O'Bannon ruling

[ChicosBailBonds]

Without wading into politics on a basketball forum I would say that there is a HUGE difference between basic human needs and getting a free or discounted college education because a kid is good at tossing a ball around.

See my response to Heisenberg. I think you find that very few football and basketball programs have a true negative ROI. And if they did, my response would be the same as it is to the sand volleyball team, cut it.

And sure, there are many kids who are on a swimming scholarship or something similar that go on to do great things. I would argue that there is just as much likelihood that a kid on an academic scholarship would do the same thing. Only difference is that the academic scholarship doesn't come with the extra cost of coaches, facilities, travel budgets, tutors, etc. My response? Cut the swim team, put that money into academic scholarships (And I am aware it is not that simple, I am merely making a simple argument to make a point).

Change is coming to higher education. The blank check that is federal student loans will be reformed and be much harder to come by in the near future. Colleges are going to have to tighten their belts across all of their departments. Athletics is probably the department that most consistently has an over inflated budget across multiple universities. They should be one of the departments that takes the greatest hit. And I say this as someone who works in college athletics.

Should people not be required to do a few things for those basic human needs? 

I think you are way overselling the value of all college football and basketball programs.  Do you think the basketball program at Mississippi Valley State is helping to bring in a bunch of donations?  How about VMI's?  How about NJIT?  In fact, let's look at the bottom 100 DI schools just for starters.  Then look at all the DII schools, DIII schools, etc.   People continue to make the mistake here and elsewhere of thinking about the top schools and conferences, not the actual majority of schools.  We on this board are sports fans, but the average Joe doesn't give a damn about their school's sports teams, and many have negative reactions to them.

Of course, for big schools, the name recognition, a trip to a bowl game or the Final Four can be beneficial in terms of donations, etc.  How many schools get to go to the Final Four over a 20 year period?  That's 80 slots, but I'm guessing it is taken up by about 30 to 40 schools as so many of them repeat the occurrence.   Take a look at the attendance for most schools, take a look at the student ticket purchases that number in the 100's because so few care. 

We should be careful about assigning ROIs to some of these by using the prism of big time sports when most college programs are not big time, let alone the sports within.

[forgetful]

Should people not be required to do a few things for those basic human needs?  

I think you are way overselling the value of all college football and basketball programs.  Do you think the basketball program at Mississippi Valley State is helping to bring in a bunch of donations?  How about VMI's?  How about NJIT?  In fact, let's look at the bottom 100 DI schools just for starters.  Then look at all the DII schools, DIII schools, etc.   People continue to make the mistake here and elsewhere of thinking about the top schools and conferences, not the actual majority of schools.  We on this board are sports fans, but the average Joe doesn't give a damn about their school's sports teams, and many have negative reactions to them.

Of course, for big schools, the name recognition, a trip to a bowl game or the Final Four can be beneficial in terms of donations, etc.  How many schools get to go to the Final Four over a 20 year period?  That's 80 slots, but I'm guessing it is taken up by about 30 to 40 schools as so many of them repeat the occurrence.   Take a look at the attendance for most schools, take a look at the student ticket purchases that number in the 100's because so few care.  

We should be careful about assigning ROIs to some of these by using the prism of big time sports when most college programs are not big time, let alone the sports within.

Chicos...I'm also not going to get into politics discussions here.

But a key detail in evaluating these things in relation to the ROI, is do they serve the mission of the organization.  And would removing them negatively deter from the overall goals of the mission.

Schools have philosophy departments and religious studies departments (money losers), because removing them would detract from the overall mission of providing a broad based education.

Now sports...don't directly serve the mission, so they must either recoup the investment directly as profits or indirectly through other means.  You are right to question the value of football/basketball to Mississippi Valley State University.  But answer me this...why do you even know the school exists?  Sports...and that is how they serve the mission.

Even just casual sports fans or through family that is a casual sports fans observations of a school existing (through sports), particularly small schools, increases the number of applicants.  Several small schools have attempted to drop football/basketball, but lost that name recognition (far more loss than they expected).

