Does this mean tennis, gymnastics and swimming can now be saved?

HawkRCID

HR All-State
Nov 7, 2018
611
830
93
Ha! No way.

honestly this play/no play thing moved me from the camp of “never pay players” to they need to start right away. And by either removing non-revenue sports or spinning off the football program entirely they can start doing that more easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pahawk68

hawkedoff

HR Heisman
Jul 25, 2013
8,432
4,552
113
There is no such thing as non revenue sports. There is only an accounting practice that separates these students from their profit line to the University as a whole because they are athletes. It is a nice headline to say athletics doesn't receive tax dollars and so we have this concept of nonrevenue sports and by extension students. We don't say nonrevenue campus events. We don't say nonrevenue alumni outreach. We don't say nonrevenue music programs or marching band.

We don't say this things because it is a ridiculous notion.
 

MepoDawg#

HR Legend
Oct 29, 2012
10,174
8,846
113
There is no such thing as non revenue sports. There is only an accounting practice that separates these students from their profit line to the University as a whole because they are athletes. It is a nice headline to say athletics doesn't receive tax dollars and so we have this concept of nonrevenue sports and by extension students. We don't say nonrevenue campus events. We don't say nonrevenue alumni outreach. We don't say nonrevenue music programs or marching band.

We don't say this things because it is a ridiculous notion.
They say it because the sports don’t produce enough revenue to cover their expenses. Technically they are revenue sports just operating at a loss.
 

OILCHECKER

HR Heisman
Oct 12, 2001
6,913
2,840
113
No, these sports aren't coming back. I would like to think that admins/ad have learned a lesson and will start to scale back on coaching salaries, practice facilities, stadium renovation, etc., and put funds aside for the next big financial crisis, but I doubt anything like that happens and they will just eliminate the non-profitable teams
 
Feb 25, 2008
44,138
14,914
113
They say it because the sports don’t produce enough revenue to cover their expenses. Technically they are revenue sports just operating at a loss.
Which is entirely the fault of the college system and what it's become as far as relying on specific sports in order to justify the existence of others.......
 

NorthDSMHawk

HR All-American
Oct 24, 2016
3,907
6,966
113
Ankeny
These programs were going away eventually regardless. Get enough programs to offset Football, Mens BB, and Wrestling scholarships and satisfy the program # requirement for the B1G/NCAA and call it good.
 

hawkedoff

HR Heisman
Jul 25, 2013
8,432
4,552
113
They say it because the sports don’t produce enough revenue to cover their expenses. Technically they are revenue sports just operating at a loss.
Which is a nice accounting trick to separate the athletic department from the University to give the appearance no tax dollars are used to support sports. The truth though is that each student is a profit center for the University and athletes are no different. Substitute the marching band for swimmer and the point becomes clear on the issue. We don't think of the marching band student as nonrevenue but we do classify the swimmer that way.
 

NorthDSMHawk

HR All-American
Oct 24, 2016
3,907
6,966
113
Ankeny
Subsidizing sports. Good lord you are a moron
Nah, not really. Unless you have a better term for what the football program does when it fully covers smaller sport programs operating expenditures since they don’t bring in anything and operate at a huge loss. I’d love to hear it.

Hell, Forbes wrote on this almost a decade ago.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sports...d-other-sports-at-college-level/#57eff10571c2

I mean, the terminology isn't really even debated at this point.

https://www.timeshighereducation.co...ubsidise-white-sports-players-us-universities

Moron.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's

MepoDawg#

HR Legend
Oct 29, 2012
10,174
8,846
113
Which is a nice accounting trick to separate the athletic department from the University to give the appearance no tax dollars are used to support sports. The truth though is that each student is a profit center for the University and athletes are no different. Substitute the marching band for swimmer and the point becomes clear on the issue. We don't think of the marching band student as nonrevenue but we do classify the swimmer that way.
Do tax dollars pay for sports or not? Does athletic revenue bleed into the university to help support non-athletes?
 

hawkfeever

HR All-American
Gold Member
Aug 5, 2016
4,599
3,697
113
Still have the 70k people x $100 per ticket (don't know what the average really is) x 7 home games = $49,000,000 ticket revenue deficit from a normal year.
 

