52 FBS schools lose money on football
ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686
This article claims that only 14 of the 120 FBS schools have athletic departments that make money. That figure does not surprise me, since schools run a lot of revenue-negative sports that they pay for with football, basketball, and university subsidies.
The part that did seem odd though: 52 of the 120 schools lose money on football. I seem to remember something here that said only 2 or 3 schools lost money.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 PM ^
A few years back the NCAA lifted a requirement saying that bowl games had to pay a minimum to each school... so that means that smaller bowls dish out less to smaller teams...
Bowling Green for example got paid $250,000 to go to the Roady's Bowl Game in Idaho (against Idaho) and it cost $200,000 just to get the players and 60 marching band members to the game and back. We ended up losing way more money than we gained on that end.
More publicity though... and for two hours they got their commercials on ESPN2.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 PM ^
Hey, we play Bowling Green this year! Don't straddle the fence and act like you can be a fan of both teams.
You probably hate puppies.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
Dear Lord help me. If Michigan doesn't beat Bowling Green in football this year I will never hear the end of it.
I work in the athletic department at BG and during home games I'm in the press box. Last year I got severly reprimanded by the Athletic Director for having a bias in the press box because I screamed in horror as Tate threw the overtime interception against sparty and then pronounced to the press sitting around me,
"Just wait until Denard's quarterback."
I'll be in the BG section rocking my Michigan gear no worries. By the way if anyone is selling BG-Michigan game tickets I'm looking for two for my Dad and sister! It'd be her first time in the big house.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:36 AM ^
Believe me. I understand.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:05 PM ^
I'm surprised so many make money. I thought only the BCS AQ teams and Utah, Boise, and TCU were profitable. I'm actually surprised schools haven't started cutting teams to balance their budgets.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:17 PM ^
Or are you really "surprised schools haven't started cutting teams to balance their budgets." Because they have...in fact a lot of them have.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^
I meant FBS football teams. Why is Eastern Michigan fielding a football team, seriously?
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
i thought you were talking about any team i.e. wrestling, tennis, etc. I think the reason schools have a team is they feel the football team gets students interested in the school. that is really the only thing i can think of.
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
I would say that most schools like Eastern just use the football/sports teams as a way to advertise and attract kids to their schools. I know that I'm more likely to go to a school with a football team over a school that doesn't have one. Also it can used as a little perk similar to a school like GVSU by giving students free tickets to all sporting events.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:50 AM ^
I do not think EMU should field a D-1 team for the simple fact that most of their students who are college football fans like three teams: UM, MSU, and OSU. That and the school simply does not have the money, history, or fan interest to maintain a decent program.
Now, if they were D-II i think they would fare well. EMU can attract 8-10,000 and you give fans a different experience from what UM gives you. in a market dominated by a power, you have to make yourself stand out.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:08 PM ^
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
There's a certain amount of accounting shenanigans involved in this. I've read that MSU has been putting the screws to the Football program for years. I don’t remember all the details but from what I can recall, the university charges the football team for use of facilities, requests a cheque once a month for tuition, keeps all parking fees, things of that nature.
I have to wonder how many other schools operate this way.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
To get an actual count would probably be impossible.
I remember reading before that only 5 or so football programs operated without university subsidies. It turned out that a ton of schools (Michigan included) took something minor like $5,000 from the university as an accounting requirement. Of course, the headline was "almost all football programs take money from academics".
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^
Schools are cooking the books, taking cash early from athletic departments. No way would college football even be in business if the majority of programs were losing money like they say. A few yrs back when money was flowing like water for everyone they were saying less then 30 programs were profitable.....
One other thing about athletics and colleges. These schools see an increase in applications/enrollment when they go to bowl games, ncaa tournament and it goes up even bigger when they win a champinship, bcs bowl or the ncaa tournament.
It's even bigger for small schools.... Valparaiso had a 40% increase yrs back when they made the tourney and consequently 2nd round... and many other small schools had the same type of increase. Wich more students equals more money for the universities so they want them....
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
No money? Fie on this study! Won't someone please think of the children?! They should be paid! Their families are starving and their free-rides just don't cut it. If only those godless, freedom-hating Communists at the NCAA could get this through their Neanderthal, pea-sized brains! /s
*goes to freeze himself in time for kickoff on Sept. 4th*
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
I seem to remember something here that said only 2 or 3 schools lost money.
I believe that was BCS schools.
In any case, the halo effect from football usually more than makes up for what the ledger actually says, and most presidents know this.