It turns out that even having the worst football/basketball program in the nation, adds applicants.  So quality is not essential, but existence is.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos...I'm also not going to get into politics discussions here.

But a key detail in evaluating these things in relation to the ROI, is do they serve the mission of the organization.  And would removing them negatively deter from the overall goals of the mission.

Schools have philosophy departments and religious studies departments (money losers), because removing them would detract from the overall mission of providing a broad based education.

Now sports...don't directly serve the mission, so they must either recoup the investment directly as profits or indirectly through other means.  You are right to question the value of football/basketball to Mississippi Valley State University.  But answer me this...why do you even know the school exists?  Sports...and that is how they serve the mission.

Even just casual sports fans or through family that is a casual sports fans observations of a school existing (through sports), particularly small schools, increases the number of applicants.  Several small schools have attempted to drop football/basketball, but lost that name recognition (far more loss than they expected).

It turns out that even having the worst football/basketball program in the nation, adds applicants.  So quality is not essential, but existence is.  

Actually, there have been studies that have also shown some schools that dropped football actually INCREASED applications.  It goes both ways.

http://csri-jiia.org/documents/puclications/research_articles/2014/JIIA_2014_7_05_92_113_Discontinuin_Football.pdf

I know Miss Valley State because I do this crap for a living and know most of the schools.  Most average Joes have no idea the school exists, absolutely none.  Many casual sports fans have no idea.  

Believe me, I get your argument and think it has some merits, but I don't think it is that cut and dried.  It's a lot like cities that can't wait to get a NBA team because they want to swing their pecker around and show how big the city is now.  The reality is that plenty of cities without a team do just fine.  It's a prestige game, and that is no different in college athletics.  They feel if they have a D1 program, it helps validate their status.  Whether it truly does or not is up for debate.  For many of these schools, they feel having their name opposite some powerhouse school and getting drubbed by 40 points at least puts them in the conversation.  Does that truly lead to applications?  Quality applications?  Donations?   Different studies tell you different things.  

Look, I know about schools like Case Western Reserve, Concordia in Irvine, Chapman, Ashland, Allegheny, Colby, etc, etc.  None of those schools have D1 sports at all, still good schools, doing well, thriving....many folks have never heard of them either.  Sports can be a great tool, but it is hardly the end all be all in name recognition for a school, especially as it relates to its mission...as you state.  It CAN be used to get the name out, but the question is how many schools does it truly do that for and at what cost?  

[Class71]

Where did this $5k cap come from?  Did this judge just pull it out of thin air?

The most important point in the discussion and the opening to the next round?

[Tugg Speedman]

The most important point in the discussion and the opening to the next round?

The most important part is they moved off zero ... "we know what you are, we are just negotiating the price."

And, has been mentioned here before, eventually it will all be taxable, all of it. 

[GGGG]

What the judged ruled is that no one can collude to set a scholarship level at anything less than cost of attendance.  And that basketball and football players have a right to their name, image and likeness.  However the NCAA does have a compelling reason, mostly based on integration of the student athlete into the student body as a whole, that they don't earn too much money while in college.  Therefore they can set a cap on these earnings, but that cap cannot be less than $5,000.  So yeah...it is a little whacked.  But that's how a lot of these decisions are made these days. 

So as I understand it, this is how this works out.

**Athletic scholarships at any level cannot be set at less then full cost of attendance.

**Name, image, likeness payments cannot be set at less than $5,000 per year.

Right now I believe this ruling only applies to D1 basketball and football, but I am sure at some point the schools will get together and figure out what to do because I am sure the NCAA isn't going to win this on appeal.

The judge ruled that the NCAA's basic arguments were hogwash.  That the marketplace enjoys college athletic because they are amateurs.  (Uh...no.)  And that it will impact competitive balance.  (If the NCAA was so concerned about competitive balance, why haven't they done anything meaningful with regards to profit sharing?)

