polo shirts clearance WSJ Article on Lax and Net Revenue per School
That might have been the most meaningless and un insightful article I have ever read. It may be true that football and basketball make money, and everything else loses money. It might also be true that lacrosse is one of the most money losing enterprises in D1 sports. But based on this article, how the heck do we know? The article doesn’t say anything other than a list of figures, along with some very broad speculation.
The gains and losses are based on what? What went into this study, and what was left out?
Also, the revenue sports made money and the non revenue sports lost money. In a follow up, the sun is expected to rise in the east, it will be cold in the winter, and a bear was observed relieving itself in the woods.
Big surprise that the sports that require somewhat specialized facilities (track, lacrosse, hockey, soccer, swimming) cost more than those that can be played in a multi use gym facility (say, volleyball) or don’t need facilities at all other than a locker room (say, cross country).
Another big surprise: the NC$$ produces a report that shows that the money making sports make a lot of money, and the also rans are a financial drain. Does the report give any consideration in the figures for the multiple uses (or non uses) of costly facilities? Does it discuss how the entire university and the surrounding community benefits from the presence of a pool or a track or an athletic field (unlike the fields and courts for the revenue sports, which are generally off limits to anyone without God’s permission to walk on the hallowed grounds or hardwood). Does it mention, for example, that pools are used by the entire student body, the water polo team, and frequently are also rented out to club swim programs for use when the swim team is not practicing? Or that schools will make their athletic facilities available for all sorts of high school and youth sports events and tournaments? I would be shocked to find out that local youth basketball tournaments are held on the varsity court at Rupp Arena, or that a youth football championship was played within view of Touchdown Jesus. How are those factors considered?
The article states, “you name it, and colleges lose money on it.” Leave it to the NC$$ and the WSJ to imply that collegiate athletic programs exist for profits, not for the competition and other things that sports programs bring. “Thank you for watching our 30 second spot about athletes that do not go pro. We will now return to our 24 hour coverage of ex jocks shilling for big name football and basketball programs that exist almost solely for producing your next generation of NFL and NBA players, interspersed with endless Bud Lite and ‘Built Ford Tough’ truck commercials.”
For that matter, we might as well list how much of a financial “drain” that troublesome Political Science department is, or how much money is wasted on buying materials for that stupid library.
Finally, how obscene is it that the University of Florida made $50 Million on football and basketball last year? Where, exactly, did that money go, and what was the “cost” to the university to turn that sort of a profit?
“They should play waterpolo on seahorses. It would make more sense.”Good points and questions, jhuck. You should submit that as a letter to the editor at the wsj.
Another point: Something that doesn’t get considered is the number of students who attend a college and pay tuition because they can continue to play their sport there. I saw an article was it here on laxpower? about the growth of D3 football because schools know that kids want to keep playing so they offer the sport and then collect tuition from the kids,
which turns the sport into a money maker for the school. I suspect that the growth of lacrosse has been spurred at least in part by the same considerations. If lax loses $600K but 40 kids attend the school and pay $30k/ea. in tuition, the bottom line is that lax brought the school $600K in extra revenue, it didn’t cost the school a penny.
This is exactly why you don’t see D1 mens lacrosse teams breaking out at places like Michigan, Florida State, BYU, etc. In fact, the costs of adding a D1 mens team are actually much higher than this article suggests, because you typically have to add two money losing womens varsity teams for Title IX.
Schools are adding D3 mens teams, however, to make money. D3 costs are less than D1, and lax helps the schools attract two things they need more of (i) additional male students and (ii) students who are willing/able to pay full freight tuition.
I don’t think anything is going to cause growth in D1 mens lax. But here are a few ideas that would at least lower the cost of keeping a team around:
1. Reduce or eliminate D1 lax scholarships. The 12 permitted schollies don’t really make that much impact on college affordability once they are split up among 45 players, but they do raise team costs. Just get by with merit and financial aid like the Ivy and Patriot Leagues do.
2. Set a roster size limit of 30 players. You really don’t need 45 to 50 kids on the squad. This would cut the direct costs of the mens team and would also reduce the cost of balancing a mens lax team out for title IX.
3. Except money making sports from the Title IX calculations. Mens hoops and football generate the cash that pays for all the non revenue sports. Just require the schools spend that net revenue equally on mens and womens non revenue sports.
Has anyone actually read the report? It is available for download on the NCAA site. An interesting read. Can anyone say, “too many feb. and early march games”
Contrary to gist of the article and at risk of riling title niner’s out there, if you list both men’s AND women’s sports (which are broken out in the report) Men’s lax goes from 3rd most expense to like 13th behind the following:
Women’s: basketball,crew, field hockey, gymnastics, ice hockey, soccer, softball, track and field, and volleyball.
Men’s : baseball, track and field
Some numbers are staggering. women’s basketball loses roughly twice what men’s lacrosse loses. Biggest problem on the women’s side is even the bigger sports cannot generate revenue.
Oh, and when you look at the break outs of football championship schools (non bowl) as opposed to Bowl schools ALL sports lose money and men’s football leads the way followed by men’s and women’s basketball, and men’s and women’s ice hockey.
1. Reduce or eliminate D1 lax scholarships. The 12 permitted schollies don’t really make that much impact on college affordability once they are split up among 45 players, but they do raise team costs. Just get by with merit and financial aid like the Ivy and Patriot Leagues doSome of your other ideas are good. On this one you speak as a man who doesn’t work pay check to pay check. As an example, a kid goes to a SUNY D I school, is a pretty good player and gets tuition paid for or close. Each team has a number of guys in this situation. If my kid lives at home and commutes I’m paying for transportation and books. Even if they live there it might cost an additional 12K. I’m sure you can see how that opens the door for many guys who come from families barely getting by. Even at the private colleges, a guy gets 5K per year say. That’s 20K over 4 years. That’s a lot of money to most people . Also, these student athletes are unable to work which means college in the end will cost them that much more. Kids get monetary considerations for all sorts of talent like band. theatre, singing, etc. Heck, even the organist who plays at Sunday Service on campus gets a 1/4 scholarship at my daughter’s school.
Interesting report. Here is the deal on college sports. Except for D1 football and D1 mens hoops at the BCS schools,
EVERY sport loses money. All of them. Mens sports lose money. All womens sports lose money. D1 football loses money outside of D1 BCS. D1 mens basketball loses money outside of the BCS schools.