DodgerHawki

HR Heisman
Nov 19, 2002
7,498
7,128
113
Which is a nice accounting trick to separate the athletic department from the University to give the appearance no tax dollars are used to support sports. The truth though is that each student is a profit center for the University and athletes are no different. Substitute the marching band for swimmer and the point becomes clear on the issue. We don't think of the marching band student as nonrevenue but we do classify the swimmer that way.
Dude, it's not an accounting trick. Literally the athletic department makes transfers into university general funds to pay for scholarships in gymnastics, swimming, or whatever sport. Some/many of those students might attend the university anyway, the the scholarships are funded by the athletic department. And the AD funds come from TV money, ticket revenue from all sports, and donations to the athletic department.

To say nothing of the additional costs needed to have a sport in the first place (facilities, coaches, training, travel, etc.). That revenue generated directly as a result of football is $80 million or more (TV revenue + tickets + donations). Football's costs are very high, but they don't use all of that revenue. The rest pays for all the other sports.
 

jhawkinaz

HR MVP
Dec 16, 2012
1,070
965
113
Ha! No way.

honestly this play/no play thing moved me from the camp of “never pay players” to they need to start right away. And by either removing non-revenue sports or spinning off the football program entirely they can start doing that more easily.

I have come around to the realization that football should be its own entity. separate football from the rest of the athletic department, then balance scholarships according to title 9 amongst all the other sports.

at some point its not about what is fair (I have a daughter BTW, who will be a pretty good athlete, and I will fight hard to get her every opportunity possible), or what was the intent of college athletics 100, 50, or even 30 years ago.......it's just has to be about the reality of the situation.

all of the sports/coaches/administrators that bemoan football and the advanced treatment it receives......are right now getting a damn good look at what happens if you don't feed the Golden Goose. No Golden Eggs, and then things go away.

Again, not fair or even right necessarily, just is.
 

hawkedoff

HR Heisman
Jul 25, 2013
8,432
4,552
113
Football is the golden goose but it is also the reason these other programs were actively discouraged to not build their own sustainable budget model. They were made to be dependent rather than forced to find their own support from varies sources. That includes by the way raising scholarship support from their own wealthy alumni or taking annual support and building an endowment that would eventually pay for scholarships.

Smaller schools definitely pay less for these programs but they also recognize that the student athletes pay their way overall to the institution. We have separated the overall value of the student athlete away from the entire budget of the UI and instead are only viewing these programs as being sufficient as a stand alone away from tuition dollars. Coe college doesn't do that accounting trick and recognizes that the investment in sports bring a return in tuition and fees

The swim program at Iowa has incredibly wealthy alumni as an example. How many scholarships do they need nd what is the endowment needed to sustain them? Same for coaching and recruiting expense? Now where can those funds come from on an annual operational need and where can they be raised and out away to sustain the program over time? Donors could but they also have done really nothing when it comes to marketing themselves.

The golden goose has been good to college athletics but the welfare has made them short sighted and lazy on a marketing and budgeting model
 

hawkedoff

HR Heisman
Jul 25, 2013
8,432
4,552
113
A decade ago? It's not like the thing is going to be vacant. they'll still have it for student use and will try to host regional meets there.
Right. Because you dump 100m into a building like that for things that aren't profitable. That building is actually an indicator that this has been viewed incorrectly for a very long time. The athletic department is not a separate entity no matter how much it matters to politicians that sports don't get tax dollars. There is value beyond separating the accounting that is being ignored
 
  • Like
Reactions: iamia

DodgerHawki

HR Heisman
Nov 19, 2002
7,498
7,128
113
Football is the golden goose but it is also the reason these other programs were actively discouraged to not build their own sustainable budget model. They were made to be dependent rather than forced to find their own support from varies sources. That includes by the way raising scholarship support from their own wealthy alumni or taking annual support and building an endowment that would eventually pay for scholarships.

