Ultimately, what will expansion mean for the non-revenue sports?

[18IsTheMan]

Envisioning a future when college football ultimately breaks away and becomes a stand-alone entity (which at one time seemed like a far-fetched notion but now seems more likely than not) what will become of the non-revenue sports? If you take away football money, almost nothing else can survive. Some schools would be able to retain men's basketball. All other sports would be in serious peril, with no clear path to survival.

If college football has no reached it already, it will eventually reach the tipping point where the benefits of breaking away from the NCAA outweigh the cost of losing tax exempt status that comes under the umbrella of the NCAA.

 

[Uscg1984]

For those programs on the inside looking out, I think the non-revenue sports will be fine.

For those on the outside looking in (to include most of the G5 programs), I'm not sure how their football programs will generate enough revenue to make the other sports viable. And that analysis doesn't even factor in the effects of NIL money.

 

[18IsTheMan]

For those programs on the inside looking out, I think the non-revenue sports will be fine.

For those on the outside looking in (to include most of the G5 programs), I'm not sure how their football programs will generate enough revenue to make the other sports viable. And that analysis doesn't even factor in the effects of NIL money.

I actually see it the other way, though I could be wrong.

For those programs on the inside looking out, they will be part of the group of CFB that breaks away from the NCAA to become their own entity. Those 40-50 lucky teams. In that case, once they become for-profit entities, does Title IX still apply? I don't think it would. That would mean the death of non-revenue sports.

For those programs on the outside looking in, football revenue would still cover the non-revenue sports.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Envisioning a future when college football ultimately breaks away and becomes a stand-alone entity (which at one time seemed like a far-fetched notion but now seems more likely than not) what will become of the non-revenue sports? If you take away football money, almost nothing else can survive. Some schools would be able to retain men's basketball. All other sports would be in serious peril, with no clear path to survival.

If college football has no reached it already, it will eventually reach the tipping point where the benefits of breaking away from the NCAA outweigh the cost of losing tax exempt status that comes under the umbrella of the NCAA.

The idea of college athletic department breaking even, or even making money is a fairly new concept (in the timeline of collegiate sports). It's always been university subsidized to make up for any revenue shortfalls that tickets, donations, etc. So if you take away football, then the rest of the sports are essentially under the long-standing model of athletic departments.

Now, I think what a lot of schools are going to realize is that if you aren't one of the big dogs, not having football would actually leave the department in a much better financial situation. Football is just too expensive and is a financial loser for most Division I teams. However, a good basketball team can pretty much pave the way for a whole department of non-revenue sports. I look at a school like College of Charleston - they're in a great position financially because they don't have football (whereas Charleston Southern and The Citadel put themselves behind the 8-ball to support a football money-pit.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The idea of college athletic department breaking even, or even making money is a fairly new concept (in the timeline of collegiate sports). It's always been university subsidized to make up for any revenue shortfalls that tickets, donations, etc. So if you take away football, then the rest of the sports are essentially under the long-standing model of athletic departments.

Now, I think what a lot of schools are going to realize is that if you aren't one of the big dogs, not having football would actually leave the department in a much better financial situation. Football is just too expensive and is a financial loser for most Division I teams. However, a good basketball team can pretty much pave the way for a whole department of non-revenue sports. I look at a school like College of Charleston - they're in a great position financially because they don't have football (whereas Charleston Southern and The Citadel put themselves behind the 8-ball to support a football money-pit.

At the P5 level, which is where the discussion is focused in regards to expansion, college football drives the ship and brings in the lion's share of the money. Men's basketball is a distant second. Virtually all other sports lose money. Many college sports exist only because of Title IX requires comparable opportunities be available for men’s and women’s athletes. Some sports could survive with money from student fees and university subsidies but not all.

 

[ToddFlanders]

At the P5 level, which is where the discussion is focused in regards to expansion, college football drives the ship and brings in the lion's share of the money. Men's basketball is a distant second. Virtually all other sports lose money. Many college sports exist only because of Title IX requires comparable opportunities be available for men’s and women’s athletes. Some sports could survive with money from student fees and university subsidies but not all.

Basketball is a distant second in revenue - but almost every division I basketball team can turn a profit because their expenses are a mere fraction of what a football team's expenses are (just on scholarships alone - 85 vs. 13). So most basketball teams can actually provide money into the department coffers, where most football teams need help.

