PonyFans.com

interesting article about how most non P5 athletic programs are being funded by subsidies from student fees. Some pretty easy to view graphs too on the different funding mechanisms used by schools and by conference. Size matters in modern day athletics-a small private school like SMU has to make up lost revenues through alumni giving. The comparison between funding at Ole Miss and George Mason is particularly enlightening-wish they had one for a school like SMU. Recent Conference mates UCONN, USF and Rutgers were some of the most subsidized programs

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/ncaa/subsidy-gap

It is not sustainable which is why I worry about where SMU athletics is going to be in the next decade.

Slightly off-point, but there was also an interesting article in the Washington Post on Monday about the college-athletics arms race and the amount of money that athletics departments are raking in from student fees and other sources. Despite enormous revenue growth over the past decade, many programs profiled still operate at a loss, and in some cases (including Auburn) they operated at a larger loss in 2014 than they did in 2004. Tons and tons of wasteful spending.

The article concludes with an interesting chart of the schools profiled for the report. It looks like the majority of schools from the Big-10, PAC-12, and ACC that were profiled operated at a loss in 2014. Really amazing when you think of the astronomical revenue growth in recent years. Auburn and Wisconsin are the most striking examples.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports ... the-bills/

Hey, coaches aren't going to fire themselves.

MustangStealth wrote:Hey, coaches aren't going to fire themselves.

MustangStealth wrote:Hey, coaches aren't going to fire themselves.

What's most amazing to me is the coaches salaries and how they work. You see studies pointing out that the highest-paid state employees are many times the football and basketball coaches at State U but in actuality their salaries are coming more and more direct from the boosters pockets, if for no other reason than the booster is then given a say in who is hired.

Point is, in many times the coaches' salaries aren't included, or included evenly, in those equations. So the gap is even bigger in some cases. Washington State's athletic department lost $13M in 2014 and I wonder if Leach's salary was included in that equation. Memphis has always lost money hand over foot in football and I guarantee you any salary increase they are offering Fuente is coming straight out of boosters pockets. Maryland is turning into Oregon East with their Under Armour connection, money and uniforms and they still can't make it work.

But I openly laugh now when anybody says that college athletics is a business. Maryland and Kansas may not be the Salvation Army but they aren't exactly Apple, Inc., either.