People Twitter

5210 readers

2504 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a tweet or similar
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1542

Controversial Thesis (i.imgur.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

125 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Plus the tv contacts for the so called revenue sports would make an oil tycoon blush. The presidents of these schools continue to invest in these programs because they continually prove to be an excellent roi.

From my understanding, all that money goes back to the sport's team, not the university. It's a side hussle. If the money went back to the university, it would at least make sense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It depends on the school.

Most fans don’t realize that not only do athletic departments pay the university market rate for the tuition, room and board of its student athletes, but also the upcharge for out-of-state students.

At nearly one-third of the schools I polled back in 2012 for my book, the university took a specified percentage of each donation made to the athletic department.

At many universities I polled, the university and athletic department split licensing revenue 50/50. So, even if the sweatshirt sold in the bookstore is specifically branded for the football program, that money is divided between the university and athletics.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2017/06/12/the-biggest-misconceptions-about-the-finances-of-college-sports/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

True, but it's in the minority for the donations:

At nearly one-third of the schools I polled back in 2012 for my book, the university took a specified percentage of each donation made to the athletic department.

Is that 1% or 10%? "Many" is a very vague term for financials. Plus, those were the ones polled.

At many universities I polled, the university and athletic department split licensing revenue 50/50.

Not to be a stickler, but having some universities do a little isn't much.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Did you forget the first and biggest one?

All those athletic scholarships are paid for by the sports teams. It's free money for the university. And the football team funds all the other sports, so a lot of football money goes to the university as tuition for an out-of-state soccer player or something.

Plus who do you think the sports teams pay rent and facilities fees to? The university who owns their facilities. The teams are non-profit so football has little incentive to save money.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

How much are those scholarships worth every year?

UW football coach Kalen DeBoer is the 44th highest-paid coach in NCAA college football, with a total annual pay of $4.2 million, USA Today found.

Source

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

If there's an arms race for athletes and the school sports programs pay their tuition through athletic scholarships, then that isn't free money for the school. It's allocated out of an already existing school budget that constantly needs to grow and take from other school expenses to afford elite athletes. The sports teams pay rent to the school out of the same existing budget which is part of the school funding so again, it's money the school already has that has to allocated for upkeep of their facilities. Just like the regular students pay upkeep for the engineering facility, the administration buildings, and the other facilities with their non-scholarship money (meaning it actually came from an external source instead of the school subsidizing).