Challenging article: Investing in sports is risky

[Water Pony]

A sobering article from Cincinnati Inquirer suggesting athletics cost colleges and their students (often taxpayers) millions.

"The Knight Commission says Division I schools with football spent $91,936 per athlete in 2010, seven times the spending per student of $13,628. Division I universities without football spent $39,201 per athlete, more than triple the average student spending."

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2013 ... 309150044/

Apparently the biggest culprits are stadiums and coaches' salaries.

" ... NCAA data show that only 16.2 percent of the spending at Division 1 schools with football, such as Miami (OH), goes to student aid. The rest goes to salaries, game expenses and facilities.

[SMU_Alumni11]

I think it needs to be qualified based on conference. I can see the "have-not's" being in the red with athletes. However, the P5 group (particularly schools like UT) that have positive margins per an athlete. Nevertheless it is a real killer on the budget to be a competitive D1 team in a low conference.

[GiddyUp]

See the 60 minutes piece also

only 22 out of 125 existing BCS eligible schools are profitable and the sustainability of competing in such a race for most schools is totally improbable.

[couch 'em]

Athletics at universities was never intended to be a revenue activity. Profitability is as irrelevant to athletics as the profitability of the student rec center or the old Umphrey Lee bowling alley. Whether it can be afforded and is worth it to the school.

[couch 'em]

Athletics at universities was never intended to be a revenue activity. Profitability is as irrelevant to athletics as the profitability of the student rec center or the old Umphrey Lee bowling alley or the marketing budget or the alumni relations people. Whether it can be afforded and is worth it to the school is what matters.