Only 14 FBS Schools Make $$$ in 2009 Fiscal Year

[TexasTerror]

Just 14 of the 120 schools at the FBS level made $$$ last year from campus athletics. The year before it was 25...of course, this is "hard money". We all know the "soft money" benefits that comes from major college football...


A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before.

Researchers blame the sagging economy and suggested that next year's numbers could be even worse.

The research was done by accounting professor Dan Fulks of Transylvania University, a Division III school in Lexington, Ky. It shows the median amount paid by the 120 FBS schools to support campus athletics grew in one year from about $8 million to more than $10 million.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

[ngineer]

I was surprised it was 25 a year ago. Traditionally, college athletics was not envisioned to 'make money'. Of course, the 'vision' of college athletics these days is quite warped.

[JMUNJ08]

It also mentioned that 68 of 120 made money of football alone.

That means its the other sports that suck out the profits from football which is well known as few pay for women's rowing competitions. All programs without football have a near ZERO chance to turn a profit due to lack of ticket sales/donors/merchandise/concessions. I think this is a better showing of why schools want to move up...

[Big Al]

I don't think it's a problem that athletics don't "make money" for the schools. Rather, the problem is that they end up being a multi-million dollar drain on the books. As has been pointed out, football in and of itself isn't the main drain on resources. Rather, the real problem is all the scholarships that need to go out in other sports to offset the 85 football scholarships. That's a lot of coin.

Why doesn't the NCAA look at slashing fb scholarships by a third (or maybe more?)? This would have several positive effects:

1. Make it easier for schools with football to comply with Title IX.
2. Reduce the financial impact of giving out scholarships -- both in football itself but in other sports, as well.
3. Distribute talent more evenly across FBS, FCS & D-II, because schools would have to be more selective about to whom they offer scholarships.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It also mentioned that 68 of 120 made money of football alone.

That means its the other sports that suck out the profits from football which is well known as few pay for women's rowing competitions. All programs without football have a near ZERO chance to turn a profit due to lack of ticket sales/donors/merchandise/concessions. I think this is a better showing of why schools want to move up...

You (and ESPN) missing a key ingredient to the numbers. Cue Inside Higher Ed, which is a different, numerist perspective on the numbers:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/18/ncaa


In a similar vein, the median institutional subsidy for athletics in the FBS rose from around $8 million in 2007-8 to more than $10 million in 2008-9. This reliance on institutional funds has increased as the growth in median revenue generated directly by athletics programs in the FBS — via sources such as ticket sales and media contracts — slowed to nearly 6 percent from 2008 to 2009. This is down significantly from the 17 percent growth in revenue from 2007 to 2008. By comparison, total athletics expenses sped in the other direction, ballooning by nearly 11 percent. This is double the growth in expenses from 2007 to 2008.

Translation: Direct revenues (ticket sales, merchandise agreements, TV, etc.) grew by 6 percent, on average, while a myriad number of expenses grew 11 percent. A good hunk of this is a reflection on the higher cost of scholarships across the board - if tuition goes up 6% and you're a full-scholarship school, your athletics budget just went up 6%. But still - more money is needed. So the response has generally been to soak the students with athletic fees. Students are generally happy to pay - but only up to a point.


The gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” grew considerably within the FBS. The sports program generating the most revenue in the subdivision — which the report does not identify — produced $138.5 million, whereas the median generated revenue was $32.3 million. Also, the largest total expense by a single program was $127.7 million, in comparison to the median of $45.9 million. The gaps for FCS institutions and those Division I institutions without a football team are significant but not nearly as large.

The school with the largest number is clearly Texas, but it's striking that the median revenue is $32 million and the median expense is $45 million. This is exactly why schools have to pause when thinking about going to a low-end FBS conference - especially with a facility that can't dream of creating that much revenue.


Ticket sales and donations from alumni and other supporters make up more than half of the revenue generated by FBS programs.

Salaries and benefits for coaches and athletic scholarships for players make up nearly half of the total expenses of FBS programs.
The highest median head coaching salaries in the FBS are, in order, football ($1.2 million), men’s basketball ($911,000), women’s basketball ($308,000) and men’s ice hockey ($313,000).

Only 2 percent of football programs, 6 percent of men’s basketball programs and 2 percent of women’s basketball programs in the FCS generated surpluses.

Head coaching salary inflation is definitely something that advocates want to rein in somehow. But that last statistic is damned interesting, too. If you are an FCS football program generating a surplus, why go to FBS where you're a near-certainty to "lose money" in increased expenses?

Also, I don't think the "FCS football/basketball" surplus statistic really means anything. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to show that Villanova, Georgetown, and Dayton all generate a surplus in basketball (and, perhaps, Marist in women's basketball), and though they all have FCS football, the program really doesn't have anything to do with their revenue/deficit in football.

[ASUMountaineer]

Just 14 of the 120 schools at the FBS level made $$$ last year from campus athletics. The year before it was 25...of course, this is "hard money". We all know the "soft money" benefits that comes from major college football...


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

How many FCS schools turn a profit on athletics? My guess is less than 14.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

How many FCS schools turn a profit on athletics? My guess is less than 14.


Only 2 percent of football programs, 6 percent of men’s basketball programs and 2 percent of women’s basketball programs in the FCS generated surpluses.

2% of 126 FCS-sponsoring schools last year = 2.52. Round up, you have 3 schools at best.

There's an interesting question: which 3 are they?

Are they HBCUs (Grambling/Southern/Tennessee State)? A playoff team (Montana)? Perennial attendance winners (Delaware, App)?

[GannonFan]

Translation: Direct revenues (ticket sales, merchandise agreements, TV, etc.) grew by 6 percent, on average, while a myriad number of expenses grew 11 percent. A good hunk of this is a reflection on the higher cost of scholarships across the board - if tuition goes up 6% and you're a full-scholarship school, your athletics budget just went up 6%. But still - more money is needed. So the response has generally been to soak the students with athletic fees. Students are generally happy to pay - but only up to a point.

But that's a funny number - sure, accounting-wise the athletic department gets hit with the full cost of the scholarship, but in real dollars, the University doesn't really charge itself that full cost. Room and board, sure, but it doesn't really cost the University the full tuition (or any tuition) to have someone on scholarship - the building and professors are there anyway.