Interesting site regarding FB expenditures

[Franks Tanks]

http://collegesportsreport.com/

Expenses Profit (or loss)
FBS-BCS $26,882,488 $12,605,455
FBS-non BCS 5,285,037 -409,433
FCS 1,891,103 -228,798
D-II 806,593 -54,826
D-III 275,347 -16,266


I found this info very interesting. It is average expenses and profits across all teams in each category. Overall only FBS (BCS) teams make money and all others lose to a varying degree. Non BCS FBS schools lose much more then the average FCS school. Your individual school can vary greatly from this but the trends are interesting. Discuss...

[gophoenix]

FCS is a bit misleading as you have a vast difference between the Big 8 conferences + GWC/SWAC/BSouth and a handful of indies/pioneer schools.

I guess overall though, 15 truly non-scholarship school are going to show up more as outliers that slightly throw the average off.

[Franks Tanks]

FCS is a bit misleading as you have a vast difference between the Big 8 conferences + GWC/SWAC/BSouth and a handful of indies/pioneer schools.

I guess overall though, 15 truly non-scholarship school are going to show up more as outliers that slightly throw the average off.


The site also breaks the info down by conference

[Franks Tanks]

BIG TEN
SEC
ACC
PAC-10
BIG 12
BIG EAST
FBS INDIES
MOUNTAIN WEST
C-USA
WAC
MAC
SUN BELT
CAA
BIG SOUTH
PATRIOT
BIG SKY
SOCON
GATEWAY
MEAC
OVC
IVY
GREAT WEST
SOUTHLAND
SWAC
GLIAC
NEC
NCC
SAC
FCS INDIES
MIAA
GULF SOUTH
SIAC
CIAA
GLFC
LONE STAR
NE TEN
PSAC
PIONEER
D-II INDIES
WVIAC
RMAC
NSIC
MAAC

Spending by conference acording to the site. Notice the now defunt MAAC spent less then any D-II conference in the land. This info is from 2006 I believe when the conference was still in place.

[Libertine]

The FCS data is from 2005.

[JohnStOnge]

Consistent with what I've been posting on various boards for years:

Unless your I-AA/FCS program has a realistic prospect of getting into a BCS league, it's more likely than not that it will worsen its financial situation by moving to I-A/FBS. One of the biggest myths surrounding the desire to move "up" in college football is the idea that a school has to do it for financial reasons.

[appfan2008]

very interesting to see which schools spent more than others...

[Franks Tanks]

The FCS data is from 2005.

Thanks-- you guys spend a ton, perhaps the most in FCS

[DetroitFlyer]

Come on now.... Do you really believe everything you read? I doubt that the PFL or MAAC had to report any of the "academic or need based aid" provided to students that happen to play football in their figures.... If you honestly believe that students that happen to play football at PFL or former MAAC schools are paying 100% of their bill to attend college, I have some swamp land in Florida that we need to talk about.... Because this aid is not reported as part of this process, the "non-athletic scholarship" programs "appear" to spend MUCH less that the "athletic scholarship" schools....

Now, please try to explain to me what in the world the Ivy League is spending money on for football.... No athletic scholarships, minimal travel for the most part, yet they claim to spend at about an OVC level.... I guess those Ivy League shoulder pads must cost a fortune....xlolx

Much like the NCAA, these numbers are so corrupt that they simply cannot be believed by any rational person who has thought about them just a bit....

[Franks Tanks]

Come on now.... Do you really believe everything you read? I doubt that the PFL or MAAC had to report any of the "academic or need based aid" provided to students that happen to play football in their figures.... If you honestly believe that students that happen to play football at PFL or former MAAC schools are paying 100% of their bill to attend college, I have some swamp land in Florida that we need to talk about.... Because this aid is not reported as part of this process, the "non-athletic scholarship" programs "appear" to spend MUCH less that the "athletic scholarship" schools....

Now, please try to explain to me what in the world the Ivy League is spending money on for football.... No athletic scholarships, minimal travel for the most part, yet they claim to spend at about an OVC level.... I guess those Ivy League shoulder pads must cost a fortune....xlolx

Much like the NCAA, these numbers are so corrupt that they simply cannot be believed by any rational person who has thought about them just a bit....

What?? The numbers are directional as my boss likes to say. No one is saying they are absolutely correct, but a general theme can be noticed in the numbers.

PS: Drake almost lost to Upper Iowa. A so-so Lehigh team is going to smash them.

