Top schools with net profit from 2010

C

CO_hawk

Three-Star Recruit
Found this page, thought you guys would like it. It's nice to be in the big ten, as you see our schools dominate this list. I'm guessing that Nebraska might move up this list next year, with the addition of BTN revenue. Surprises are Ohio st. at 20th, Kan st. at 11th which tells me they don't spend money on athletics, tell me otherwise.

Side note Iowa is #6 last year with near record lows in attendance in MBB.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-15-athletic-departments-increase-money_n.htm

 
I think the $9+ million in withheld revenue as part of the exit penalty from the Big-12 was a factor in the 2010 profit. Without that, Nebraska would have slotted between Texas and Oklahoma.

 
Remember that next year we will be spending more money on travel for all sports. Going to need to factor that in.

 
CO_hawk said:
Surprises are Ohio st. at 20th, Kan st. at 11th which tells me they don't spend money on athletics, tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...
OSU has 29 sports teams to pay for. Football pays for 28 of those since men's basketball usually can post a profit or hold their own.

 
nowhereman said:
I think the $9+ million in withheld revenue as part of the exit penalty from the Big-12 was a factor in the 2010 profit. Without that, Nebraska would have slotted between Texas and Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

That and if we could just get our damn baseball program back up again and a half decent basketball program.

 
jaws said:
CO_hawk said:
Surprises are Ohio st. at 20th, Kan st. at 11th which tells me they don't spend money on athletics, tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...
OSU has 29 sports teams to pay for. Football pays for 28 of those since men's basketball usually can post a profit or hold their own.
Click to expand...
Was gonna say, notice the amount of revenue that tOSU has, a bit more telling. As Jaws mentioned they have a lot of varsity teams I cannot corroborate the 28 number, but I do know they have the largest athletic department in the country by means of varsity teams that need to be funded (obviously mostly from football and men's basketball).

 
"Athletics apparently has no oversight," says Ken Struckmeyer, an associate professor at Washington State who co-chairs the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, a faculty group that advocates for athletics reform. "They generate (money), then they spend whatever they bring in — and if that's not enough, the board of regents provides a subsidy to help them win. … Apparently the measure of success of universities now is wins by the football team or the basketball team."
Click to expand...
The thing is, when a school's teams have success on the field their alumni donations generally go up. So if the school can field a successful football or basketball team, and come close to breaking even, they will generally be ahead financially.

 
nuance said:
"Athletics apparently has no oversight," says Ken Struckmeyer, an associate professor at Washington State who co-chairs the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, a faculty group that advocates for athletics reform. "They generate (money), then they spend whatever they bring in — and if that's not enough, the board of regents provides a subsidy to help them win. … Apparently the measure of success of universities now is wins by the football team or the basketball team."
Click to expand...
The thing is, when a school's teams have success on the field their alumni donations generally go up. So if the school can field a successful football or basketball team, and come close to breaking even, they will generally be ahead financially.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source or study that actually says that? Donations to the AD vs the academic side tend to be a lot different. The professors that hate athletics have lost that battle, but they have a good point about the academic side of the university kicking tax money and student fees over to athletics. He's obviously overstating his case at viewing the success of universities based on athletics... Someone isn't going to turn down MIT or something because WSU has a better basketball team.

 
redblooded said:
Do you have a source or study that actually says that? Donations to the AD vs the academic side tend to be a lot different. The professors that hate athletics have lost that battle, but they have a good point about the academic side of the university kicking tax money and student fees over to athletics. He's obviously overstating his case at viewing the success of universities based on athletics... Someone isn't going to turn down MIT or something because WSU has a better basketball team.
Click to expand...
These profs are tilting at windmills. Show me an English department or a BA department that brings millions into their college annually. Show me a math department that puts their school's name in headlines six months out of the year - free advertising for that university - and they have a point. Athletics puts schools on the map.

Does anyone really think we'd even know about Boise St. University if they didn't have success on the football field these past few years? I don't remember hearing about the BSU J-School making the news much, or their science department grabbing headlines.

 
knapplc said:
redblooded said:
Do you have a source or study that actually says that? Donations to the AD vs the academic side tend to be a lot different. The professors that hate athletics have lost that battle, but they have a good point about the academic side of the university kicking tax money and student fees over to athletics. He's obviously overstating his case at viewing the success of universities based on athletics... Someone isn't going to turn down MIT or something because WSU has a better basketball team.
Click to expand...
These profs are tilting at windmills. Show me an English department or a BA department that brings millions into their college annually. Show me a math department that puts their school's name in headlines six months out of the year - free advertising for that university - and they have a point. Athletics puts schools on the map.

Does anyone really think we'd even know about Boise St. University if they didn't have success on the football field these past few years? I don't remember hearing about the BSU J-School making the news much, or their science department grabbing headlines.
Click to expand...
Do you think that because Boise State gets headlines in football that it really draws students in that they wouldn't get otherwise or a better class of student (that aren't just better athletes)? Probably any department offering brings in a few million dollars. If you have 100 students and $10,000 a year in tuition you've already hit that mark.

The money they bring in usually goes directly to the AD and gets turned around into other sports teams. We just saw the other day that 20/120 FBS schools athletic departments actually made a profit last year, about 10 of those athletic departments still were being partially funded by taxpayers and student fees. I don't think tax-payers and non-athletic students should be forced into subsidizing college athletics. I think the professors in that organization have a very good point about that, even as a huge football fan.

 
knapplc said:
Does anyone really think we'd even know about Boise St. University if they didn't have success on the football field these past few years? I don't remember hearing about the BSU J-School making the news much, or their science department grabbing headlines.
Click to expand...
First time I even heard of Boise St. was when they were on a dartboard on an ESPN commercial.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top