Chicos is playing this out as some sort of liberal, activist judge.  I think this is hardly that.  This is a judge that is by and large letting the free market speak more than anything.

[mu03eng]

+1

Every D1 football program generates revenue,  but all but the top 20 to 25 have expenses greater than their revenues.

If you are going to urge others to be careful with stats and info you should be as well.  The top 20 to 25 team statistic is relative to the football program being a stand alone entity and making a profit.  That stat all depends on what accounting and budgeting principles you apply to the data.  The top 50% of D1 revenue sports (basketball/football) make a profit if accounted for as as part of the larger budget but as an individual entity do not.  Also lost in the calculation are the donations to both the athletic department and school as a whole that result for the revenue sports.

The AD sites a stat like that because it serves his purpose and message.  Is it true, sure in the pure sense, but it's all a matter of perspective

[GGGG]

If you are going to urge others to be careful with stats and info you should be as well.  The top 20 to 25 team statistic is relative to the football program being a stand alone entity and making a profit.  That stat all depends on what accounting and budgeting principles you apply to the data.  The top 50% of D1 revenue sports (basketball/football) make a profit if accounted for as as part of the larger budget but as an individual entity do not.  Also lost in the calculation are the donations to both the athletic department and school as a whole that result for the revenue sports.

Exactly.  And this is why it is very difficult to say how "profitable" not only football or intercollegiate athletics is, but frankly any unit within a University.  I mean, how "profitable" is the physics department?

I tend to look at it this way.  If athletics wasn't generating some sort of value added a bunch of schools wouldn't be engaging in that activity.  It is most definitely possible that an individual school is making a misguided investment in athletics, and that it really isn't generating a value add, but I doubt hundreds of schools are making the same miscalculation.  I mean, there isn't a Division 3 athletic program in the country that turns an operational profit.

So the value of athletics isn't just about if it is generating an operational profit.  But how does it help develop the school's brand?  How much does it help with admissions?  Donations?  How many visitors does it bring to campus?   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Should people not be required to do a few things for those basic human needs?  

I think you are way overselling the value of all college football and basketball programs.  Do you think the basketball program at Mississippi Valley State is helping to bring in a bunch of donations?  How about VMI's?  How about NJIT?  In fact, let's look at the bottom 100 DI schools just for starters.  Then look at all the DII schools, DIII schools, etc.   People continue to make the mistake here and elsewhere of thinking about the top schools and conferences, not the actual majority of schools.  We on this board are sports fans, but the average Joe doesn't give a damn about their school's sports teams, and many have negative reactions to them.

Of course, for big schools, the name recognition, a trip to a bowl game or the Final Four can be beneficial in terms of donations, etc.  How many schools get to go to the Final Four over a 20 year period?  That's 80 slots, but I'm guessing it is taken up by about 30 to 40 schools as so many of them repeat the occurrence.   Take a look at the attendance for most schools, take a look at the student ticket purchases that number in the 100's because so few care.  

We should be careful about assigning ROIs to some of these by using the prism of big time sports when most college programs are not big time, let alone the sports within.

Yes, but again, not a politics forum.

I don't think you see my point. If all that is true about Mississippi Valley State, then they should cut their basketball team. But they should cut their sand volleyball team first.(Assuming it has a lower roi)

If I could, I would cut every low roi program in the nation. It could potentially save higher education as we know it.

If you don't benefit the academic mission of the university, you don't deserve an academic scholarship imho. Marquette basketball does that, Marquette tennis does not.

[Tugg Speedman]

Something I posted in November 2012.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34465.msg421983#msg421983

---------------------------------

[In mid-November 2012] 60 Minutes did a story on college football.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135410n

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551556/has-college-football-become-a-campus-commodity/

In it they flat out stated the purpose of football is to raise the profile of the school.  That is mission 1.  Mission 2 is to make Alums feel good about the school so they donate.

Most interesting is this statement by Dave Brandon, former CEO of Dominos Pizza and now Michigan AD ...

