Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Richmond.com)   "The notion that the football and men's basketball teams sustain other sports couldn't be further from the truth"   (richmond.com) divider line
    More: PSA, The College of William & Mary, Colonial Athletic Association, men's basketball teams, open letter, sports teams, women's volleyball, College of William, College  
•       •       •

459 clicks; posted to Sports » on 14 Sep 2020 at 11:21 AM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



22 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2020-09-14 11:00:17 AM  
Anecdotes about afterthoughts like William and Mary are not data about other universities. What percentage of William and Mary's athletic budget comes from the football-driven SEC or B1G Networks? From gate receipts at Clemson or Notre Dame? From the sale or Oregon Ducks gear to folks who like the color of neon puke? None? Then STFU with that nonsense, Subby.
 
2020-09-14 11:15:34 AM  
The football programs would squeal like little piggies if "their" money went anywhere else.
 
2020-09-14 11:31:38 AM  
Come to a football factory in the SEC or B1G and see how the athletic facilities for all sports rival that of pro teams even when nobody comes to watch baseball, soccer, volleyball, or tennis.
 
2020-09-14 11:31:43 AM  
"For schools in Power Five conferences, this argument might be true"

These are the only ones making that argument.
Nobody thought the Podunk County Community football teams was funding the wrestling program.
 
2020-09-14 11:38:02 AM  
I somehow suspect if you frame it as "predominately minority sports like football and basketball subsidize mostly white affluent sports like swimming and golf" that Fark will much more strongly disagree with subby.
 
2020-09-14 11:39:32 AM  
FTFA: D. R. Hildebrand lives in New York City and is a 2003 graduate of the College of William & Mary, where he was a member of the swim team.

So the real story is he is pissed the swim team was cut and is now trying to project his butthurt to the entirety of college athletics.
 
2020-09-14 12:00:21 PM  
It must be true I just read it on the internet.
 
2020-09-14 12:10:44 PM  

brizzle365: Honestly, if he'd gone with something other than William & Mary's, you might be able to make a point, if you were to canvas the entire 5,000+ universities and colleges in the US, you might be able to cull enough data to support your assertion. But that would only really work out for you if you decide to not include any of the major athletic departments that in one way or another fund much of what is happening. Syracuse certainly doesn't use football to fund other programs, but the basketball team certainly does.

As of 2018, it would appear that these schools certainly made enough money from football to add to the athletic department's bottom line. And as had been said above, its not just money from the endowments that provide money to considerably smaller schools, they also get money from other benefiting factors that arise out of the popularity of the team, such as $$$ for getting their asses handed to them.

[specials-images.forbesimg.com image 850x904]


https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/fina​n​ces

82 of the top grossing 227 ncaa football teams *lost* money last year.

And ALL of that money is grossly outstripped by tuition.  So the top grossing team, Texas, pulled in roughly 19 million bucks in profit for the school.  That's approximately ... 0% of the university's revenue.
tuition.utexas.eduView Full Size


Even if you assume that all 21% of AUF/Gifts/Endowments revenue is coming from people who are ONLY giving money because they love Longhorns football, that's still less than the school pulls in from tuition and fees.  Which itself is less than half of what they get from grants and investment into academics.

But nobody talks about how important it is to pay the guy running the biomedical research laboratory at UT 10-20 million dollars to make sure that they remain competitive...  Nobody gets passionate if one of these labs closes due to internal funding issues.  Nobody turns around and asks why we're asking 18 year olds to provide some quarter of total revenue for a university that supposedly makes so much money from football that the sheer possibility of cancelling the season is off the table.

:shrug:
 
2020-09-14 12:12:17 PM  
FTFA: "If any sport is funding another, it is swimming, track, gymnastics, volleyball, and all their donors that are now, suddenly, funding football, not football funding them."

I really, really want to knock this guy's lunch tray up into his face.
 
2020-09-14 12:19:19 PM  

WoodyHayes: FTFA: "If any sport is funding another, it is swimming, track, gymnastics, volleyball, and all their donors that are now, suddenly, funding football, not football funding them."

I really, really want to knock this guy's lunch tray up into his face.


It's actually a lot like hollywood when you think about it.  Every unsuccessful tentpole movie loses tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.  Every successful one has a *chance* of making a billion dollars (which is why they keep making them), but realistically they make a couple dozen million.  Considering these movies take years to make and tremendous resources, that's not a sustainable business model.

So how does hollywood support that behemoth process?

Horror films.  Cheap, reductive horror films made by indie producers on shoestring budgets and bought for pennies on the dollar by major studios to flesh out their annual offerings while they hemorrhage cash into things like the DCCU and another Disney reboot.

Football and basketball are potentially very lucrative programs.  But when they *aren't* they are extremely expensive to run.  During those years, the budget is patched first from other sports (as is the case in this story about W&M), and then from the general coffers.

Tennis, Swimming and Gymanstics are the Horror Movie offerings of large university sports programs.
 
2020-09-14 12:24:00 PM  

BeesNuts: WoodyHayes: FTFA: "If any sport is funding another, it is swimming, track, gymnastics, volleyball, and all their donors that are now, suddenly, funding football, not football funding them."

I really, really want to knock this guy's lunch tray up into his face.

It's actually a lot like hollywood when you think about it.  Every unsuccessful tentpole movie loses tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.  Every successful one has a *chance* of making a billion dollars (which is why they keep making them), but realistically they make a couple dozen million.  Considering these movies take years to make and tremendous resources, that's not a sustainable business model.


Do not believe in Hollywood accounting.
They have been successfully sued on multiple occasions, but you have to be like Lucas, Spielberg, or Cameron to win.
 