 

[Deleted11512]

I think football and basketball should break away into their own conference. Media exposure is driving all of the expansion activities. That doesn't really benefit the women's lax team....they're not getting exposure as it is. It's just adding stress and expense. Sure, all programs in the AD end up getting more $$. But it does nothing for those players that don't have a professional career ahead of them. They like their families being able to travel to most away games. That's kind of a big deal b/c families are probably the majority of fans in the stands.

 

[ToddFlanders]

I think football and basketball should break away into their own conference. Media exposure is driving all of the expansion activities. That doesn't really benefit the women's lax team....they're not getting exposure as it is. It's just adding stress and expense. Sure, all programs in the AD end up getting more $$. But it does nothing for those players that don't have a professional career ahead of them. They like their families being able to travel to most away games. That's kind of a big deal b/c families are probably the majority of fans in the stands.

It would make a lot of sense for football and basketball to do whatever they need to do to maximize revenue, but then to keep all the other sports in their respective conferences. The Pac-12 should be alive and well today for all the Olympic sports. Why not maintain the easy travel and decades of rivalries for things like volleyball and water polo (for example)? The Pac-12 is one of the conferences that really invested in, and appreciated, the Olympic sports. It's a shame that will all go to the wayside.

 

[Deleted11512]

It would make a lot of sense for football and basketball to do whatever they need to do to maximize revenue, but then to keep all the other sports in their respective conferences. The Pac-12 should be alive and well today for all the Olympic sports. Why not maintain the easy travel and decades of rivalries for things like volleyball and water polo (for example)? The Pac-12 is one of the conferences that really invested in, and appreciated, the Olympic sports. It's a shame that will all go to the wayside.

I agree. It's a shame. I don't have a kid in collegiate sports, but I do in HS sports. And I'm just kind of applying it there....if the school said they're moving to a region on the coast (I'm in the upstate) b/c football will make more money (my kids play soccer), that would suck. I wouldn't be able to go to those away games, and parents are the only ones in the stands to begin with. It makes ZERO sense for those sports to be travelling across the country.

 

[USCBatgirl21]

It would make a lot of sense for football and basketball to do whatever they need to do to maximize revenue, but then to keep all the other sports in their respective conferences. The Pac-12 should be alive and well today for all the Olympic sports. Why not maintain the easy travel and decades of rivalries for things like volleyball and water polo (for example)? The Pac-12 is one of the conferences that really invested in, and appreciated, the Olympic sports. It's a shame that will all go to the wayside.

Honest question. If FB and MBB break away, are their revenue streams still available to their respective Universities to pay for all these non-revenue sports, as they do now? I could see an argument being made that they wouldn't be obligated. Not saying it would hold water, but it could be a fight looming, nonetheless. God forbid FB and MBB not have to pay for the non-revenue sports, you would see the end of college athletics as we know it.
Honestly just throwing a worst case scenario possibility out there. Of course, I'm one of those crazy people that would rather go to a baseball game than a football game, so my first thoughts are how to protect baseball and keep it alive.

 

[Uscg1984]

For those programs on the outside looking in, football revenue would still cover the non-revenue sports.

To the extent it covers the other sports, I think it does so under the _current_ model. I'm not sure the same assumptions can be made under the future model, whatever it may look like. The further the gap grows between the haves and have nots in football, the less viable the have nots will be, and the less lucrative the have-not conferences' TV contracts will be. If we create a de facto middle division between P5 (or P4 or whatever it ends up being) and FCS, you can't expect those schools to enjoy even as much TV revenue as they have now.

 

[Deleted11512]

Honest question. If FB and MBB break away, are their revenue streams still available to their respective Universities to pay for all these non-revenue sports, as they do now? I could see an argument being made that they wouldn't be obligated. Not saying it would hold water, but it could be a fight looming, nonetheless. God forbid FB and MBB not have to pay for the non-revenue sports, you would see the end of college athletics as we know it.
Honestly just throwing a worst case scenario possibility out there. Of course, I'm one of those crazy people that would rather go to a baseball game than a football game, so my first thoughts are how to protect baseball and keep it alive.

I would think so. They’re still a part of the athletic department. The men’s soccer team is currently in the Sun Belt.

 

[IOPGCock]

I actually see it the other way, though I could be wrong.