-----

Dave Brandon: The business model of big-time college athletics is primarily broken. It's, it's a horrible business model.

Armen Keteyian: Broken.

Dave Brandon: Broken. You've got 125 of these programs. Out of 125, 22 of them were cash flow even or cash flow positive. Now, thankfully, we're one of those. What that means is you've got a model that's not sustainable in most cases. You just don't have enough revenues to support the costs. And the costs continue to go up.

Why? A big reason is universities are in the midst of a sports building binge. Cal Berkeley, for example, renovated its stadium to the tune of $321 million. The list is endless. Michigan's athletic department floated $226 million in bonds to upgrade the Big House.

-----

I assume the "125" he was talking about is actually the 127 schools that make up the FBS.  Only 22 are cash-flow positive.  That's it!


This is why TAMU's "Return on Investment" idea is wrong.  Under this approach virtually all college sports, revenue and non-revenue would be abandoned.  With few exceptions, they cost more than they bring in.  And, as Sultan noted, so would the Physics program, theater program and most humanities and liberal arts programs.  The purpose of a University is not to make money.  We have a separate category of "for-profit schools" ... none of which are NCAA members.

What the schools are doing is taking more of a "value added" approach that Sultan suggests.  They lose tons of money in football as it raises the profile of the school and makes alums feel good about themselves.  They have non-revenue sports because they think it attracts a type of student that they want at their school (as I have noted before non-revenue athletes have grades, graduation and donation as alums, that are better than the general student population).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Something I posted in November 2012.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34465.msg421983#msg421983

---------------------------------

[In mid-November 2012] 60 Minutes did a story on college football.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135410n

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551556/has-college-football-become-a-campus-commodity/

In it they flat out stated the purpose of football is to raise the profile of the school.  That is mission 1.  Mission 2 is to make Alums feel good about the school so they donate.

Most interesting is this statement by Dave Brandon, former CEO of Dominos Pizza and now Michigan AD ...

-----

Dave Brandon: The business model of big-time college athletics is primarily broken. It's, it's a horrible business model.

Armen Keteyian: Broken.

Dave Brandon: Broken. You've got 125 of these programs. Out of 125, 22 of them were cash flow even or cash flow positive. Now, thankfully, we're one of those. What that means is you've got a model that's not sustainable in most cases. You just don't have enough revenues to support the costs. And the costs continue to go up.

Why? A big reason is universities are in the midst of a sports building binge. Cal Berkeley, for example, renovated its stadium to the tune of $321 million. The list is endless. Michigan's athletic department floated $226 million in bonds to upgrade the Big House.

-----

I assume the "125" he was talking about is actually the 127 schools that make up the FBS.  Only 22 are cash-flow positive.  That's it!


This is why TAMU's "Return on Investment" idea is wrong.  Under this approach virtually all college sports, revenue and non-revenue would be abandoned.  With few exceptions, they cost more than they bring in.  And, as Sultan noted, so would the Physics program, theater program and most humanities and liberal arts programs.  The purpose of a University is not to make money.  We have a separate category of "for-profit schools" ... none of which are NCAA members.

What the schools are doing is taking more of a "value added" approach that Sultan suggests.  They lose tons of money in football as it raises the profile of the school and makes alums feel good about themselves.  They have non-revenue sports because they think it attracts a type of student that they want at their school (as I have noted before non-revenue athletes have grades, graduation and donation as alums, that are better than the general student population).

Hberg,

You have made the same point about 22 out of 125 football programs making a profit at least three times, and I have responded all three times. ROI does NOT mean the same thing as profit. Profit=revenue-cost. ROI includes profit AND all of the additional benefits not covered by profit. Things like donations, increased applications, increased tuition revenue, increased persistence to graduation, increased student retention, increased student satisfaction, etc. ROI is NOT limited to money. Don't think about it in terms of dollar signs.

When you base it on true ROI, all of the 127 fbs schools are in the green. (Whether or not they would be more in the green without football is another question). As well as a significant amount of the basketball only schools.

