Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

sports.espn.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#31

Post by chris11 »

30thElement wrote: post #4

Theses statistics come up several times a year, and they are always misleading. It's Hard to measure how much money a University makes on sports teams. I go to a school that has a BCS football program that makes more money then it spends (objectively, spent ~18 million last year and made ~23 million). I don't know about the athletic program at large. But beyond that $23M in revenue directly from the football program,…

If it made 5 million that year it is one of the few that made money. And besides, I doubt the school would have made money if only profitable teams were allowed to play in the division, so its still a net loss.

And that plane trip shouldn't be considered profit. The lack of a major sports team would have meant the lack of a free plane trip, but it would also have meant the lack of a need for a plane trip.

And I highly doubt your school's net profit is 30k per student per year.

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#32

Post by burgerbrain »

micks56 wrote: post #29
burgerbrain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. People showing up to a school for non-academic reasons clearly provide an academic benefit... Not. I also haven't seen a theoretical physics conference gather dozens students late on a Friday night, but that doesn't mean kegs are good for education.

Should we also cancel the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper?

No, because those things are of actual intellectual interest. They are what schools are for.

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#33

Post by jhaglund »

aspir wrote: post #10

Oklahoma pays it's own way. In fact, it gives nearly $1 MM to the general scholarship fund annually. Of course, the only citation I can offer is being a former student athlete, and having my support staff, coaches, and university executives repeat the statistic on the record like, well, a broken record. I haven't seen the line items though myself -- I wasn't on the student liaison committee.

Heresay is what that is called. You ought find a better source and stop repeating heresay.

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#34

Post by micks56 »

jhaglund wrote: post #30
micks56 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we also cancel the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper?

Of course not. The question is does the amount we spend on athletics (millions) really do anything for academics? No one is saying athletics have no place in university. But why are we spending so much on it, compared to the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper? When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics.

> No one is saying athletics have no place in university.

burgerbrain seems to be saying this, which is what I responded to.

> When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics.

Tie in differently, not better. There are many ways to learn and many lessons to be learned. Drama, debate, music, newspaper, and sports, among others, are all different paths to learn those lessons.

I am not justifying the large amounts of money spent on sports programs. What I am saying is that sports do educate people and provide an important opportunity for students in many ways. Saying "nothing is learned while playing sports" is false.

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#35

Post by tokenadult »

keiferski wrote: post #16
tokenadult wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference? And when those 50,000 alumni show up on campus, what do they do to make the education at that university better?

They pay for the university's existence.

If what they pay is less than what the university spends on them, in what sense are they paying to improve education?

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#36

Post by micks56 »

burgerbrain wrote: post #32
micks56 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we also cancel the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper?

No, because those things are of actual intellectual interest. They are what schools are for .

In college I took a course called "Physics of Alpine Skiing." A manufacturing engineering professor taught the course. He was a big ski racer in his younger days. While searching for a college major, and generally just drifting along, a mentor at his school explained to him that skiing is machining. This got the professor interested in manufacturing engineering. The professor ended up having a successful collegiate ski race career AND an inspired academic career. College graduate became PhD graduate and eventually a tenured full professor at a major engineering research university.

The professor's interest in skiing gave him direction for his life's work. Professor performs manufacturing and machining research, using his intuition and experience from the slopes and applies it in his labs.

This professor is a campus favorite, inspiring many in his courses, and often advises senior design projects that deal with winter sports technologies, which gives those students skills that are valuable in the workplace.

Without a ski race program this person would not have even been in college. He would have been skiing and skiing only. The US would not have had a competent manufacturing researcher and professor.

This seems to show benefit from sports programs. No?

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#38

Post by runevault »

burgerbrain wrote: post #17
aspir wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've personally seen more 1 generation college attendees in my athletics career circle than not; they're not ignorant jocks trying to skate into the pros, they're trying to better their standing by any means necessary. Most athletes also understand that they "go pro in something other than sports," to steal the NCAA tagline. Ask your alma mater's department heads, deans and development officers if sports matters. Res…

This is and always has been a terrible argument. Academic scholarships will always be a better use of money. There is no reason those first generation students can't get the attention of schools with academic excellence instead of sports, particularly if they are generally as bright as you claim.

You're ignoring the fact some of the money is only given FOR sports. Plus the prominence sports brings in can help drive donations. I seem to recall the University of Arkansas getting some serious donations recently to fund giving their football head coach a nice raise, so that money could not go anywhere else even if the university wanted to, because it was the condition of the donation.

Re: Nearly All US Universities Lose Money on Sports

#39

Post by 30thElement »

chris11 wrote: post #31
30thElement wrote: post #4

Theses statistics come up several times a year, and they are always misleading. It's Hard to measure how much money a University makes on sports teams. I go to a school that has a BCS football program that makes more money then it spends (objectively, spent ~18 million last year and made ~23 million). I don't know about the athletic program at large. But beyond that $23M in revenue directly from the football program,…

If it made 5 million that year it is one of the few that made money. And besides, I doubt the school would have made money if only profitable teams were allowed to play in the division, so its still a net loss. And that plane trip shouldn't be considered profit. The lack of a major sports team would have meant the lack of a free plane trip, but it would also have meant the lack of a need for a plane trip. And I highl…

Yeah, the plane trip wasn't meant as an example of where schools make extra money, just an example of how donors contribute that may or may not show up in the revenue. If they donated their private jet, they also donated a fair bit of cash, which I'm not sure if it shows up in revenue.

Also, the ~$5M profit wasn't meant to be presented as the standard, just to give context as to where my comment was coming from. It was meant as "I don't need to rationalize my school's waste of money, and I might be in a minority of schools that do make a profit". My school sinks a lot of money into a not very good (but getting better) basketball program, so it wouldn't surprise me if we were a net loss for athletics.

Profit per student is also a tricky thing. Most professors are a sunk cost (tenure), so while the profit per student is less then $30k per year, the marginal profit per student is ~$30k. But ignoring that, they have to be making at least some profit off of me and other students that would not have gone here if it weren't for the football program. It wouldn't be $30k per person, but it also wouldn't be 0.

My comment wasn't meant to disprove the statistic, as it wouldn't surprise me if a significant portion of schools lose on their athletic program, but to argue that it might be less then they asserted.

Post reply on HN