OT - Michael Jordan's son won't wear Adidas

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, I'd be willing to bet money that the number of schools for which football or men's basketball turn a profit is much higher than 25%. It's not the men's basketball programs that drain the coffers; it's gymnastics, softball, baseball, wrestling, tennis, etc.

I'd agree...this same report that said a majority (57%) of 119 DI-FBS football teams are profitable. It also said that a majority of the 119 FBS school's men's basketball programs were profitable (56%). That leaves almost half the FBS schools where the "profit sports" are still losing money. That doesn't even mention the other 200 or so non-FBS D-I schools that where nearly all lose money on all sports....even in football/basketball.

Even so, it is the bottom line that matters, not a compartmentalized view. For those profitable teams to even be Division I, the school must have at least 14 teams across all sports...men and women (7 each, or 6 men/8 women). So, an inevitable requirement of playing D-I is to subsidize the other sports.

See: Title IX Blog: NCAA Releases Report on Athletic Department Profitability

When you don't count institutional subsidies as revenue, only 17 out of 300 Division I program (5%) were profitable during the 2004-2006 period that was the scope of the study. 16 of these programs were in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly, DI-A).

Note that 5% number....only 17 D1 schools have a net profit from thier sports even with all the revenue for basketball and football. That says that a lot of them probably even lose money on the money sports.

[Adam]

Too many charter jets?