"Why College Football Should Be Banned?

[jtoutloud]

Good luck to you! Overall it looks really good so far. Like I said, this is so great.
__________________
Cheap WOW Gold丨diablo 3 items

I hate you Chauty!

[ponyboy]

What? Everybody likes cheap wow gold

[SMU21TCU10]

Good luck to you! Overall it looks really good so far. Like I said, this is so great.
__________________
Cheap WOW Gold丨diablo 3 items

I hate you Chauty!

How can i buy D3 items when the game isnt even released yet?

[PoconoPony]

Funny thing is water pony, most of the schools you just mentioned are the ones that actually financially profit from having a football team. OSU, UT, and Bama can pay that much because they make that much, In the case of UT especially they are subsidizing academics with athletic funds.

My vague recollection is that only 12 universities actually turned an athletic department profit for 2010.

While that might be true, that "fact" is misleading. The vast majority of athletic departments are not set up to run a profit. Lets pretend SMU didn't have FB or BB programs, it would have plenty of non-revenue sports to deal with. Lets assume those programs have a combined equivalent of 100 full ride scholarships (in many non-revenue sports, scholarships are broken up), those scholarships would "cost" SMU $5.9million. Throw in coaching, travel, and administrative costs, figure a total "cost" of the athletic department of $10-15million. Since I would be shocked if those programs generated a combined total revenue of $1million, the athletic department could not possibly make a profit. It just cannot.

With TV revenues and large gates, there are some schools (typically big state schools and ND) that make enough to run their athletic departments in the black. For all the rest, athletic departments are cost centers designed to generate positive publicity for the school and to be an amenity for students and alums.

While I hate to cite the Frogs or Baylor for what to do, their improved athletic performance has led to an improved pool of applicants and improved fundraising.

Schools spend big on athletics because prospective students and alums demand it. If schools don't offer athletics, prospective students have other alternatives. I personally never seriously considered Trinity or Austin College (both good schools) for that reason.

You make good points. Forgotten in the scheme of things is that some of the minor sports actually have endowed scholarships which help offset the costs. I know that men's swimming at SMU is predominantly sustained with endowed scholarships. Obviously, coaching salaries....etc. are overhead costs. When I was swimming our place finish in the NCAAs also determined the % of TV and other revenues that was apportioned to off set costs. At that time swimming was very close to break even. At that time the cost of the pool was also off set because it was considered a full university and PE use facility. Today the natatorium and out door pool are in limbo as neither the university nor athletic department claim responsibility based on the fact that there is a second pool in the PE center which is intended for the university and PE. Do not get me started on the rotten politics involved in the construction of the second pool which could have been a huge world class facility replacing the current situation. A study in how not to do something right.