Followup on Title IX discussion...

Hootie McBooberton said:

(or makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗)

Quoted message said:

Contrary to some statements in this newsgroup, it seems that most Division I football programs *do*
make a profit (the average being almost $5 million). The entire athletic budgets of all Div. I
colleges profit an average of $1.5 million.

Quoted message said:

Discuss.

I wouldn't say *most* because the less successful football conferences show most teams losing money
at football. Looks like the ones that get on TV make enough money to subsidize women's sports and
then some. Ohio State makes out big time, but look at say, Rice, which loses 3.75 mil on Football
and loses 2.5 mil on women's sports. Where does that money come from?

Given the Dartmouth flap, it would be interesting to see the Ivy league numbers.

Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)

In Hootie McBooberton said:

orlandosentinel.comorlOpen ↗ sptbudgetcht09020903feb09,
0,2135191.htmlstory?coll=orl%2Dsports% 2Dheadlines

(or makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗)

Contrary to some statements in this newsgroup, it seems that most Division I football programs
*do* make a profit (the average being almost $5 million). The entire athletic budgets of all Div.
I colleges profit an average of $1.5 million.

May I also ask whether the football expenditures listed include payments and maintenance on the
football stadium and training buildings (which may be hidden as general university facilities
expenses), parking assistants' salaries (ditto, general staff), coaches' salaries and benefits
(ditto, faculty), marching bands, etc?

I'd like to believe some of the better programs actually make money, but I still suspect there's a
lot of funny accounting going on.

Ross

"Donal Fagan" <Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hootie McBooberton said:

(or makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗)

Quoted message said:

Contrary to some statements in this newsgroup, it seems that most Division I football programs
*do* make a profit (the average being almost $5 million). The entire athletic budgets of all Div.
I colleges profit an average of $1.5 million.

Quoted message said:

Discuss.

I wouldn't say *most* because the less successful football conferences show most teams losing
money at football. Looks like the ones that get on TV make enough money to subsidize women's
sports and then some. Ohio State makes out big time, but look at say, Rice, which loses 3.75 mil
on Football and loses 2.5 mil on women's sports. Where does that money come from?

Given the Dartmouth flap, it would be interesting to see the Ivy league numbers.

Donal,

You're correct. I erroneously assumed that since the average total revenue was greater than the
average total expenses, that most football programs earn a profit. I don't feel like counting up the
schools right now, but before I saw this data, I had believed that only a very few big schools had
profitable football programs.

Interestingly, in the Big XII, which has become notorious for cutting men's swim teams, only Baylor
athletic department lost revenue. It seems to me that the "football powerhouse" (the SEC, Big XII,
Big Ten and PAC Ten) conferences have the best shot at maintaining revenue because they're likely to
have a lot of bowl-eligible teams, and the revenue from bowl games gets split up among all the
member teams (how else can one explain Vanderbilt's almost $9 million football surplus?).

Not quite as noteworthy (in fact it's obvious) is the fact that the women's programs are almost all
money-losers. Univesity of Alabama at Birmingham should get some praise for having $1 profit! I
would be interested to see similar numbers broken down by sport. Men's basketball is probably
profitable in certain parts of the country, but I imagine all other men's sports lose money.

Are Ivy League schools not considered Div. I-A? I thought they would be included in this list.

"Hootie McBooberton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

orlandosentinel.comorl sptbudgetcht09020903feb09Open ↗,
,2135191.htmlstory?coll=orl%2Dsports%2Dheadlines

(or makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗)

Contrary to some statements in this newsgroup, it seems that most Division I football programs
*do* make a profit (the average being almost $5 million). The entire athletic budgets of all Div.
I colleges profit an average of $1.5 million.

Discuss.

At one of the Big Ten Universities, the football coach contributed funds for a woman's athletic
scholarship. Now if all the major coaches were as generous it would sure go a long way toward the
spirit of the Title IX ....

"lilli" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Hootie McBooberton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

orlandosentinel.comorl sptbudgetcht09020903feb09Open ↗,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

,2135191.htmlstory?coll=orl%2Dsports%2Dheadlines

(or makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗)

Contrary to some statements in this newsgroup, it seems that most

Division I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

football programs *do* make a profit (the average being almost $5

million).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The entire athletic budgets of all Div. I colleges profit an average of

$1.5

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

million.

Discuss.

At one of the Big Ten Universities, the football coach contributed funds for a woman's athletic
scholarship. Now if all the major coaches were as generous it would sure go a long way toward the
spirit of the Title IX ....

At the University of Florida (my alma mater), former head coach Steve Spurrier gave $50,000 for
the women's athletic program and could often be seen attending women's soccer, softball and
basketball games.

--------------060707070805060106040704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

According to reports generated by the Womens Sports Foundation, the expenditures reported to the
NCAA for football do NOT include fees for stadium costs and upkeep. Also, other costs that are
generated by football players are often hidden in other cost centers (e.g., laundry for player
unitforms, training table). Here is part of a column from Donna Lopiano that I found on the Womens
Sports Foundation website:
womenssportsfoundation.orgarticle.htmlOpen ↗

"Only 36% of all football programs make money. Why should football need to be protected from a
federal law guaranteeing that we treat our daughters as well as our sons? Thirty years after
the passage of Title IX, women are still receiving only 42% of all college athletic
participation opportunities, $133 million dollars less in athletic scholarships each year, 36%
of the annual athletic operating dollar and less than 32% of all recruiting funds (1999-00 NCAA
Gender-Equity Report). The bottom line is that institutions of higher education have ignored
federal law for 30 years. The real problem which is that few institutions are giving female
athletes their fair share. "

Apparently, Division 1A is an exception, rather than the rule when it comes to making money
on football.