Smaller schools definitely pay less for these programs but they also recognize that the student athletes pay their way overall to the institution. We have separated the overall value of the student athlete away from the entire budget of the UI and instead are only viewing these programs as being sufficient as a stand alone away from tuition dollars. Coe college doesn't do that accounting trick and recognizes that the investment in sports bring a return in tuition and fees

The swim program at Iowa has incredibly wealthy alumni as an example. How many scholarships do they need nd what is the endowment needed to sustain them? Same for coaching and recruiting expense? Now where can those funds come from on an annual operational need and where can they be raised and out away to sustain the program over time? Donors could but they also have done really nothing when it comes to marketing themselves.

The golden goose has been good to college athletics but the welfare has made them short sighted and lazy on a marketing and budgeting model
Dude you have been making this argument several different times in the thread. Yes, it sucks sports were cut. No, your argument does not make sense. The reason places like Coe or Division III sports figure athletics into the overall cost of tuition and fees is that a good percentage of the student body participates in those things so it makes sense financially for them to in part pay for the sports via tuition and fees. For Division I sports, there is zero appetite for non-athletes to pick up the cost for paying for sports they don't participate in. Given the money that football and men's basketball traditionally bring in, the Division I model has resulted in many, many opportunities for Division I athletes that never would have been possible otherwise.

Just googling, it looks like men's swimming has 9.9 scholarships annually and women's swimming 14. The endowment would have to be significant to fully fund 24 swimming scholarships. The coaching salaries are available, my guess is the head coach earns north of six figures to coach swimming at Iowa. I could be wrong.

Athletic teams haven't been on welfare. They have been supported by TV and ticket revenue from football. It means other student at the UI don't have to pay for scholarships for athletes. That is a good thing. The model literally got turned upside down and blown up by a pandemic. I suppose these other sports could "market" themselves better, but what is the opportunity for marketing that? Hint: it's very low. no one outside the parents of swimmers or gymnasts is paying to watch those sports in college. And no one is watching them on TV either.
 

hawkedoff

HR Heisman
Jul 25, 2013
8,432
4,552
113
It doesn't make sense to you because you have been conditioned to look at the programs in isolation from the overall budget and the tuition and other fees and expenses students pay to the University. The budget for these four sports? 4m a year. The annual budget for the University? Around 3 billion a year. The cost of these programs to the university is a rounding error.

But sure I'm the one that doesn't get it....
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez

hawkedoff

HR Heisman
Jul 25, 2013
8,432
4,552
113
You’re suggesting the swimming programs are profitable?

To the university as a whole? Yes.

That swimming pool for example serves more than the swim team and as a result increases the value of the University in attracting students and faculty as well as other employees. It also serves the community.

Without the swim team it doesn't get built.
 

IamHawkeye

HR Legend
Oct 1, 2001
12,606
2,102
113
Correct.
[/Q
Football is the golden goose but it is also the reason these other programs were actively discouraged to not build their own sustainable budget model. They were made to be dependent rather than forced to find their own support from varies sources. That includes by the way raising scholarship support from their own wealthy alumni or taking annual support and building an endowment that would eventually pay for scholarships.

Smaller schools definitely pay less for these programs but they also recognize that the student athletes pay their way overall to the institution. We have separated the overall value of the student athlete away from the entire budget of the UI and instead are only viewing these programs as being sufficient as a stand alone away from tuition dollars. Coe college doesn't do that accounting trick and recognizes that the investment in sports bring a return in tuition and fees

The swim program at Iowa has incredibly wealthy alumni as an example. How many scholarships do they need nd what is the endowment needed to sustain them? Same for coaching and recruiting expense? Now where can those funds come from on an annual operational need and where can they be raised and out away to sustain the program over time? Donors could but they also have done really nothing when it comes to marketing themselves.

The golden goose has been good to college athletics but the welfare has made them short sighted and lazy on a marketing and budgeting model
And historically these sports had student/athletes who were students and helped the overall athletic grade point.
 

DodgerHawki

HR Heisman
Nov 19, 2002
7,498
7,128
113
It doesn't make sense to you because you have been conditioned to look at the programs in isolation from the overall budget and the tuition and other fees and expenses students pay to the University. The budget for these four sports? 4m a year. The annual budget for the University? Around 3 billion a year. The cost of these programs to the university is a rounding error.

