Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

535 Students....or 3 Football coaches?

24567

Replies to: 535 Students....or 3 Football coaches?

  • moscottmoscott Registered User Posts: 837 Member
    @happy1 You're kidding right? Here is a list of just the top 25 that generate 96.5 million+ each program with football being the biggest income at each.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#3-ohio-state--1672-million-23
  • moscottmoscott Registered User Posts: 837 Member
    Of the D1 schools(231) around 44% make around $20 million while about 22% 50 million, while the remaining 34% make from 50-193 Million(Texas A&M).
  • happy1happy1 Registered User Posts: 17,052 Senior Member
    edited September 9
    @moscott I understand and completely agree that the top programs do make a ton of money (hence my post that TX was not crazy to spend all that money on coaches). However if you look at all college athletic programs over all divisions more lose money than make money.
  • twoinanddonetwoinanddone Registered User Posts: 13,293 Senior Member
    If you just look at cost of the program v. ticket sales, then yes, they lose money. However, most schools feel there is a huge value for the sports. Most athletes do not have a full scholarship, or even half, so the school is attracting tuition paying students. Many non-athletes wouldn't attend a school without sports. The athletic department takes the budget 'hit' for athletic and work out facilities all students use like the pools and gyms, but if the school doesn't have athletics they still often have a gym, pool, athletic fields.

    Often the athletic facilities are money makers for school too. Personally, I've written a lot of checks to U of Denver as my kids have gone to day camp, sports camps, played on their youth teams, had birthday parties, gone to free (ha, 'free') skate, taken hockey and skating lessons, gymnastic lessons. We've been to many games and matches and paid to park on campus. They rent out their fields to local youth groups, their gym for high school graduations, concerts and robotics competitions. The public can buy a membership to the work out center, pool, or ice rinks.

    Even my kids' first high school made money off the athletic facilities. They had a $40 MILLION athletic center, and it was run as a business. There were baseball fields, soccer fields and a $10M pool that were rented out about 15 hours per day. You'd drive by and the lights would be on Sunday nights, there were 3-4 groups that used the pool for swim team, they even had a driving and putting set up for golf.
  • moscottmoscott Registered User Posts: 837 Member
    @happy1 Well you may be correct if you are counting all divisions. I don't know if there is actual data for lower level schools. D2 schools "typically" get lower academic students and D3's main focus is academics so they aren't really in the "business" of D1 money making so to speak.
  • moscottmoscott Registered User Posts: 837 Member
    @happy1 Here's an interesting article on D3 football making money for the schools.

    https://deadspin.com/how-division-iii-colleges-profit-from-football-no-one-w-1440369611
  • happy1happy1 Registered User Posts: 17,052 Senior Member
    @moscott I never said every lower division school lost money on athletics. And there are many articles online saying that most athletic departments lose money. In all honesty I think we are generally in agreement.
  • moscottmoscott Registered User Posts: 837 Member
    @happy1 " if you look at all college athletic programs over all divisions more lose money than make money." Not every but the implication to me was "most". You may be correct but I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement.
  • happy1happy1 Registered User Posts: 17,052 Senior Member
    @moscott If you google you can find a lot of articles. Here are a couple:
    http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx
    http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority

    Anyway I think we've exhausted this and I think we are in general agreement so no need to tag me further on this thread as I'm going to log off and watch the game.
  • mom2collegekidsmom2collegekids Registered User Posts: 82,259 Senior Member
    <<<
    So at $25,100 for tuition, it takes 535 full pay students just to pay for the football coaches. I find this appauling.
    <<<

    The premise is wrong. Tuition doesn't pay football coaches' salaries.


    Earlier this week, Bama's Nick Saban was asked if he's worth the over $10M he'll get this year in salary/bonuses. He humbly stated, probably not. But he is. He more than pays for his salary. His successes are bringing in $100M per year to the athletic program. UA football not only pays for itself, but pays for ALL sports' coaches (male and female sports), their facilities (which are constantly getting first class upgrades), their travel costs, their uniforms, and their athletic scholarships. ....and has a large profit after.
  • northwestynorthwesty Registered User Posts: 2,630 Senior Member
    edited September 11
    Based on any reasonable financial analysis, Saban (clearly the best college coach there is) is significantly over paid. The only reason he can make $10 million is because the college sports system is rigged in his favor.

    Bama football takes in $105 million a year and Saban gets paid $10 million. In no other business will you find a CEO who gets paid 10% of total revenues.

    In comparison, NE Patriots coach Bill Bellichik (clearly the best NFL coach) gets paid $7.5 million. Annual Patriots revenue is $523 million. But the Patriots have to pay their players ($160M annually). And the billionaire Patriots owners get paid dividends of the operating profit in the many many millions.

