AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Good Read
- Thread starter BuffUp
- Start date
BlackNGold
Club Member
Coilorado is one of the most subsidized of the P5 schools....
I would very wary of any study done by the chronicle of higher education and the huffington post.
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.
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.