| Did anyone actually read the article and his source?!? The article's author, Gregg Easterbrook, appears to have misread the NCAA report that supports his main thesis. Here is the key statement from Easterbrook's article: "Recently the NCAA reported that only 14 Division I-A programs clear a profit, while no college or university in the United States has an athletic department that is financially self-sustaining. Nobody in Division I -- not Alabama, not Auburn, not Oklahoma, nobody -- has an athletic department that pays its own way. " In this quote he makes reference to this NCAA report: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/REV_EXP_201... Apparently, he got that statement from the page 8 of the report, where there is a summary of findings. Here is the statement: "A total of 14 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2009 fiscal year, which represents a decrease from the 25 reported in 2008. The gap between the “profitable” programs and the remainder continued to grow, however a bit more slowly.
(3.5)" Anyone notice the mistake he made? Revenue is the _input_ side of the ledger.
Profit is the revenue minus expenses. The claim in the NCAA report is that only 14 schools had a net increase in revenue (year over year). It does not claim that only 14 schools were profitable!!! This can be further confirmed by using the NCAA's own financial database: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/ Univ of Mich had a net profit of $17mil
Univ of Texas had a net profit of $7mil
Auburn Uni. had a new profit of $121k
Univ of Alabama (Roll Tide) reported a neglible loss for 2010, but I suspect this is an anamoly (big capital improvement plans just completed--new stadium expansion etc.) Note where most of the profit comes from: football! Also note that typically the men's programs (football and basketball) make huge profits which cover the losses for women's and other programs. |