In any case, the issue should not be whether a sport makes money or not. Is the purpose of college
athletics to make money? The purpose should be to provide college students with opportunities to
participate and compete. We do not expect arts amd music programs to make money. Debate teams?
Engineering socieites? Community service?

I see the basis problem as the overcommercialization of sports in college. We place more value on
football and men's (and even women's) basketball because it provides revenue. This is ok, to some
degree, but not when it limits female participation in college athletics. That is what Title IX is
all about.

Michael

Ross Bogue said:

In Hootie McBooberton said:

I would assume that maintenance on athletic facilities such as the stadium and training buildings
is included, as is coach/staff salaries and benefits. What school has a parking assistant? As for
marching bands, those expenses likely come out of the general fund because I can't imagine an
athletic department using one in its budget.

Most football programs have parking assistants working on football Saturdays. The rest of the week
they usually work as general facilities staff.

Have you ever seen a marching band do anything besides entertain at a football game? (OK, that's
not quite fair, as they do march in a few parades each year and even have formation contests with
other marching bands. But they're not really a program of the Music department. For the most part
they exist for football games.)

Quoted message said:

Anyway, I'm biased. I swam at a small college with no football program, but I attended law school
at the University of Florida, which I think should be a model of how an athletic department should
be run. At UF, all sports are funded and facilities are maintained by the booster-funded
University Athletic Association. As far as I can tell, no sport-related expenses are paid from the
general fund.

We have come full circle. This discussion started with questions about how much of those booster
funds would otherwise have been used to support the university. The questions are impossible to
answer, but in the extreme case you could easily argue that all athletic booster funds are really
coming at the expense of general funds.

Ross

--------------060707070805060106040704 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html> <head> </head> <body> According to reports generated by the Womens Sports Foundation, the
expenditures reported to the NCAA for football do NOT include fees for stadium costs and upkeep.
Also, other costs that are generated by football players are often hidden in other cost centers
(e.g., laundry for player unitforms, training table). Here is part of a column from Donna Lopiano
that I found on the Womens Sports Foundation website: <a
href="womenssportsfoundation.orgarticle.htmlOpen ↗">
womenssportsfoundation.orgarticle.htmlOpen ↗</a> <br>
<br> <font face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif" size="2" color="#000000"> "Only 36% of
all football programs make money. Why should football need to be protected from a federal law
guaranteeing that we treat our daughters as well as our sons? Thirty years after the passage of
Title IX, women are still receiving only 42% of all college athletic participation opportunities,
$133 million dollars less in athletic scholarships each year, 36% of the annual athletic operating
dollar and less than 32% of all recruiting funds (1999-00 NCAA Gender-Equity Report). The bottom
line is that institutions of higher education have ignored federal law for 30 years. The real
problem which is that few institutions are giving female athletes their fair share.</font> "<br>
<br> Apparently, Division 1A is an exception, rather than the rule when it comes to making money on
football. <br> <br> In any case, the issue should not be whether a sport makes money or not. Is the
purpose of college athletics to make money? The purpose should be to provide college students with
opportunities to participate and compete. We do not expect arts amd music programs to make money.
Debate teams? Engineering socieites? Community service? <br> <br> I see the basis problem as
the overcommercialization of sports in college. We place more value on football and men's (and even
women's) basketball because it provides revenue. This is ok, to some degree, but not when it limits
female participation in college athletics. That is what Title IX is all about.<br> <br> Michael<br>
<br> Ross Bogue wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email hidden]"> <pre wrap="">In <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href=""][email hidden]"><[email hidden]></a>
Hootie McBooberton wrote:<br></pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I would assume that
maintenance on athletic facilities such as the <br>stadium and training buildings is included, as
is coach/staff salaries <br>and benefits. What school has a parking assistant? As for marching
<br>bands, those expenses likely come out of the general fund because I <br>can't imagine an
athletic department using one in its budget.<br></pre> </blockquote> <pre
wrap=""><!----><br><br>Most football programs have parking assistants working on football
<br>Saturdays. The rest of the week they usually work as general facilities <br>staff.<br><br>Have
you ever seen a marching band do anything besides entertain at a <br>football game? (OK, that's not
quite fair, as they do march in a few <br>parades each year and even have formation contests with
other marching <br>bands. But they're not really a program of the Music department. For <br>the
most part they exist for football games.)<br><br><br></pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre
wrap="">Anyway, I'm biased. I swam at a small college with no football <br>program, but I attended
law school at the University of Florida, which <br>I think should be a model of how an athletic
department should be run. <br>At UF, all sports are funded and facilities are maintained by the
<br>booster-funded University Athletic Association. As far as I can tell, <br>no sport-related
expenses are paid from the general fund.<br></pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----><br><br>We
have come full circle. This discussion started with questions about <br>how much of those booster
funds would otherwise have been used to <br>support the university. The questions are impossible to
answer, but in <br>the extreme case you could easily argue that all athletic booster funds <br>are
really coming at the expense of general funds.<br><br><br><br>Ross<br><br><br><br><br></pre>
</blockquote> <br> </body> </html>

--------------060707070805060106040704--

Michael,

Thanks for the input. I enjoy this discussion. You're correct. Universities shouldn't look at which
programs generate revenue but rather how they encourage young adults to participate and compete.

The problem is Title IX is implemented in such a way that it takes away men's opportunities to
compete under the guise of creating "equal opportunity." The reality is that women just don't
want to compete at the collegiate level in the same proportion that men do. Women's teams are
having trouble filling their rosters whereas the still-existing men's teams are turning away lots
of walk-ons.