But sure I'm the one that doesn't get it....
Dude I'm glad you are not in charge of any of my money. I'll leave it at that.
 

chuck285

HR MVP
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,872
1,365
113
It’s not an argument genius, it’s an opinion. One I’m very comfortable with. Not a huge fan of subsidizing sports that draw 8 spectators just to say we have it.
Are you talking subsidizing sports or all those losers in Washington D.C.?
 

WeRIowa

HR All-State
Oct 6, 2017
956
863
93
Which is entirely the fault of the college system and what it's become as far as relying on specific sports in order to justify the existence of others.......
This is word salad. It is possible to offer some intercollegiate athletics only because there is revenue from a few sports available to pay for them.
 

HawkRCID

HR All-State
Nov 7, 2018
611
830
93
These programs were going away eventually regardless. Get enough programs to offset Football, Mens BB, and Wrestling scholarships and satisfy the program # requirement for the B1G/NCAA and call it good.
I actually can’t believe I’m saying this but I basically agree at this point. Though I would put wrestling on the fringe of being one that should continue. I do enjoy it, but could go without it too.
 
Feb 25, 2008
44,138
14,914
113
This is word salad. It is possible to offer some intercollegiate athletics only because there is revenue from a few sports available to pay for them.
Aww that's cute. You discovered the term "word salad" on the internet and were just waiting for a chance to use it in a conversation.........

How's about you look up the history of college athletics and get back to me, if you wanna sit there and say that college football has always paid for the existence of "lesser" sports.

You can tell me, "well that's just the way it is now"................f*** the way it is now, is what I'll tell you.

Friends? :)
 

Titanhawk2

HR Heisman
Jul 14, 2011
8,661
3,049
113
To the university as a whole? Yes.

That swimming pool for example serves more than the swim team and as a result increases the value of the University in attracting students and faculty as well as other employees. It also serves the community.

Without the swim team it doesn't get built.
The pool is the universities, not the athletic departments, so the swimming programs use what is available to the general student population, another form of subsidy
 

NorthDSMHawk

HR All-American
Oct 24, 2016
3,907
6,966
113
Ankeny
To the university as a whole? Yes.
I think you need a refresher on what "profitable" is. The swim programs are/were not profitable. End of discussion. Nobody but you is arguing that. We're done discussing it. They have been kept afloat by huge subsides from Football and Men's Basketball, just like almost all of the other programs that are still around due to Title IX. There isn't any tricky accounting involved. There isn't some grand scheme by the AD to make them reliant on subsidies. They need the money because they draw a handful of fans every meet and don't draw any marketing/viewership money. Without the subsidies they turn into club teams (which are still subsidized, just to a lesser extent), which is what they should be regardless IMO.

Saying you think they should continue to be subsidized by the AD for enrichment of the university, fitting in with other B1G teams, etc is fine. I strongly disagree, but it's your opinion. Trying to say they are in anyway profitable is laughable, and where you lose people.

That swimming pool for example serves more than the swim team and as a result increases the value of the University in attracting students and faculty as well as other employees. It also serves the community.
No ****? It's almost like I said that already.

A decade ago? It's not like the thing is going to be vacant. they'll still have it for student use and will try to host regional meets there.
Without the swim team it doesn't get built.
You don't think universities build aquatic/swimming centers for student/faculty use if they don't have swimming/diving programs? You know what rec centers are, right? Would it have been as nice? Probably not. Would it have had to be as nice? Certainly not. But when the AD doesn't want to show profit and needs to spend money, people will always bitch if it only goes to the same 4 programs all the time.

We're done here. If you want to keep pretending the programs were/are profitable, go for it. You'd be wrong, but that is your right. If you think they should continue to be subsidized, that's fine. I don't. If swimming takes off in popularity and the program shows they could bring in revenue, I'd change my stance. For the foreseeable future, it's a black hole which is propped up by Title IX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frosty7130

Run&Blade

HR Legend
May 6, 2005
36,029
18,887
113
I wonder if they ever considered still offering them and just not actually issuing scholarships. Lots of DI non power 5 schools don’t use their full allotment of scholarships or any at all on some sports.