 GMT -5
As long as the good ole' boys have absolute control of the purse strings of sports & media in America, "minority" athletics will live or die accidentally. (Like the little fish accompany large sharks.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ADIDAVB on Apr 5, 2010 11:07:31 GMT -5
if they can't support themselves or atleast operate closer to even, get rid of it, no sense in draining the budgets of the sports making the money and taking from student funds and taxpayer funds
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Apr 5, 2010 11:11:42 GMT -5
if they can't support themselves or atleast operate closer to even, get rid of it, no sense in draining the budgets of the sports making the money Why not? What are those sports going to do with their profits? I can guarantee, they are not giving it back to the taxpayers or the school's operating budget. I think there is nothing wrong with using the profits from solvent sports and using them to provide opportunities to others who participate in sports that don't have financial potential, giving opportunities to both men and women. It's great that we have the wherewithall to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by harryhotspur on Apr 5, 2010 11:33:44 GMT -5
Do professors repay taxpayers, or support other departments when their research results in lucrative ventures?
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 5, 2010 11:43:30 GMT -5
A few thoughts/questions:
1. What portion of these "costs" are true incremental costs? Take out fixed overhead (gym time), and take out the portion of the scholarships that wouldn't be replaced by full-paying other students, and then be left with coaches salaries, travel expenses, game expenses (officials, security, etc.)- what would that cost be- a few hundred thousand?
2. What portion of the revenue is incremental? Take away shares of TV contracts (or allocate them by viewership), and it would be much less, true?
3. How many volleyball programs even charge admission?
4. College sports started as a "pride" thing (school spirit), then evolved into a business, then evolved into an "educational right". If it reverted to "pride", wouldn't there still be volleyball clubs that could play each other? And if a school subsidized the incremental costs (and gave gym time) equally, wouldn't that be compliant with Title IX?
As the education bubble deflates, I'd think more monetary pressure will lead more schools to reconsider sports altogether, and seek ways to balance the budget. There is some benefit in terms of school spirit, student activity, etc. to having a sports program, so I don't see it going away- but under Title IX, it's possible to pay a women's coach much less- only the number of scholarships need be equal, true?
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 5, 2010 12:54:33 GMT -5
A few thoughts/questions: 1. What portion of these "costs" are true incremental costs? Take out fixed overhead (gym time), and take out the portion of the scholarships that wouldn't be replaced by full-paying other students, and then be left with coaches salaries, travel expenses, game expenses (officials, security, etc.)- what would that cost be- a few hundred thousand? 2. What portion of the revenue is incremental? Take away shares of TV contracts (or allocate them by viewership), and it would be much less, true? 3. How many volleyball programs even charge admission? 4. College sports started as a "pride" thing (school spirit), then evolved into a business, then evolved into an "educational right". If it reverted to "pride", wouldn't there still be volleyball clubs that could play each other? And if a school subsidized the incremental costs (and gave gym time) equally, wouldn't that be compliant with Title IX? As the education bubble deflates, I'd think more monetary pressure will lead more schools to reconsider sports altogether, and seek ways to balance the budget. There is some benefit in terms of school spirit, student activity, etc. to having a sports program, so I don't see it going away- but under Title IX, it's possible to pay a women's coach much less- only the number of scholarships need be equal, true? They charge admission at UW for volleyball, but a good deal less than what it costs to see a men's basketball game. What they can charge is market driven, of course. Certainly one issue has to do with growing interest in other sports than football and men's basketball. Generally, live game coverage of these other sports is almost non-existent in many, many cases. But, let's face it, probably 75% of sports fans are males, and 75% of those, say, are exclusively fans of NCAA football and men's basketball who couldn't care less about other collegiate sports. That would leave other sports chasing after 6%, say, of the fan audience. On the other hand, if people get exposure to live coverage of other sports, they can respond very positively - the women's softball championship last season was a big hit. It was a great show. But do you see live coverage of regular season games? Not yet, at least... One of the keys, I think, as far as women's sports is concerned, is growing the number of women fans. The problem there is that interest in sports tends to be inculcated at a young age, so it can take awhile before those numbers start showing up at the turnstiles. For instance, if you start with the time that television coverage of sports started (late 1950s) and add 20 years, you arrive at the point that interest in college football and men's basketball began to really explode. There's at least a 20-year lag, if not more, in other words. That might already be happening, as girls' participation in sports has increased tremendously since Title IX. The questions, I suppose, are to what degree does participation translate into interest, and what countervailing factors inhibit that from happening. Moving the seasons might also help garner bigger audiences. Women's volleyball competes with football for fan interest, while women's basketball competes with men's basketball. Adjusting their seasons so that at least their championships don't coincide might help. Some have suggested moving women's basketball to the spring, so it doesn't directly compete with men's basketball - you could have both a March and May Madness, for instance. Volleyball, on the other hand, could be moved to the winter, so that its championship could occur after the football bowl season, but before March Madness. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 5, 2010 14:15:58 GMT -5
One of the most annoying concepts permeating collegiate sports is the revenue generation. If colleges were held to a basic standard that tuition costs must cover ALL athletic programs and that any "revenue generation" goes to the academic programs, there would be a whole different angle on collegiate sports. Some colleges have whored themselves with revenue generating sports to the point that they admit students whom they know will never graduate, and in some cases would never be able to graduate.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyboil on Apr 5, 2010 15:10:53 GMT -5
One of the most annoying concepts permeating collegiate sports is the revenue generation. If colleges were held to a basic standard that tuition costs must cover ALL athletic programs and that any "revenue generation" goes to the academic programs, there would be a whole different angle on collegiate sports. Some colleges have whored themselves with revenue generating sports to the point that they admit students whom they know will never graduate, and in some cases would never be able to graduate. Sorry Toots, but if you are still under the impression that athletics are part of the academic mission at big-time D1 schools, you're sorely mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on Apr 5, 2010 15:31:48 GMT -5
What needs to be said here is that the article doesn't put a price on all the publicity that is given to a university through athletic events. Also, there is no price associated with giving a better student experience for the athlete who gets to play sports and compete while earning an education, but also for the average student that gets to enjoy the student life associated with athletics. And that doesn't even cover the money that is donated back to the athletic department from former athletes. All your seeing here is operating costs which doesnt show the whole picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 5, 2010 15:31:55 GMT -5
One of the most annoying concepts permeating collegiate sports is the revenue generation. If colleges were held to a basic standard that tuition costs must cover ALL athletic programs and that any "revenue generation" goes to the academic programs, there would be a whole different angle on collegiate sports. Some colleges have whored themselves with revenue generating sports to the point that they admit students whom they know will never graduate, and in some cases would never be able to graduate. Which would simply lead to a revenue loss cascade that would lead to the elimination of all varsity sports, whether men's or women's, with only intramural programs left standing. Now, I have no problem with you're advocating that, but at least acknowledge what the consequences would be. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 5, 2010 16:14:09 GMT -5
if they can't support themselves or atleast operate closer to even, get rid of it, no sense in draining the budgets of the sports making the money and taking from student funds and taxpayer funds I echo p-dub -- why not? Is the goal of college athletics to turn a profit? Or is the goal to enhance student life and educational experiences? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 5, 2010 16:15:03 GMT -5
Do professors repay taxpayers, or support other departments when their research results in lucrative ventures? Yes. |
|
