1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Good Read

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by BuffUp, Nov 25, 2015.

  1. BuffUp

    BuffUp W.T.T.F. Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    971
  2. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    605
    Coilorado is one of the most subsidized of the P5 schools....
     
  3. onealcd

    onealcd Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,598
    Likes Received:
    1,500
    so are they counting the student ticket purchases as a subsidy?
     
  4. BuffsRising

    BuffsRising Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    115
    I would very wary of any study done by the chronicle of higher education and the huffington post.
     
  5. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,429
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Another typical Huff post start with our conclusion and then look for supporting data. And twist our methodology to make it look like we want it to.

    They are counting student ticket sales as a subsidy. That automatically skews the numbers.

    Beyond that when you look at strictly athletic revenues vs. expenses very few schools do make a surplus. What they don't look at though is the impact of athletics on the total revenue picture of the schools.

    How many big donations for the medical center or the business school or law school are closed in a luxury box at a football game. How many of the average alumni and other donors write their checks after a big football win. The fact is the athletics, especially football, drive donations for the entire school.

    This doesn't even count the impact of athletics on campus life and campus diversity. A big part of the deficits can be directly attributed to expenses for women's sports mandated by Title IX. Take away football and you quickly see huge numbers of the non-revenue sports die off.

    On many campuses, many of which are struggling to create diversity in student populations, athletic programs include significantly higher percentages of students of color and students from lower income backgrounds than the general student population.

    CSU stated in their justification for committing to their new stadium the role of football in attracting students to the school.

    The Presidents and governing bodies of these universities are not composed of stupid people. They are also not composed of people who simply love athletics above all else. Given their preference most would channel the dollars to their particular area of academic interest.

    Instead, almost universally, they continue to support athletics because they know that the ROI for the schools is there. Simply put the numbers don't tell the story, especially if somebody like Huff Post decides to skew those numbers even more.

    By the way, also not noted in Colorado's numbers were the cost and temporary reduction in revenue as a result of changing conferences.
     

Share This Page