[DetroitFlyer]

What?? The numbers are directional as my boss likes to say. No one is saying they are absolutely correct, but a general theme can be noticed in the numbers.

PS: Drake almost lost to Upper Iowa. A so-so Lehigh team is going to smash them.


I was surprised that Drake did not fare better against Upper Iowa.... Still, it is way to early to discern what this means for the rest of the season.... Maybe Upper Iowa will be a powerhouse this year.... Maybe Drake really stinks. As for Drake visiting Lehigh, I completely agree that Lehigh is a so-so team. I do not have a good feel as to how this game might go, but I will be suprised if Lehigh "smashes" Drake. Drake will struggle adjusting to another new coach, ( two coaches in two years ). Still, I will wait to see the outcome of the game before I get too concerned one way or the other....

[SoCon48]

It's typical for people who don't like what they see to try to dispute the validity. Those folks never put up their "more accurate" figures or sources.

[Husky Alum]

The EADA Report is probably the "most reliable" when it comes to reporting spending as it's info reported to the government.

Here's the website it came from...

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

However, there's no audit requirements and schools can report almost whatever numbers they want.

We went through this data like crazy when we addressed the "football question" at NU this past year. You need to read the footnotes/definitions/descriptions for each category to see what's included and what isn't.

[DFW HOYA]

Now, please try to explain to me what in the world the Ivy League is spending money on for football.... No athletic scholarships, minimal travel for the most part, yet they claim to spend at about an OVC level.... I guess those Ivy League shoulder pads must cost a fortune....xlolx


Schools that offer financial aid must report it in budget numbers, so the Ivy numbers reflect how much institutional aid their respective atheltic departments are responsible for.

I'm not sure about this "minimal travel" argument. Sure, it's not San Diego to Valpo, but it's not Lehigh to Lafayette, either. Hanover to Philadelphia is a 360 mile trek, 320 to Ithaca.

[centexguy]

The EADA Report is probably the "most reliable" when it comes to reporting spending as it's info reported to the government.

Here's the website it came from...

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

However, there's no audit requirements and schools can report almost whatever numbers they want.

We went through this data like crazy when we addressed the "football question" at NU this past year. You need to read the footnotes/definitions/descriptions for each category to see what's included and what isn't.

I think this data is from the EADA because at the top of the page it says "2006 EADA Football data".

[FiniteMan]

Husky fan brought up some really good points.

You can tell which schools athletic departments are the biggest "fudgers" because their football revenue and expenses match up exactly.

I think there is a big misconception going through talks about athletic programs and profitability.

Technically, you could make an arguement that no athletic programs are profitable. Afterall, have you heard of any program making even 100K more than they spent and giving the funds to the school library for example? Athletic programs simply find places to blow any extra money they have.

Universities are bloated buracracies that work under the same rules as the government. If you finish under budget, you will find your budget cut next year. If you finish over budget, there will be much handringing followed by a likely budget increase next year.

And that is not meant to dog athletic programs. Athletic department employees are paid to bring positive attention to their school and to win and are expected by their bosses to do everything they can that won't reflect badly on the school to deliver a winner.

That doesn't mean that you COULDN'T be a profitable FCS program (allegedly something like 6-10 FCS programs didn't lose money) or even non-BCS FBS conference. The reality is that almost all athletic programs at the FBS level are under such extreme pressure to win that the from the top of the university downward they push ridiculous spending to keep pace with the Joneses.

This pressure from the top to win distorts the roles of the athletic directors and totally undermines anything a conference commission could attempt to make all schools in the conference profitable. Really, you'd have to get the presidents in a conference to agree to self imposed rules that applied conference wide so everyone was competing on a similar level. It would have to occur over the heads of the ADs. Not sure if we will see that any time soon.

The NCAA minimum attendance numbers are based on the minimum they believe it would take for a school to have a shot at breaking even at the FBS level. But that of course assumes the Universities and athletic departments are run by sensible people --- not people behaving like drunken sailors.

Does any FBS school really need to average over $100K in pay to their athletic programs' head coaches? I mean really maybe 1 in 10 football coaches is a "name" --- most of the recruiting success is facility based, personal charisma, and a modest success level. Why these schools just don't raid the latest local hot FCS name every 5 years, I can't say. (Why did Hawaii pay their new coach with no FBS head coaching experience more than their old coach who had NFL experience? They paid him over 1M a year! A hamfisted attempt to control the Bad PR on Jones' exit. 3 years from now when that BCS check is gone, they will wish they paid him the 500K he would have taken and sunk the other 1.5M of that BCS check into facility upgrades.)

