ESPN & College Sports: Two Halve(s:) and Have Not

[LaPorteAveApostle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sports/ncaafootball/college-footballs-most-dominant-player-its-espn.html?ref=ncaafootball&_r=0

Won't often find me recommending the NYT, but this line seemed to echo something that we've mentioned on these pages.

But of 340 Division I colleges, the athletic departments at only 23 generate enough revenue to cover their expenses, according to a report that Daniel Fulks of Transylvania University prepared for the N.C.A.A. in May.

Interesting article.

[VULB#62]

And at the DIII level, zero schools cover expenses -- but the athletic experience is top rate for most.  I have to assume that few D-IIs cover either.  But when you get to the upper tier of DI, you're talking a lot (millions, not hundreds of thousands) of lost $$$.  In my mind it actually would be worth it if the student athletes at the highest D-I level were, indeed, all STUDENT Athletes -- so few are   

[covufan]

And at the DIII level, zero schools cover expenses -- but the athletic experience is top rate for most.  I have to assume that few D-IIs cover either.  But when you get to the upper tier of DI, you're talking a lot (millions, not hundreds of thousands) of lost $$$.  In my mind it actually would be worth it if the student athletes at the highest D-I level were, indeed, all STUDENT Athletes -- so few are   

Most schools need to move away from the balance sheet mentality.  The athletic experience, student body experience, training, etc. are all experiences that shape quality young people into quality leaders of tomorrow.  This is an educational experience that is not quantified in a book or class curriculum, and should not be subject to a balance sheet.  I'm not saying give the athletic department a blank check, but keep things in perspective. 

We've discussed the merits of football saturdays, especially at a school like Valpo.  We've heard that similar schools that have given up football now regret that decision.  I think that Valpo has upgraded the athletic department as a whole, and has become more competitive in a more competitive conference in the last several years.  VU has also added sports.  I think that ML has done a great job, and should be commended. 

I would also like to say that I think that most schools at the highest D-I level actually do have quite a number of student athletes, especially if you remove the Men's Basketball and Football non-students from the equation. 

[LaPorteAveApostle]

The athletic experience, student body experience, training, etc. are all experiences that shape quality young people into quality leaders of tomorrow.

Yeah, so all the other students have to subsidize this?

And is this missing on all the other levels that don't spend $13 million on a building to stretch in?

[VULB#62]

I take your point, but ......

at most State U's the taxpayer does a bit more of the subsidizing (both tuition and athletic short falls)

at any D-III college, all the students subsidize the athletic program (facilities, coaches, and expenses -- but not "scholarships").  I'm wondering where Setshot is on this part of the string.

[Pathfinder]

The athletic experience, student body experience, training, etc. are all experiences that shape quality young people into quality leaders of tomorrow.

Yeah, so all the other students have to subsidize this? And is this missing on all the other levels that don't spend $13 million on a building to stretch in?

Yeah. And why do econ and business majors have to subsidize history and music majors?

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Yeah. And why do econ and business majors have to subsidize history and music majors?

Incorrect.  Show me a university that makes students pay a "humanities" fee or a "music" fee the way kids have to pay athletics fees.