Quote:
Originally Posted by jAZ
It's the Chicago Tribune.
And I fully understand why a sports fan outside of the day-to-day operations would overstate the value of the athletic department. It's the lense that sports fans see the University though.
But trust me, you are wrong. Completely wrong.
It's a basic function of math.
The top universities don't just want to be seen as academically elite for the sake of reputation. Research and tuition are now the lifeblood of a University. The contribution from the athletic department, even among the very biggest programs, pales in comparison.
Take UNL for example. Their athletic programs generates a profit. Approximately $10M/year of their $80M/year program goes back to the UNL general fund from the Athletic Department.
Compare that to UNL's $132M research budget. Of that, typically 33% is "overhead", the university's cut to cover general fund expenses... that's $43M.
Even at UNL, research generates 4x more revenue back to the University.
If you look at a school like Arizona, the numbers are even more dramatic. They have a $600M/year research budget and only a $42M/year athletics budget. The same 33% holds and the athletics department generates even less (if anything) back to the university.
It's more likely a $200M vs $0-$5M ratio.
The view that sports fans have of the role of sports money is so skewed its remarkable.
$200M vs (at best) $5M.
|
Here's a decent explanation for why people covet the Big 10:
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/10/...nd-the-cic-are
Research in most departments generates zero dollars for the university as a whole. It does increase the overall prestige and marketability, thus ostensibly increasing enrollment, which is the major driver of budgets.
I don't believe anyone is arguing that athletics (primarily) fund an institution.