[brandx]

When did ROI become the standard?  If it was most humanities and liberal arts education would be eliminated.  According to the AD of Michigan, only 20 to 25 D1 football programs make money, now with this ruling, that will go down.  You think we are going to 20 D1 football schools?  We would if ROI was the standard.

Using real bookkeeping or MLB-style bookkeeping?

[dgies9156]

You have made the same point about 22 out of 125 football programs making a profit at least three times, and I have responded all three times. ROI does NOT mean the same thing as profit. Profit=revenue-cost. ROI includes profit AND all of the additional benefits not covered by profit.

One of the problems with athletic programs, as TAMU has pointed out in the past, is how is the accounting done? The contributions are revenue, but in a school like Michigan, if I give to the "M" Fund, how is that money allocated to the football or basketball program? Where do the costs go? The allocation is everything.

You also may want to ask, what are the accruals and amortizatons? How is the cost of the Big House's renovation handled? Is it on a 20, 30 or even 40 year amort schedule? That has a lot to do with the profitability.

My point is there is no consistent equivalent of GAAP for College Athletic programs. Most every school does it differently which is a huge burden in making effective comparisons.

A final thought: Where would Marquette be without basketball? Certainly some of the cost of our basketball program could and probably should be borne by university marketing. Without basketball, we'd be a small regional college in Milwaukee and the robust nature of today's campus, today's student body and today's vision would be at best muted. I think every NCAA school thinks the same way.

[mu03eng]

Something I posted in November 2012.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34465.msg421983#msg421983

---------------------------------

[In mid-November 2012] 60 Minutes did a story on college football.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135410n

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551556/has-college-football-become-a-campus-commodity/

In it they flat out stated the purpose of football is to raise the profile of the school.  That is mission 1.  Mission 2 is to make Alums feel good about the school so they donate.

Most interesting is this statement by Dave Brandon, former CEO of Dominos Pizza and now Michigan AD ...

-----

Dave Brandon: The business model of big-time college athletics is primarily broken. It's, it's a horrible business model.

Armen Keteyian: Broken.

Dave Brandon: Broken. You've got 125 of these programs. Out of 125, 22 of them were cash flow even or cash flow positive. Now, thankfully, we're one of those. What that means is you've got a model that's not sustainable in most cases. You just don't have enough revenues to support the costs. And the costs continue to go up.

Why? A big reason is universities are in the midst of a sports building binge. Cal Berkeley, for example, renovated its stadium to the tune of $321 million. The list is endless. Michigan's athletic department floated $226 million in bonds to upgrade the Big House.

-----

I assume the "125" he was talking about is actually the 127 schools that make up the FBS.  Only 22 are cash-flow positive.  That's it!


This is why TAMU's "Return on Investment" idea is wrong.  Under this approach virtually all college sports, revenue and non-revenue would be abandoned.  With few exceptions, they cost more than they bring in.  And, as Sultan noted, so would the Physics program, theater program and most humanities and liberal arts programs.  The purpose of a University is not to make money.  We have a separate category of "for-profit schools" ... none of which are NCAA members.

What the schools are doing is taking more of a "value added" approach that Sultan suggests.  They lose tons of money in football as it raises the profile of the school and makes alums feel good about themselves.  They have non-revenue sports because they think it attracts a type of student that they want at their school (as I have noted before non-revenue athletes have grades, graduation and donation as alums, that are better than the general student population).

You point has been made and is technically correct, but by using your metric and only your metric Enron was a profitable and successful business.

The 22 schools stat is one way of parsing the data but to only use that methodology would be folly.  Do you see Sultan, TAMU, and my point or do you contend we are incorrect?

[WarriorInNYC]

One of the problems with athletic programs, as TAMU has pointed out in the past, is how is the accounting done? The contributions are revenue, but in a school like Michigan, if I give to the "M" Fund, how is that money allocated to the football or basketball program? Where do the costs go? The allocation is everything.

