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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The school is getting endorsement dollars for putting brand name shoes on the athletes, who get nothing from it. I've never really been too high on letting the athletes get paid, but I hadn't really considered the endorsements which have the schools getting money directly for the players' behavior.

And don't tell me the kids are getting scholarships out of the deal. They get the scholarships for playing basketball, not for wearing a particular brand of clothing.

And for most schools, the sports programs are NOT a profitable entity. The sponsorship deals just help cover the gap. There are only a very small handful of schools where you argument could even come close to having any merit....and I doubt UCF is one of them.

(See Few colleges turn profit on athletics* - College Sports - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -)

The NCAA's latest report on revenues and expenses, released Tuesday and available at ncaa publications.com, showed that fewer than 25 percent of all Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money in 2007-08, while the remaining 302 schools competing in Division I struggled to break even.

Twenty-five of 119 FBS schools reported overall profits, an increase from 19 in 2006.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And for most schools, the sports programs are NOT a profitable entity. The sponsorship deals just help cover the gap. There are only a very small handful of schools where you argument could even come close to having any merit....and I doubt UCF is one of them.

(See Few colleges turn profit on athletics* - College Sports - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -)

The NCAA's latest report on revenues and expenses, released Tuesday and available at ncaa publications.com, showed that fewer than 25 percent of all Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money in 2007-08, while the remaining 302 schools competing in Division I struggled to break even.

Twenty-five of 119 FBS schools reported overall profits, an increase from 19 in 2006.

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.

[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?