Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:47:27 -0700 From: "Gerald Woodward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: Salaries and Sports being cut
On the other hand, without the income from football and basketball, many colleges and universities would not be able to support Title IX or many other sports for men or women.
My understanding is that only 30 out of 108 Division I-A football programs generate positive net revenues (staying away from the ugly word "profits"), and that few Division I-AA, II, or III schools make money off their programs. Given that situation, I don't understand how those revenues are necessary to support other sports--doesn't football generally cost more than it brings in? Seems like other sports would have MORE money if football was dropped at most of these schools (given that the deficits typically are bigger than any one minor sport's budget).
I don't know what the stats are for basketball revenues, but I expect they look similar. I also suspect that there are few schools where both programs make money--perhaps a few SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 schools, UCLA and Arizona. So there is likely some cross subsidy between those revenue sports as well.
As a side note, at those 30 money-making schools, they are usually expanding, not shrinking sports programs, so Title IX is not an important constraint.
Richard McCann