You also may want to ask, what are the accruals and amortizatons? How is the cost of the Big House's renovation handled? Is it on a 20, 30 or even 40 year amort schedule? That has a lot to do with the profitability.

My point is there is no consistent equivalent of GAAP for College Athletic programs. Most every school does it differently which is a huge burden in making effective comparisons.

A final thought: Where would Marquette be without basketball? Certainly some of the cost of our basketball program could and probably should be borne by university marketing. Without basketball, we'd be a small regional college in Milwaukee and the robust nature of today's campus, today's student body and today's vision would be at best muted. I think every NCAA school thinks the same way.

Not really sure what the bolded part above has to do with this.  That would only affect year-over-year profitability within the same program.  The allocations portion makes a ton of sense, but the Big House a football only resource so the amortization schedule would only affect expenses for football timing wise.  Accruals would only have a timing effect as well.

[Tugg Speedman]

So everyone is in agreement that college football makes tons and tons of money and any stat to the otherwise is a enron-isk lie?

And the fact that Cal-Berkeley and Michigan are spending $550 million on two stadiums means nothing when calculating the profitability of football?

On this point, all I'm arguing is college football does not make as much as you think and the only way for you to make your point is reject data and "just announce" they do.

[jficke13]

I realize I'm derailing the whole ROI/profitability/revenue/accounting argument, but I'm convinced that O'Bannon + Big 5 Conference Autonomy will ultimately spell the end of college basketball as we know it, and I'm afraid MU will go down with the ship.

If the Big Whatever Network gives each basketball player $5k from its pool, plus they decide with their new found autonomy to increase payments (earmarked for whatever they so choose) to each player, then we have an arms race on our hands, an arms race that MU is not in a position to win.

Couple that with the pending tuition bubble collapse, and MU will have to take a long hard look at whether athletic spending (even at today's pre-O'Bannon/Autonomy Levels) is worth it. That ROI analysis (however broadly defined) will take have to take into account the fact that there may well be two subdivisions of Division 1, Big 5 and Not-Big 5.

Spending big $ on basketball and getting the exposure that comes with March is one thing. Spending big $ on basketball, but not getting the results in March is a completely different thing.

Personally, I'm hoping Wojo and Co. can make some noise while this ship goes down. Let's enjoy the next couple years, ladies and gentlemen. I'm afraid they're the last few we'll have.

[Tugg Speedman]

Using real bookkeeping or MLB-style bookkeeping?

Actually most baseball teams do not make money.  Their P&L is typically zero or negative.  They make it up on the escalating values of the franchise.

So real bookkeeping = MLB bookkeeping.  Just because you don't like the answer, and offer no data that says otherwise does not mean it is wrong.

[Tugg Speedman]

I realize I'm derailing the whole ROI/profitability/revenue/accounting argument, but I'm convinced that O'Bannon + Big 5 Conference Autonomy will ultimately spell the end of college basketball as we know it, and I'm afraid MU will go down with the ship.

If the Big Whatever Network gives each basketball player $5k from its pool, plus they decide with their new found autonomy to increase payments (earmarked for whatever they so choose) to each player, then we have an arms race on our hands, an arms race that MU is not in a position to win.

Couple that with the pending tuition bubble collapse, and MU will have to take a long hard look at whether athletic spending (even at today's pre-O'Bannon/Autonomy Levels) is worth it. That ROI analysis (however broadly defined) will take have to take into account the fact that there may well be two subdivisions of Division 1, Big 5 and Not-Big 5.

Spending big $ on basketball and getting the exposure that comes with March is one thing. Spending big $ on basketball, but not getting the results in March is a completely different thing.

Personally, I'm hoping Wojo and Co. can make some noise while this ship goes down. Let's enjoy the next couple years, ladies and gentlemen. I'm afraid they're the last few we'll have.

Typical scoop post!

MU/New Big East is about the best positioned basketball team/conference in the country for this change.  No football, profitable basketball, great fan base, nice cash flow.

More likely Bucky is a bigger loser than MU (football will suck the life out of all other sports) ... but since that does not fit the scoop narrative that every change in life means MU is somehow screwed will not get any play.

