G5 athletic dept deficits

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24839675/uab-football-isnt-alone-in-losing-money-for-athletic-departments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow...EVERY school in the MWC is on that list.

And pretty sizeable deficits.

So much for football subsidizing other sports...

Gunk wrote:
So much for football subsidizing other sports...

FB and MBB are the only sports anywhere close to the black at G5 schools. There might be a few others at some schools but not many. Some football teams are money losers too and they should all be canceled.



Imagine how much the swim teams bring in. That's why they require subsidies.

jvquarterback wrote:

So much for football subsidizing other sports...

FB and MBB are the only sports anywhere close to the black at G5 schools. There might be a few others at some schools but not many. Some football teams are money losers too and they should all be canceled.



Imagine how much the swim teams bring in. That's why they require subsidies.

UAB strongly disagrees with your assumptions as far as football goes. They just cut football as well as bowling and rifle teams.



http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11967626/uab-blazers-shut-football-program" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Note that they didn't cut any other mens' sport but football--they cut football first as the millstone around the athletic department's neck. Football is evidently on a budgetary par with women's bowling and women's rifle teams. They didn't even cut the tennis, golf, or sand volleyball teams. If football truly was "subsidizing" the other sports, it would be the last to go, not the first.



I expect to see more schools drop out of the arms race over the next few years.

I would not have guessed BSU is $11 million in the hole--They sell out the stadium pretty much every home game....I wonder where BYU and Utah stand? I am sure BYU being private doesn't disclose...but still curious

BoiseBYU wrote:
I would not have guessed BSU is $11 million in the hole--They sell out the stadium pretty much every home game....I wonder where BYU and Utah stand? I am sure BYU being private doesn't disclose...but still curious

BYU runs at break-even or better. They don't break ground on improvements until every $ is available so that it is paid off upon completion. They've been pretty clear in the past that tithing funds (i.e. BYU's general fund) is not available for athletics beyond scholarships provided. If you're in the CougarClub, they're pretty open about what expenses they envision in the future, and what $ needs to be in place for those to happen. If the $ is not in place, things don't happen--they don't do debt.

BoiseBYU wrote:
I would not have guessed BSU is $11 million in the hole--They sell out the stadium pretty much every home game....I wonder where BYU and Utah stand? I am sure BYU being private doesn't disclose...but still curious

BYU is well in the black. With Utah being in the P5, I would think they are in the black as well. Frankly, I don't think taxpayer dollars should subsidize college athletics, so I would be in favor of closing down any public University athletic program that cannot pay for itself. By that, I mean the athletic program as a whole needs to operate in the black, not every athletic team. Those millions could certainly be spent in better ways than entertainment, recognizing, of course, that entertaining football teams can bring in money to a University. But for loving BYU football, it would not have been the only school I applied to for undergrad.

snoscythe wrote:

Gunk wrote:
So much for football subsidizing other sports...

FB and MBB are the only sports anywhere close to the black at G5 schools. There might be a few others at some schools but not many. Some football teams are money losers too and they should all be canceled.



Imagine how much the swim teams bring in. That's why they require subsidies.

UAB strongly disagrees with your assumptions as far as football goes. They just cut football as well as bowling and rifle teams.



http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11967626/uab-blazers-shut-football-program" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





Note that they didn't cut any other mens' sport but football--they cut football first as the millstone around the athletic department's neck. Football is evidently on a budgetary par with women's bowling and women's rifle teams. They didn't even cut the tennis, golf, or sand volleyball teams. If football truly was "subsidizing" the other sports, it would be the last to go, not the first.



I expect to see more schools drop out of the arms race over the next few years.

Football is an incredibly expensive sport. Like you said it's an arms race and what's the point in spending so much money when access to the championship game is still so limited? At least in basketball every team really does have a chance. If UAB runs the table in basketball they get a chance at the big boys and winning it all. If they run the table in football they get...a pat on the back and lots of incurred expenses...

