Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
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.......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.
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.
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.
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.This is a nonsense argument
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.
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.Subsidizing sports. Good lord you are a moron
Do tax dollars pay for sports or not? Does athletic revenue bleed into the university to help support non-athletes?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.
Correct.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.
Where do you think the money comes from for rowing team scholarships, boats and the boat house? Subsidized by other athletics, donations or tax moneySubsidizing sports. Good lord you are a moron
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.
No, still a huge loss in revenue and those sports were reportedly on the chopping block prior to COVID-19.
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.Then why was the aquatics center built?
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 ignoredA 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.
You’re suggesting the swimming programs are profitable?Right. Because you dump 100m into a building like that for things that aren't profitable.
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
To the university as a whole? Yes.You’re suggesting the swimming programs are profitable?
Correct.
[/Q
Correct.And historically these sports had student/athletes who were students and helped the overall athletic grade point.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
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....
Not tax money.Where do you think the money comes from for rowing team scholarships, boats and the boat house? Subsidized by other athletics, donations or tax money
Are you talking subsidizing sports or all those losers in Washington D.C.?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.
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.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.......
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.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.
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.........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.
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 subsidyTo 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.
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.To the university as a whole? Yes.
No ****? It's almost like I said that already.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.
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.
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.Without the swim team it doesn't get built.