[jficke13]

Typical scoop post!

MU/New Big East is about the best positioned basketball team/conference in the country for this change.  No football, profitable basketball, great fan base, nice cash flow.

More likely Bucky is a bigger loser than MU (football will suck the life out of all other sports) ... but since that does not fit the scoop narrative that every change in life means MU is somehow screwed will not get any play.

I agree of all of the positions we could be in, we're in the best. I am typically a borderline insane optimist when it comes to our prospects, have been a big proponent of the Catholic-7 Big East split, and think that we stood in a good or great position as far as the foreseeable landscape went.

The problem is that the landscape is changing, and it has the potential to change in ways that will be very bad for college basketball.

[brandx]

Actually most baseball teams do not make money.  Their P&L is typically zero or negative.  They make it up on the escalating values of the franchise.

So real bookkeeping = MLB bookkeeping.  Just because you don't like the answer, and offer no data that says otherwise does not mean it is wrong.

See, what you are doing is repeating what the owners say without any proof. "Most baseball teams do not make money". What are you basing that on?

Strictly the word of a group of people who refuse to make their financial statements public. You believe it because they said it. You are basing your statement on no proof whatsoever.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Hberg,

For the fourth time, ROI is not (just) about money. No one is disputing your data about 22 out of 125 not making a profit (as of 2012, according to one ad, who may or may not have had assessment to back it up). What we are saying is that football and basketball bring a lot more benefits that are not covered by the scope of profit.

Someone asked the question "where would marquette be without basketball?" The answer is probably close to where Rockhurst is now. A small, urban, academically prestigious, Jesuit, liberal arts university that no one has ever heard of and is on the verge of bankruptcy and will probably be closed in the next 25 years.

I don't remember the exact numbers but if I remember correctly, after Marquette went to the final four in 2003, donations nearly quadrupled and applications increased by 13,000. Basketball, football, volleyball, soccer, hockey, baseball, and softball have this power. (Not at all schools but for many). Tennis, swimming, golf, etc do not

[GGGG]

Hberg,

For the fourth time, ROI is not (just) about money. No one is disputing your data about 22 out of 125 not making a profit (as of 2012, according to one ad, who may or may not have had assessment to back it up). What we are saying is that football and basketball bring a lot more benefits that are not covered by the scope of profit.

In many respects, intercollegiate athletics is similar to a marketing expense.  Marketing, taken as an individual activity, is not profitable.  But every company does it.

[jficke13]

In many respects, intercollegiate athletics is similar to a marketing expense.  Marketing, taken as an individual activity, is not profitable.  But every company does it.

Some companies do too much of it.

[Tugg Speedman]

Hberg,

For the fourth time, ROI is not (just) about money. No one is disputing your data about 22 out of 125 not making a profit (as of 2012, according to one ad, who may or may not have had assessment to back it up). What we are saying is that football and basketball bring a lot more benefits that are not covered by the scope of profit.

Someone asked the question "where would marquette be without basketball?" The answer is probably close to where Rockhurst is now. A small, urban, academically prestigious, Jesuit, liberal arts university that no one has ever heard of and is on the verge of bankruptcy and will probably be closed in the next 25 years.

I don't remember the exact numbers but if I remember correctly, after Marquette went to the final four in 2003, donations nearly quadrupled and applications increased by 13,000. Basketball, football, volleyball, soccer, hockey, baseball, and softball have this power. (Not at all schools but for many). Tennis, swimming, golf, etc do not

I agree with this post ... and I'm saying the same thing idea applies to non-revenue sports.  They are not just viewed as a money suck on a University.  As I have repeatedly said, Universities offer incentives to "desirable" students all the time (known as scholarships).  non-revenue sport athletes are better students than the general population.  This is why universities have these sports and offer scholarships in these areas.  

So given your ROI definition, a lot of non-revenue sports may make the cut.  As I said before, it is not a money issue, it is a priorities issue.