[BostonCard]

This map is a few years old, but probably not wildly off.



BC

[BostonCard]

This map is a few years old, but probably not wildly off.



BC

[AlbanyCardinal]

Interesting map. 

Points taken to above responses. It is mainly public universities, many of them running major deficits. Cal comes to mind pretty glaringly, of course. Whether it's private donor money footing the bills or taxpayer dollars, it makes me queasy. Factoring in the pandemic, as one of you pointed out, paints an even bleaker picture. Doesn't feel sustainable for long. This carousel of coaches coming and going, heading out the door after even miserable stints, always with loads of cash. 

And we're not even talking head trauma. 

I don't claim to know how much longer college football has, but I'd wager that we're going to see major (and permanent) changes in how universities are run, athletics included.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Interesting map. 

Points taken to above responses. It is mainly public universities, many of them running major deficits. Cal comes to mind pretty glaringly, of course. Whether it's private donor money footing the bills or taxpayer dollars, it makes me queasy. Factoring in the pandemic, as one of you pointed out, paints an even bleaker picture. Doesn't feel sustainable for long. This carousel of coaches coming and going, heading out the door after even miserable stints, always with loads of cash. 

And we're not even talking head trauma. 

I don't claim to know how much longer college football has, but I'd wager that we're going to see major (and permanent) changes in how universities are run, athletics included.

[Snorlax94]

I do think college football faces a reckoning,  but it will be based, as always, on money.

Fwiw I like watching college football, am a season ticket holder, and expect it will someday continue in a smaller, lower-budget, safer form (some day maybe we’ll dial it down to 8 or 10 game seasons).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f...an-11-2021

TV Ratings: College Football Playoff Championship Plummets

Alabama's blowout of Ohio State draws the smallest audience in the seven-year history of the title game.

The College Football Playoff championship game drew its smallest audience ever on Monday night.

Alabama's 52-24 rout of Ohio State in the title game averaged 18.65 million viewers across ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, a drop of 27 percent — and almost 7 million viewers — compared to last year's title game (25.46 million). It was Monday's most watched program by a brobdingnagian margin among both total viewers and adults 18-49 (5.05 rating) but fell well short of every prior CFP championship game dating back to 2015.

The previous six title matchups averaged about 27.6 million viewers, and the low before Monday was 25.28 million for Clemson's blowout win over Alabama in 2019. Nearly all of the TV audience tuned into the main broadcast on ESPN, which drew 18.22 million viewers; ESPN2 and ESPNU combined for 435,000.

The title game, in fact, averaged fewer viewers than the 18.8 million for the two semifinal matchups on New Year's Day.

[Snorlax94]

I do think college football faces a reckoning,  but it will be based, as always, on money.

Fwiw I like watching college football, am a season ticket holder, and expect it will someday continue in a smaller, lower-budget, safer form (some day maybe we’ll dial it down to 8 or 10 game seasons).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f...an-11-2021

TV Ratings: College Football Playoff Championship Plummets

Alabama's blowout of Ohio State draws the smallest audience in the seven-year history of the title game.

The College Football Playoff championship game drew its smallest audience ever on Monday night.

Alabama's 52-24 rout of Ohio State in the title game averaged 18.65 million viewers across ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, a drop of 27 percent — and almost 7 million viewers — compared to last year's title game (25.46 million). It was Monday's most watched program by a brobdingnagian margin among both total viewers and adults 18-49 (5.05 rating) but fell well short of every prior CFP championship game dating back to 2015.

The previous six title matchups averaged about 27.6 million viewers, and the low before Monday was 25.28 million for Clemson's blowout win over Alabama in 2019. Nearly all of the TV audience tuned into the main broadcast on ESPN, which drew 18.22 million viewers; ESPN2 and ESPNU combined for 435,000.

The title game, in fact, averaged fewer viewers than the 18.8 million for the two semifinal matchups on New Year's Day.

[Mudhead]

 I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. 

That's not quite true, though the sentiment may be.

Depending on just how one counts, there are something like 2000 to 5000 universities in America. There are only a few outside of the 127 FBS schools where the football coach is the highest paid employee, and only another handful where the basketball coach is. Of course those 127 schools make up a good sized fraction of the more prominent universities in the country.

The problem is worse than that though. USA Today publishes an annual list of athletic department finances for public universities with Division 1 athletics. Of the 227 universities listed for 2018-19, all but about 20 of them lose $1,000,000 or more on their athletic programs - going up to $48.4 million for Univ. Houston (and that is almost certainly an underestimate). And then Covid hit. That's a pretty big pill to swallow when academic programs are being cut and staff/professors laid off across the country.

The points you make raise valid questions which ought to be examined. We should consider a macro point in all this. Judging from tuition increases and college and university spending increases, higher education has not been starved for money.  In fact it’s been flooded.

If academic programs we value are being cut, we should figure out where all the money is going. I doubt seriously that athletic programs have siphoned off money especially if you consider the donor support it generates.

