PoconoPony wrote:Interesting that only 14 schools in 2010 managed to break even or come out ahead in college athletic budgets.
To say that only 14 schools made money is pure rubbish. Most troubling is I have heard Turner make this claim on numerous occasions.
Just Googled ‘College Athletic Revenues’...
For 2008, ESPN reports the Top 40 programs generated over $3 Billion in revenues. This excludes any benefits of print / radio / TV which is the ultimate advertising exposure for any school. How do you quantity the Stafford effect which saw HP applications triple to UGA.
I suggest Dr Turner spending some time with Art Buchwald.
revenue does not mean net income. I worked at Stanford and they did not want to know what different schools cost but athletics was not considered a net revenue source
I fully understand the differences between revenues and net income.
I personally think the revenues are being understated while expenses are overstated, ergo the Art Buchwald reference.
Funny you should mention Stanford. They did a thorough review some 25 years ago about the role of athletics within their university. There was debate as to if Stanford should deemphasize sports. And as we all know, this is no ordinary school. I personally consider it above Harvard, but I digress.
Ultimately, Stanford decided to fully emphasize sports. It was the right decision. Their success in athletics over the past 25 years has increased their profile, endowment and academics.
I told this to Ken Pye once, and I was correct. For most universities, certainly for a 2nd tier school such as SMU, Sports drives Academics. Neither he nor no other academic scholar can change that fact.
