Sonia Sotomayor for USSC?

[Valmy]

Many football & basketball programs are either self-supporting or actually profitable.  Women's sports are to blame for the inflated cost of an athletic program & should be scaled back (Title IX be damned) to only the sports people actually want to participate in or watch.

Yeah good luck with that Title IX thing.  The thing that fucks men's sports is he fact women do not play football.  So men's programs have to go.  The thing that really annoys me is in order to fill alot of the Varsity programs even the University of Texas has to recruit female athletes and give them scholarships who have never actually played the sport in question before.  I mean we have a varsity woman's rowing team just to try to balance out the football scholarships and nobody does crew here in Texas much less women.

Meanwhile Baseball, a sport played by millions of boys all over the country, rarely has more than a tiny number of scholarships to pass out.  Many division I programs only have a ridiculous three scholarships to give for Baseball.  But I tend to focus on that one since College Baseball is my favorite sport.

On the other hand I seriously doubt that more than a small number of Division I schools are profiteable or self supporting.  I bet maybe a tiny handful of Div II or III schools are.

[ulmont]

Many football & basketball programs are either self-supporting or actually profitable.

A new article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals that from 2004-06, only 17 out of 330 Division I athletic departments operated at a profit, with universities making up the difference, usually out of general operating revenues.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2008/05/cost-of-college-sports.html

The article (about a year old) seems to be unobtainable at the moment.

[derspiess]

On the other hand I seriously doubt that more than a small number of Division I schools are profiteable or self supporting.  I bet maybe a tiny handful of Div II or III schools are.

Are you talking about athletics or a specific sport?

[derspiess]

Many football & basketball programs are either self-supporting or actually profitable.

A new article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals that from 2004-06, only 17 out of 330 Division I athletic departments operated at a profit, with universities making up the difference, usually out of general operating revenues.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2008/05/cost-of-college-sports.html

The article (about a year old) seems to be unobtainable at the moment.

Again, I'm talking about individual football or basketball programs, not athletic departments.

[Valmy]

The article (about a year old) seems to be unobtainable at the moment.

Yes but that is the entire athletic department.  What Spicey is saying is that the Football and Basketball programs alone are profiteable or pay for themselves, without considering the losses associated with the rest of the department.

[Valmy]

Are you talking about athletics or a specific sport?

I am talking about football and Basketball.  I know my Alma Mater didn't make anything since attending the games was free.

[Berkut]

I think the focus on the small number of profitable departments is a bit unfair. The fact that there are a few that make money suggests that the others are failulres since they do not, or that it is a reasonable expectation that they do.

The odd thing about this is that the compliant that athletic departments do not make money tends to come from the same people who complain that college athletics is all about money!

If 20 out of 300 are profitable, how many are basically break even? Is being profitable even a goal for most of those? I would guess breaking even or coming close is really all they are looking for, and many are going to be fine with the atletic department costing some money, within reason.

[Berkut]

Lets look at something like mens track.

Probalby not a profitable sport at any school in the country.

Is that a problem? *Must* it make money to be worthwhile?

[Valmy]

I think the focus on the small number of profitable departments is a bit unfair. The fact that there are a few that make money suggests that the others are failulres since they do not, or that it is a reasonable expectation that they do.

I brought up this point to challenge the notion that there were economic advantages for a school giving out football and basketball scholarships.  Even for the very top and richest programs do not benefit their school that much, beyond funding the rest of the athletic department.

Rather schools percieve athletics as an important career and path of "study" (so to speak) as legitimate as any other.  So that is why they fund them not out of some desire to get rich.

[Berkut]

I think the focus on the small number of profitable departments is a bit unfair. The fact that there are a few that make money suggests that the others are failulres since they do not, or that it is a reasonable expectation that they do.

I brought up this point to challenge the notion that there were economic advantages for a school giving out football and basketball scholarships.  Even for the very top and richest programs do not benefit their school that much.

Actually, that is not true. The top tier programs benefit their schools immensely in fact. They bring in money, they bring attention, they create brand loyalty, they make the school a desirable product well beyond the strict financial return.

And the top tier programs make a shitload of money.

Rather schools percieve athletics as an important career and path of "study" (so to speak) as legitimate as any other.  So that is why they fund them not out of some desire to get rich.

No they don't. They fund them because it is part of the university culture in America, part of the marketing system, and even if they don't make money, their revenue offsets costs.

I don't think too many universities have athletic programs because they think they ought to as a way to prepare people to become professional athletes.

[Valmy]

I don't think too many universities have athletic programs because they think they ought to as a way to prepare people to become professional athletes.

No but there are plenty of careers in athletics that do not involve becoming a professional athlete.  Certainly as many as studying Ancient Mycenaean pottery.

[Berkut]

I don't think too many universities have athletic programs because they think they ought to as a way to prepare people to become professional athletes.

No but there are plenty of careers in athletics that do not involve becoming a professional athlete.  Certainly as many as studying Ancient Mycenaean pottery.

But you don't need an athletic department to teach those things.

[derspiess]

I am talking about football and Basketball.  I know my Alma Mater didn't make anything since attending the games was free.

What was your alma mater?

Anyway, I figure if WVU's football program can be self-funded, most decent Division I programs should be able to do that as well.

small clarification: WVU's entire athletics program is actually self-funded.

[Berkut]

I would guess that most, if not all, of the BCS schools manage to make money or at least break even on football and basketball.

[Valmy]

But you don't need an athletic department to teach those things.

I question that is true.  All those student trainers working with the sports teams are getting valuable experience for the future and so forth for other similar positions.

No they don't. They fund them because it is part of the university culture in America, part of the marketing system, and even if they don't make money, their revenue offsets costs.

At a division II, III or NAIA school?  Even at Division I schools way back in the 19th century when all these athletic departments were originally developed and that was why they came to be: for phyiscal education.  They may have certain side benefits today but that was the original rational for giving athletic scholarships and having varsity teams.