In summary, it is very appropriate to ask whether too much emphasis is placed on athletics at rhe university level.  But eliminating or reducing that emphasis will not provide additional funds for academics.

[Mudhead]

 I find it very odd, for instance, that the highest-paid employees at just about every American university are football (and sometimes bball) coaches. 

That's not quite true, though the sentiment may be.

Depending on just how one counts, there are something like 2000 to 5000 universities in America. There are only a few outside of the 127 FBS schools where the football coach is the highest paid employee, and only another handful where the basketball coach is. Of course those 127 schools make up a good sized fraction of the more prominent universities in the country.

The problem is worse than that though. USA Today publishes an annual list of athletic department finances for public universities with Division 1 athletics. Of the 227 universities listed for 2018-19, all but about 20 of them lose $1,000,000 or more on their athletic programs - going up to $48.4 million for Univ. Houston (and that is almost certainly an underestimate). And then Covid hit. That's a pretty big pill to swallow when academic programs are being cut and staff/professors laid off across the country.

The points you make raise valid questions which ought to be examined. We should consider a macro point in all this. Judging from tuition increases and college and university spending increases, higher education has not been starved for money.  In fact it’s been flooded.

If academic programs we value are being cut, we should figure out where all the money is going. I doubt seriously that athletic programs have siphoned off money especially if you consider the donor support it generates.

In summary, it is very appropriate to ask whether too much emphasis is placed on athletics at rhe university level.  But eliminating or reducing that emphasis will not provide additional funds for academics.

[oldalum]

I note that for the states in which a medical school employee is paid the most, they are deans, a chancellor, and a department head; but in Las Vegas it's a plastic surgeon. ;)
We can only hope that someday Lindy will surpass that one.

Also, easy to identify the universities that are basketball schools (including, unfortunately, UConn).

[oldalum]

I note that for the states in which a medical school employee is paid the most, they are deans, a chancellor, and a department head; but in Las Vegas it's a plastic surgeon. ;)
We can only hope that someday Lindy will surpass that one.

Also, easy to identify the universities that are basketball schools (including, unfortunately, UConn).

[CTcard]

Also, easy to identify the universities that are basketball schools (including, unfortunately, UConn).

Wondering if the UConn unfortunate comment is just a rivalry issue or something more?

There are a few that look like anomalies to me, and I suspect no longer true. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida are all listed as having basketball coaches as the highest paid employee - pretty football-centric places. Even California surprises me, though somewhere back in my memory I remember reading some article stating as much.

Judging from tuition increases and college and university spending increases, higher education has not been starved for money. 

It would take me some time to relocate numbers on this (and I don't have that time just now), but from memory public university spending per pupil has been constant to down in inflation adjusted dollars over something like 40-50 years. This was pre-covid.

Nominal tuition has jumped significantly, with the two most significant factors being making up for a large decrease in state support and public universities taking on more of a private university approach to tuition with high nominal sticker price but substantial aid for many.

There are some complicated arguments about whether this is a particularly good measure of university spending in addition to much concern over exactly how spending has shifted within universities over this time.

I doubt seriously that athletic programs have siphoned off money especially if you consider the donor support it generates.

Donor support is included in the USA Today numbers.

The big, high profile programs tend to at least break even, but that is a small number of places. Whether $1 - 50 million is a large amount of money depends upon what you want to compare it to.

The big fiction out there is that the pressure to have big fancy intercollegiate athletic programs is to make money for the university. In fact, the pressure is alumni and politicians clamoring for successful teams to cheer for.

---------------


And with that I fear I have ventured too close to politics.

[CTcard]

Also, easy to identify the universities that are basketball schools (including, unfortunately, UConn).

Wondering if the UConn unfortunate comment is just a rivalry issue or something more?

There are a few that look like anomalies to me, and I suspect no longer true. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida are all listed as having basketball coaches as the highest paid employee - pretty football-centric places. Even California surprises me, though somewhere back in my memory I remember reading some article stating as much.

Judging from tuition increases and college and university spending increases, higher education has not been starved for money. 

It would take me some time to relocate numbers on this (and I don't have that time just now), but from memory public university spending per pupil has been constant to down in inflation adjusted dollars over something like 40-50 years. This was pre-covid.

Nominal tuition has jumped significantly, with the two most significant factors being making up for a large decrease in state support and public universities taking on more of a private university approach to tuition with high nominal sticker price but substantial aid for many.

There are some complicated arguments about whether this is a particularly good measure of university spending in addition to much concern over exactly how spending has shifted within universities over this time.

I doubt seriously that athletic programs have siphoned off money especially if you consider the donor support it generates.

Donor support is included in the USA Today numbers.

The big, high profile programs tend to at least break even, but that is a small number of places. Whether $1 - 50 million is a large amount of money depends upon what you want to compare it to.

The big fiction out there is that the pressure to have big fancy intercollegiate athletic programs is to make money for the university. In fact, the pressure is alumni and politicians clamoring for successful teams to cheer for.

---------------


And with that I fear I have ventured too close to politics.