Pretty eye-opening numbers here:
If you really want to believe these programs are losing money, the only explanation for that is that college athletic directors are the most inept administrators on the planet. That may in fact be a valid explanation.
It’s not an excuse, though.
**************************************************************************
UPDATE: Check this out.
Yep, that’s right. Coaching salaries have been growing at a faster pace than revenues.
Get The Picture 
If AD’s are responsible for growing revenues then they don’t look too inept. These revenues don’t mean much without showing expenses.
LikeLike
I bet you think Jed Clampett was responsible for all that oil, too.
LikeLike
The ADs are Jed Clampetts. They’ve fallen into managing a valued commodity.
The whole point with regard to expenses is that someone competent ought to be able to manage that kind of cash flow without falling into a hole. (Remember, these are the same people who routinely negotiate ridiculous buyout provisions.)
If these guys are in fact competent, then the other explanation for pleading poverty is that they’re cooking the books.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Higher revenues aren’t a crime, but I’d love to see the expenses because the money sure isn’t going to lowering tuition.
LikeLike
Student athletic fees at P5 programs should be optional. If a student wants to pay the fee to be able to attend sporting events either free or a significantly reduced price, they should be able to opt in. If not, there’s no reason for students (or parents) to be forced to subsidize something they don’t use.
LikeLike
I totally agree with that. When I was at UGA, lo, these many years ago, athletic fees existed, and not optional, but minimal, and were justified by PE courses, intramural fields, the Stegeman gym and pool (now replaced by much nicer facilities) etc. I took advantage of all that. Paying for a football (or basketball) program never seemed to be in the discussion. Schools (Presidents, ADs, regents, whatever) that have raised student athletic fees to cover their own ineptitude (I am looking at you, Cincinnati) should have a special place in hell reserved for them.
LikeLike
It looks like UGa spends 20% of their revenues on “instruction” while the athletic department only spends 15%. I think coaches need a raise…
Click to access UGAafrcy.pdf
LikeLike
I can agree that the professors are overpaid relative to the productivity of our football coaches, and specifically when you look at hours worked. Take the professors’ salaries down and reduce the student fees! UGA coaches salaries’ seem high until you look around and see what the market is paying. The real guys who need a raise are the assistant coaches below the coordinator position.
LikeLike
Doodling with numbers: 14 SEC teams X 85 scholarship football players = 1190 players. Pay’em each $100,000 annually = $119M
SEC revenue = $1.791B Compensation expense $119M/$1.791B = 6.6% expense increase…less than rate of revenue increase.
If you don’t want to pay the players, you just don’t want to. It’s not because the money is not there.
LikeLike
(meant to put this comment here and not the NCAA article) I was reading last night where American Athletic Conference athletic departments (at least the top 5 programs or so) receive between $18mil and $25mil in subsidies from the University each year. This basically includes 3 categories: (1) direct institutional support (2) indirect institutional support and (3) student fees. They cloak it all in smoke and mirrors and try to only count the direct institutional support—and they treat it all as revenue no different from operating revenue, but they’re still operating on an $18-25Mil annual shortfall.
Holy hell ! It’s insane to me that some journalist / politician combo hasn’t lit into this. Pretty egregious if you ask me.
LikeLike
Sell, Mortimer, SELL!
LikeLike
The SEC. It just means more. Money.
LikeLike