You’ve got to spend money to lose money.

The 104 of the 128 athletic departments in the NCAA’s Football Bowl Subdivision that do not bring in enough money through ticket sales, donations, or other outside revenue to offset their costs saw their average deficit double over the last decade.

This must be why we hear college presidents say they don’t necessarily want to hire athletic directors with business backgrounds.



Filed under College Football, It's Just Bidness

7 responses to “You’ve got to spend money to lose money.

  1. AusDawg85

    Great headline. The solution will, of course. will be to make it up through volume.


  2. Austen

    Combine football programs with all the other sports programs, and we have ourselves one of the unfortunately many reasons student tuition continues to rise faster than cost of living. But hey, who doesn’t want to go in debt to earn a degree in order to let “student” athletes compete in 3/4 empty football stadiums? As much as I love college football, to me each program should be self-financed – if you can’t get enough ticket and TV revenue to fund your program, your program is not worth it. That said, most universities would do well to first dismantle all the sports that absolutely nobody watches. Those can be returned to intramural and club based sports that allow people to compete as always but without needless costs added to tuition.


    • Tuition doesn’t go towards athletics anywhere of which I’m aware.


      • Chi-town Dawg

        Not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but if you’ve recently paid a college tuition bill for a child, you can easily see that while tuition increases may’ve slowed, the additional fees are rising quickly. The largest fee on the list is usually related to student athletics/activities. Although the two are separate, you don’t have the option of paying the tuition, but not the other fees if you want to attend the school.


  3. Bright Idea

    Football is worth the cost to schools that can’t afford it because it is an easy way to demonstrate diversity in the student population. That’s what higher ed is all about.


    • That’s not accurate at all.

      Football, the thinking goes, does two things: it increases exposure for the institution (ever wonder why the MAC plays on ESPN2 on Tuesday nights?) and it legitimizes the institution as a “real” college (that is, football is part of a collegiate ideal which influences the college-going decisions of 18 year olds). It’s all about image and recruitment of traditional college-goers.


  4. ADs with business backgrounds? You mean like Steve Patterson?