knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Yes, I do think that BSU's headlines help draws students. It can't not - it's free advertising for the university.
Top schools with net profit from 2010
- Thread starter CO_hawk
- Start date
gobiggergoredder
All-American
VectorVictor
Heisman Trophy Winner
I think Harvey the Wonder Chancellor intimated some time back that travel cost concerns were blown way out of proportion by the fans. Yes, they will increase--but they're not going to be eating away all our revenue.
Plus, once we're fully-vested members of the B1G, add another $6-10 million (minimum) to the additional $7 million withheld this year. That puts us right up there with Michigan and Penn State and leapfrogs us over the artificially-inflated Okie Lite (with their tainted T. Boone money).
For Michigan, Penn State, and (!) Iowa to have beat out Texas and Oklahoma, that should tell us that the move to the B1G is sound, fiscally.
NoKoolAidForME
Starter
Double yes
The article and link below discusses a study that was done showing the correlation between athletic team success and an increase in college applications to those athletically successful programs.
Athletic success leads to admissions influx
Friday, March, 28, 2008
by Caleb Fleming, CT news reporter
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx
Absolutely they do. Before 2006, the ONLY time I had ever heard of BSU was because my cousin liked playing on their blue field in the NCAA games. I'm just one example, but I'd argue many college football fans either didn't know or just didn't care about Boise State until they started being successful this last decade. Ask the same question about Nebraska - do you think we get students or better athletes we wouldn't otherwise get because of our football program? Umm..yes.
redblooded
Special Teams Player
Okay, yeah its name recognition. Also I did a small amount of wikipedia browsing after I posed the question earlier and it looks like Boise State is at record attendance levels even while making big budget cuts. But the majority of the students they are getting appear to be siphoned off of the other Idaho universities, who's attendance numbers are down.
So it probably does make a difference for in state students more then anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
kchusker_chris
All-American
Revenue is still key, and in that area Texas is king. Profit is just determined by the way a program is managed. Oregon doesn't have to invest a single dollar in ifrastructure improvements because Phil pays for everything. Same with Okie State. The only thing you can determine from Texas not being higher on this list is that they invest 2 times more money into their athletics than Nebraska. Would you feel better about that if Nebraska had a higher proffit margin? Hell no. What's the point of profitability in college athletics? There's no CEO to pay a fat bonus to, or investors to pay out dividends too. The point of making money in college athletics is so you can spend more on college athletics. If you think it's to contribute to the academic side...well, we know that isn't the case.
VectorVictor
Heisman Trophy Winner
Good points there. I think we all know that athletics doesn't directly contribute to academics. However, indirectly, we know that Nebraska has contributed (donations of old buildings for academic purposes), and it's better to be revenue neutral or generating than it is to be in the hole (and thus siphoning money from academics and/or taxpayers).
Last edited by a moderator:
BOJ
Special Teams Player
Same deal with OSU, while their net proft is number 20 according to that list, the revenue is among the top three. According to another list I saw the two biggest revenue schools were Texas then OSU, both schools put most of that money right back into the athletic department so profit is rather sketchy stat to measure athletic departments by (in my opinion anyways) which do not account for how many other teams need to be funded by that athletic department revenue (see my post above about OSU having the most varsity teams of any school in the country).
BOJ
Special Teams Player
Difference is (I think) Miami is actually a decent school if you buy into rankings (where as Boise State--not so much). There is no doubt a high profile football program does wonders for the academic side of a mid tier University (free advertising is always great), but schools like MIT don't need a football program to recruit top tier scholars, but for the rest of us it sure helps. Advertising is advertising and I would say in college football it is probably the only time where bad press is actually bad press.
Mind you I am not disagreeing, just taking the point a little farther.
Last edited by a moderator:
huKSer
All-American
8 of the schools get no tax/fees (tNU included). Interesting that half of these - four of the five former Big 12 schools listed get $0 tax/fees. And OU gets $0 yet Okie lite gets $5.6 million. SEC not surprisingly is the most subsidized league.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blackshirt316
Starter
I don't have to imagine it, it already exists. If the University of Nebraska didn't have such a great football program we'd be just like Iowa.
So if you didn't have football you would be a bigger school, more enrollment and better graduate level programs? We do this without a high profile football program, UNL is a step below the rest in the big ten when it comes to these things. Think before you speak, or get over yourself.