    In Saban's case, he gets his players at minimal cost. And the owner of the team (UA) stupidly lets the UA athletic department keep basically all of the profits, so long as they pay for the other non-revenue teams (whose costs are pretty low). So the profit margins for UA football are quite inflated, which allows them to pay Saban 2-3X what his actual economic value is.

    A realistic model would have Bama paying the players $5-10 million per year. And Bama (as the team owner) should charge its football team an annual license fee (which could be used for academics) of maybe $30-40 million a year. If you'd run UA football like any normal business, Saban would make way way less. He gets paid $10 million by, essentially, pimping his players and his employer. And taking advantage of the cartel-like rules of the NCAA.

    It is a boondoggle. UA football runs like a non-profit when it comes to player comp and owner comp. But then is run like a for-profit when it comes to paying the coach and AD. If you are going to run it like a business (which is the argument for Saban getting paid so much) then you should run it like a real business. Rather than a faux business rigged to enrich the coaches and athletic administrators.
  • Moonshot99Moonshot99 Registered User Posts: 119 Junior Member
    edited September 11
    Let's say you can eliminate the duplicate coaches salaries and funnel that money to scholarships. How far would you go to further the goal of channeling athletic profits to students? Do you eliminate sports that do not create a profit as they are using $$$ that could be spent on merit scholarships/financial aid?
  • EyeVeeeEyeVeee Registered User Posts: 462 Member
    @mom2collegekids - using Nick Saban as a proxy for anything is misleading and/or wrong.

    https://www.scribd.com/book/120628722/NCAA-Spending-Study
    The belief that college sports are a financial boon to colleges and universities is generally misguided. Although some big-time college sports athletic departments are self-supporting—and some specific sports may be profitable enough to help support other campus sports programs—more often than not, the colleges and universities are subsidizing athletics, not the other way around. In fact, student fees or institutional subsidies (coming from tuition, state appropriations, endowments, or other revenue-generating activities on campus) often support even the largest NCAA Division I college sports programs

    How many students at Alabama are borrowing money? Sure, $70 for student tickets to 7 home games isn't crazy, but would it make sense to pay Saban $2.1M less and give the 210,000 student tickets sold (assuming 30,000 per game....far too high) back their money?

    @northwesty is on point. It's a for-profit enterprise that nobody on the inside wants to end because everyone is increasing their value....the coaches (who all point to 'bama and Michigan), the AD's (their bosses?), and the University Presidents. The new Alabama AD is making $900k (up 50% over the last one), and the President of the school makes a paltry $535k. Even if Alabama is making money after all of this, does anyone think they couldn't hire a coach for say $1M? Or find an athletic director for $500k? It's a machine that keeps feeding itself, and ultimately taxpayers or students borrowing money are unwittingly paying the price.

    Taxpayers are funding entertainment via a minor league system for the NFL. Universities competing with the NFL for coaching talent is wrong. If an NFL team wants to pay someone $100M per year to coach, it's entirely up to them. When thousands of students are borrowing money to pay for a national program of entertainment via tuition and fees for a degree they may never benefit from in an ever shrinking professional world, we collectively need to evaluate our values.
  • BobcatPhoenixBobcatPhoenix Registered User Posts: 94 Junior Member
    Isn't the real shame that coaches are making multi-million dollar salaries and their players are getting relatively nothing for putting their bodies and brains on the line?
  • northwestynorthwesty Registered User Posts: 2,630 Senior Member
    "How far would you go to further the goal of channeling athletic profits to students? Do you eliminate sports that do not create a profit as they are using $$$ that could be spent on merit scholarships/financial aid?"

    Any real business would compensate Saban and the AD through some form of profit sharing. Giving them a percentage of the net profits that the athletic department pays out to the owners (which is the university). That would give them an incentive to increase the payout to the owner/school, which would come via revenue increases and expense controls. Instead, Saban and the AD get paid as if they are the team owners rather than team employees.

    Bama athletics does pay out about $10 million annually to the academic side for faculty salaries and merit scholarships. Plus they pay $16 million to academics to pay for the athletic scholarships they consume. They could/should easily pay out another $20 million to academics, but instead the school let's them keep all that profit to spend on themselves. It is in no way run like a business on the comp side.

    But the real damage of how Saban gets paid is that he sets the market through the BS business model. So lots of other schools over pay their coach at $2 or 3 million, even though their athletic departments run at a loss and need to be subsidized with tuition dollars. Which, as Ivyvee correctly points out, is the norm in D1.
Sign In or Register to comment.