Athletics are a university's "loss leader". Universities accept that they will lose money. They hope that they athletic departments will add to their fame, essentially making the degrees of their students better known. That is what gets lost in these discussions --- especially with the more fervant FCS fans --- basically most folks on this forum.

Youngstown State
Georgia Southern

Yesterday's app state. They had the spotlight and now they don't. Certainly you can argue that they aren't spending money at FBS levels, but does anyone outside of FCS circles know about them?

The FCS equivilant of the "why play FBS football" is "why play football at all vs. FCS or DII?"

At the FCS and DII level you really are only entertaining your student body and few thousand locals usually. At the FBS level you are exposing your university brand to the region and often the nation.

Assuming football will lose money, what are you really gaining to play at a lower level?

[IndianaAppMan]

IF this data is accurate, Davidson can't use the excuse of expenses to explain why they can't play SoCon football. They reported more spending than did fellow small-school and SoCon member Wofford.

Does Davidson choose not play in the SoCon b/c of philosophical reasons of some kind? If so, then why is it then okay for them to give scholarships to basketball, baseball, etc., and not to football? xconfusedx

[DFW HOYA]

Does Davidson choose not play in the SoCon b/c of philosophical reasons of some kind? If so, then why is it then okay for them to give scholarships to basketball, baseball, etc., and not to football? xconfusedx

They can't afford 63 scholarships, plain and simple. It's not like Davidson could offer 10 or 15 and be anything close to competitive.

[SoCon48]

IF this data is accurate, Davidson can't use the excuse of expenses to explain why they can't play SoCon football. They reported more spending than did fellow small-school and SoCon member Wofford.

Does Davidson choose not play in the SoCon b/c of philosophical reasons of some kind? If so, then why is it then okay for them to give scholarships to basketball, baseball, etc., and not to football? xconfusedx

Look at Davidson's tuition cost and multiply it by 63. Factor in the admission requirements and you'll answer your own question.
In some ways, I understand their priorities.

[DetroitFlyer]

IF this data is accurate, Davidson can't use the excuse of expenses to explain why they can't play SoCon football. They reported more spending than did fellow small-school and SoCon member Wofford.

Does Davidson choose not play in the SoCon b/c of philosophical reasons of some kind? If so, then why is it then okay for them to give scholarships to basketball, baseball, etc., and not to football? xconfusedx

How about explaining how Wofford can offer 63 scholarships and report such low numbers? This "report" is almost complete garbage. If these numbers were closely audited in an effort to make this report meaningful, the results would look far different. AT BEST, this can be used as a very loose guideline!

[FiniteMan]

It isn't garbage, you just have to consider what totals are largely fabricated. The expenses are not, which means these are their real athletic budgets. That means you can compare schools' athletic budgets just like conferences do when they evaluate future members.

The money coming in, likewise, is being paid --- it just in many school's cases isn't coming from where they have it allocated. In a lot of instances they are fudging numbers to make programs appear defensible. It isn't hard to figure out which schools are the worst fudgers.

If you look at the numbers from schools that draw between 25-40K a game you might see a few that frankly look exceedingly honest.

I think my biggest complaint about it is that I don't know what money is being spent to pay off stadium and facility upgrades. It makes it a lot tougher to do meaningful apples to apples compairisons.

[IndianaAppMan]

Look at Davidson's tuition cost and multiply it by 63. Factor in the admission requirements and you'll answer your own question.
In some ways, I understand their priorities.

Well, Furman and Wofford aren't exactly cheap in the tuition department, and although they may be a wee bit flexible on admissions, it's still hard for athletes to get into those schools. I have a friend who went to Furman. Trust me: there's no slack on their players when it comes to the rigor of their classes, with 20+page papers on top of routine four-pagers a regularity.

[IndianaAppMan]

In all honesty, I wonder whether sometimes football scholarships are truly funds set aside by a third-party fund-raising source to literally pay tuition to the university on behalf of the athlete. In reality, I suspect that athletes just get a tuition waiver from the university itself, while the costs of their education are absorbed by paying students through their own tuition and fees.

In other words, it just doesn't make any sense for the eighth-best cross-country runner to have $32,000 of tuition covered for being just good enough. Same for FCS football, since it's clear that it's not much of a money-maker in most cases.