Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean
Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:42 am
deucetz wrote:
New Leadership
In addition, having President R. Gerald Turner since 1995 isn't good for any institution beyond Harvard, Yale and Princeton. SMU needs an infusion of fresh ideas and better execution. Furthermore, some of the main colleges may be ripe for new leadership. The private schools (SMU, TCU, Baylor) in Texas are all not run well, beyond Rice (and maybe Trinity). The Texas private schools have beautiful campuses but they all leave something left to be desired. I think football has a lot to do with it in terms of sports over academics. I would guess all have spent close to a Billion each in the last 15 years for football. Imagine if they kept the donations for the endowment.
you say "football" in the above, but what you should really be saying is "athletics" because at least at Baylor and TCU football is more than paying it's own way and paying a large chunk of the cost of other sports as well
these are the expenses for football for Baylor, TCU and SMU in 2015
$29,544,710 $33,471,085 $17,267,570
these are the revenues for football
$38,305,937 $52,009,661 $17,267,570
these are the total expenses mens teams
$45,903,986 $54,240,505 $28,935,602
total revenue mens teams
$54,665,213 $69,578,208 $28,935,602
total expenses womens teams
$22,561,820 $18,930,176 $15,991,418
total revenues womens teams
$22,561,820 $13,929,819 $15,991,418
not allocated by gender or sport
Expenses $13,542,008 $9,751,355 $11,982,270
Revenues $22,303,235 $20,088,701 $11,982,270
so at least in the case of Baylor and TCU even if you placed 100% of the non-allocated expenses on football and zero of those revenues well football is still not the major money loser
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/details
so at least in Texas and at least at the schools mentioned football is not the main issue