Cougarfan87 wrote:

I would not have guessed BSU is $11 million in the hole--They sell out the stadium pretty much every home game....I wonder where BYU and Utah stand? I am sure BYU being private doesn't disclose...but still curious

BYU is well in the black. With Utah being in the P5, I would think they are in the black as well. Frankly, I don't think taxpayer dollars should subsidize college athletics, so I would be in favor of closing down any public University athletic program that cannot pay for itself. By that, I mean the athletic program as a whole needs to operate in the black, not every athletic team. Those millions could certainly be spent in better ways than entertainment, recognizing, of course, that entertaining football teams can bring in money to a University. But for loving BYU football, it would not have been the only school I applied to for undergrad.

I agree that taxpayers should not supplement sports. That is not fair to those who don't believe in it.

I have no problem with athletic departments running at a small deficit. The athletic teams, and especially football teams, are often the primary marketing tool and most valuable asset in branding the school, so I think a small deficit is allowable as a form of marketing expense and brand building.



Multi-million dollar deficits make that much harder to swallow, especially year after year of mediocrity where your brand isn't being advanced.

So according to this list, outside of the P5 conferences (64 teams), BYU and ND (2), and the 56 on the list in the link, there are 6 G5 teams that are operating at a net revenue (9.7%). (128 teams with football - 64 (P5) - 2 (BYU, ND) - 56 (G5 teams with deficit) = 6).



There was a number thrown around earlier this year that about 25 FBS teams are operating in the black (seems a little low, but maybe), that means 19 of the 66 teams (P5 + ND + BYU) are operating in the black (28.8%)

stuckinbig10country wrote:
So according to this list, outside of the P5 conferences (64 teams), BYU and ND (2), and the 56 on the list in the link, there are 6 G5 teams that are operating at a net revenue (9.7%). (128 teams with football - 64 (P5) - 2 (BYU, ND) - 56 (G5 teams with deficit) = 6).



There was a number thrown around earlier this year that about 25 FBS teams are operating in the black (seems a little low, but maybe), that means 19 of the 66 teams (P5 + ND + BYU) are operating in the black (28.8%)

Thanks What list are you referring to?

snoscythe wrote:
I have no problem with athletic departments running at a small deficit. The athletic teams, and especially football teams, are often the primary marketing tool and most valuable asset in branding the school, so I think a small deficit is allowable as a form of marketing expense and brand building.



Multi-million dollar deficits make that much harder to swallow, especially year after year of mediocrity where your brand isn't being advanced.

That is a much more eloquent way of stating what I was trying to say. Athletics is a marketing tool for a university. But as with all marketing tools, the bang has to be worth the buck. I'm not sure the multi-million dollars brings in enough money to cover the expense, but maybe it does. My gut says, athletics do not bring in multi-millions of dollars in contributions/rising enrollment for most universities.

No, but if they bring in students who bring in gov't backed loans...

What makes you think BYU athletics is in the black? I work at Deseret Digital Media which is owned by the church. This is the parent company to dozens of other companies including desnews and ksl. Both are in the red each year.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

nickdutson wrote:
What makes you think BYU athletics is in the black? I work at Deseret Digital Media which is owned by the church. This is the parent company to dozens of other companies including desnews and ksl. Both are in the red each year.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I fail to see how this constitutes any evidence or argument that BYU football is not financially solvent. Or is this just another troll comment?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

nickdutson wrote:
What makes you think BYU athletics is in the black? I work at Deseret Digital Media which is owned by the church. This is the parent company to dozens of other companies including desnews and ksl. Both are in the red each year.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Because we get updates each year about the general state of the athletic department each year in the Cougar Club.

snoscythe wrote:

What makes you think BYU athletics is in the black? I work at Deseret Digital Media which is owned by the church. This is the parent company to dozens of other companies including desnews and ksl. Both are in the red each year.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Because we get updates each year about the general state of the athletic department each year in the Cougar Club.

And you would trust those lying weasels in the Cougar Club over a nameless internet poster and his representation about his “job” working in an unrelated field for a corporation that is tangentially similar to the subject of the discussion? C’mon!