10-16-2019, 10:39 AM
...I think it's pretty clear that we're not saying that athletics in general obviously generate revenue, Title IX makes that a weird question. But the revenue sports, and especially football, clearly generate a brobdingnagian excess of revenue (otherwise modern athletics departments wouldn't work).
The problem with wanting hard numbers is that by and large they're not available, and it's in school's interests to make it look like they're not profitable (I've heard of schools doing things like putting concessions revenue into the dining hall budget), so even when you do have overview numbers they might not honest. And you still have things like the above, it's hard to judge from a line item of "facilities construction and maintenance" whether it's necessary or a boondoggle, or something like staffing costs, do they actually need 15 associate directors of thus and such or is it just a way to spend the excess money? Do ADs really justify the salary they get, etc?
But even without that it's utterly clear that there's a lot of money sloshing around. Look at revenues from TV deals. Look at coaches' salaries, look at the facilities arm race that's been well reported on (and was OP's point). This stuff just would not happen if there weren't actually an excess of funds. That admins go begging with their hat in their hand for state money or student fees is, I would suspect, them wanting to have their cake and eat it too, but without detailed budgetary analysis that we'll never, ever get it would be functionally impossible to know. But it strains credulity to say that at the P5 level for revenue sports the athletes aren't generating brobdingnagian amounts of value that they aren't getting compensated in proportion to. (Whether or not you want to argue that scholarships are sufficient value they're clearly not proportional, in the same way that Nick Saban makes many times the Alabama, I dunno, track and field coach.)
If you don't find that convincing, well, I dunno what to tell you. I think it's obvious enough what's going on that it doesn't really take much digging, if you don't then I'm not going to go through financial reports for you.
The problem with wanting hard numbers is that by and large they're not available, and it's in school's interests to make it look like they're not profitable (I've heard of schools doing things like putting concessions revenue into the dining hall budget), so even when you do have overview numbers they might not honest. And you still have things like the above, it's hard to judge from a line item of "facilities construction and maintenance" whether it's necessary or a boondoggle, or something like staffing costs, do they actually need 15 associate directors of thus and such or is it just a way to spend the excess money? Do ADs really justify the salary they get, etc?
But even without that it's utterly clear that there's a lot of money sloshing around. Look at revenues from TV deals. Look at coaches' salaries, look at the facilities arm race that's been well reported on (and was OP's point). This stuff just would not happen if there weren't actually an excess of funds. That admins go begging with their hat in their hand for state money or student fees is, I would suspect, them wanting to have their cake and eat it too, but without detailed budgetary analysis that we'll never, ever get it would be functionally impossible to know. But it strains credulity to say that at the P5 level for revenue sports the athletes aren't generating brobdingnagian amounts of value that they aren't getting compensated in proportion to. (Whether or not you want to argue that scholarships are sufficient value they're clearly not proportional, in the same way that Nick Saban makes many times the Alabama, I dunno, track and field coach.)
If you don't find that convincing, well, I dunno what to tell you. I think it's obvious enough what's going on that it doesn't really take much digging, if you don't then I'm not going to go through financial reports for you.