For those programs on the inside looking out, they will be part of the group of CFB that breaks away from the NCAA to become their own entity. Those 40-50 lucky teams. In that case, once they become for-profit entities, does Title IX still apply? I don't think it would. That would mean the death of non-revenue sports.

For those programs on the outside looking in, football revenue would still cover the non-revenue sports.

Was about to ask the same exact question.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Honest question. If FB and MBB break away, are their revenue streams still available to their respective Universities to pay for all these non-revenue sports, as they do now? I could see an argument being made that they wouldn't be obligated. Not saying it would hold water, but it could be a fight looming, nonetheless. God forbid FB and MBB not have to pay for the non-revenue sports, you would see the end of college athletics as we know it.
Honestly just throwing a worst case scenario possibility out there. Of course, I'm one of those crazy people that would rather go to a baseball game than a football game, so my first thoughts are how to protect baseball and keep it alive.

I think they'd still have to be housed in the same athletic departments - I can't see each university creating entirely separate entities outside of the departments that run as their own for-profit businesses. But maybe that is coming.

As of right now it doesn't seem as though much would change, except the actual revenue that football would bring in through yearly disbursements would go up. But even with that money that is brought in from football and basketball, it's not like they could fund 95% of FBS athletic departments. Some may get profits from football and basketball, but it's never close to enough - they'll always rely on donations, department-wide sponsors, local advertising, school fees, etc. to make up a large portion of department budgets.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The fact that expansion is happening tells you how much the powers-that-be care about revenue sports: zero.

You think ANYONE in a position of power in the Big 10 gives a flying flip that volleyball players will have the fly cross-country in the middle of the week, play a game, fly back cross-country and still get up and go to class and do homework and take tests and practice while dealing with jet lag?

 

[USCBatgirl21]

I think they'd still have to be housed in the same athletic departments - I can't see each university creating entirely separate entities outside of the departments that run as their own for-profit businesses. But maybe that is coming.

As of right now it doesn't seem as though much would change, except the actual revenue that football would bring in through yearly disbursements would go up. But even with that money that is brought in from football and basketball, it's not like they could fund 95% of FBS athletic departments. Some may get profits from football and basketball, but it's never close to enough - they'll always rely on donations, department-wide sponsors, local advertising, school fees, etc. to make up a large portion of department budgets.

Sadly, because of this, I think we would see many non revenue sports disappear from college athletics.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Sadly, because of this, I think we would see many non revenue sports disappear from college athletics.

That, unfortunately seems to be the trajectory we are on. Certainly, none of these expansion decisions are made with the least bit of concern for non-revenue sports.

 

[Rogue Cock]

Honest question. If FB and MBB break away, are their revenue streams still available to their respective Universities to pay for all these non-revenue sports, as they do now? I could see an argument being made that they wouldn't be obligated. Not saying it would hold water, but it could be a fight looming, nonetheless. God forbid FB and MBB not have to pay for the non-revenue sports, you would see the end of college athletics as we know it.
Honestly just throwing a worst case scenario possibility out there. Of course, I'm one of those crazy people that would rather go to a baseball game than a football game, so my first thoughts are how to protect baseball and keep it alive.

Yes....at least for Title IX purposes. Title IX looks at the school overall, not individual parts of it.

 

[Irvin Snibbley]

The idea of college athletic department breaking even, or even making money is a fairly new concept (in the timeline of collegiate sports). It's always been university subsidized to make up for any revenue shortfalls that tickets, donations, etc. So if you take away football, then the rest of the sports are essentially under the long-standing model of athletic departments.

Now, I think what a lot of schools are going to realize is that if you aren't one of the big dogs, not having football would actually leave the department in a much better financial situation. Football is just too expensive and is a financial loser for most Division I teams. However, a good basketball team can pretty much pave the way for a whole department of non-revenue sports. I look at a school like College of Charleston - they're in a great position financially because they don't have football (whereas Charleston Southern and The Citadel put themselves behind the 8-ball to support a football money-pit.

I checked and according to what I could find The Citadel and C of C both made a profit of about 2 milllion on their athletic programs.C of C had slightly higher revenue which I suspect came from student fees from a much higher enrollment.
In 2019 my class at The Citadel raised over 6 million dollars that we donated to The Brigadier Club used for scholarships.Take away football and I doubt we could raised even a fraction of that.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Found it interesting while watching one of the football games this weekend, the ticker below showed that UNC women's soccer was playing SoCal and Clemson women's soccer was playing Utah.