2020-09-14 12:42:32 PM  
Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships
 
2020-09-14 12:44:01 PM  
brizzle365:
If you want to keep the discussion confined to the subject of the article and how much of a biased doody-head the author is, go for it.  I said my piece.
 
2020-09-14 1:34:44 PM  
I know Syracuse football pays more bills than the basketball team, and our basketball team gets fans to actually show up

advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-14 1:42:32 PM  

Anim: Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships


It is outdated now and I don't remember which order they were in, but maybe fifteen years ago I remember a pretty detailed piece on underachieving football programs. Clemson and (sadly) Texas A&M were the #1 and #2 underachieving programs throughout their respective histories. An absolute shiatload of factors went into it and I was very impressed by the work, sure wish I could find it if it still exists somewhere.

BeesNuts: WoodyHayes: FTFA: "If any sport is funding another, it is swimming, track, gymnastics, volleyball, and all their donors that are now, suddenly, funding football, not football funding them."

I really, really want to knock this guy's lunch tray up into his face.

It's actually a lot like hollywood when you think about it.  Every unsuccessful tentpole movie loses tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.  Every successful one has a *chance* of making a billion dollars (which is why they keep making them), but realistically they make a couple dozen million.  Considering these movies take years to make and tremendous resources, that's not a sustainable business model.

So how does hollywood support that behemoth process?

Horror films.  Cheap, reductive horror films made by indie producers on shoestring budgets and bought for pennies on the dollar by major studios to flesh out their annual offerings while they hemorrhage cash into things like the DCCU and another Disney reboot.

Football and basketball are potentially very lucrative programs.  But when they *aren't* they are extremely expensive to run.  During those years, the budget is patched first from other sports (as is the case in this story about W&M), and then from the general coffers.

Tennis, Swimming and Gymanstics are the Horror Movie offerings of large university sports programs.


I'm not sure I'd say all of that but I do appreciate the attempt at the analogy, sometimes things are easier to understand with that method.

The problem is that the guy took an example and tried to apply the same thinking to everything across the board and it just doesn't work that way.

Oh, hey! Mike London is William and Mary's coach! Not the best coach in terms of results but I love the guy's backstory so good on him for getting to be a head coach again.
 
2020-09-14 1:56:23 PM  

WoodyHayes: Anim: Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships

It is outdated now and I don't remember which order they were in, but maybe fifteen years ago I remember a pretty detailed piece on underachieving football programs. Clemson and (sadly) Texas A&M were the #1 and #2 underachieving programs throughout their respective histories. An absolute shiatload of factors went into it and I was very impressed by the work, sure wish I could find it if it still exists somewhere.


That would be interesting to see, even better if someone had done one recently. Obviously Clemson has had some return on their investment but A&M is definitely still at or near the top with Texas and Michigan.

/I mean I could do it, but I'm too busy making fun of the aggies on the internet
 
2020-09-14 2:03:15 PM  
 
2020-09-14 2:20:42 PM  

Anim: WoodyHayes: Anim: Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships

It is outdated now and I don't remember which order they were in, but maybe fifteen years ago I remember a pretty detailed piece on underachieving football programs. Clemson and (sadly) Texas A&M were the #1 and #2 underachieving programs throughout their respective histories. An absolute shiatload of factors went into it and I was very impressed by the work, sure wish I could find it if it still exists somewhere.

That would be interesting to see, even better if someone had done one recently. Obviously Clemson has had some return on their investment but A&M is definitely still at or near the top with Texas and Michigan.

/I mean I could do it, but I'm too busy making fun of the aggies on the internet


A&M, Michigan, Tennessee, and Texas have to be near the top of least bang-for-your-football-buck.  Nebraska would be right up there too but not quite in the same spending league.
 
2020-09-14 2:25:37 PM  

The Googles Do Nothing: Anim: WoodyHayes: Anim: Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships

It is outdated now and I don't remember which order they were in, but maybe fifteen years ago I remember a pretty detailed piece on underachieving football programs. Clemson and (sadly) Texas A&M were the #1 and #2 underachieving programs throughout their respective histories. An absolute shiatload of factors went into it and I was very impressed by the work, sure wish I could find it if it still exists somewhere.

That would be interesting to see, even better if someone had done one recently. Obviously Clemson has had some return on their investment but A&M is definitely still at or near the top with Texas and Michigan.

/I mean I could do it, but I'm too busy making fun of the aggies on the internet

A&M, Michigan, Tennessee, and Texas have to be near the top of least bang-for-your-football-buck.  Nebraska would be right up there too but not quite in the same spending league.


You may need to take the long view
 
2020-09-14 2:43:22 PM  

johnny_vegas: The Googles Do Nothing: Anim: WoodyHayes: Anim: Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships

It is outdated now and I don't remember which order they were in, but maybe fifteen years ago I remember a pretty detailed piece on underachieving football programs. Clemson and (sadly) Texas A&M were the #1 and #2 underachieving programs throughout their respective histories. An absolute shiatload of factors went into it and I was very impressed by the work, sure wish I could find it if it still exists somewhere.

That would be interesting to see, even better if someone had done one recently. Obviously Clemson has had some return on their investment but A&M is definitely still at or near the top with Texas and Michigan.

/I mean I could do it, but I'm too busy making fun of the aggies on the internet

A&M, Michigan, Tennessee, and Texas have to be near the top of least bang-for-your-football-buck.  Nebraska would be right up there too but not quite in the same spending league.

You may need to take the long view


The long view, yes, those are great programs but the last 15 years have been brutal for these teams.
 
2020-09-14 10:02:35 PM  

brizzle365: johnny_vegas: The Googles Do Nothing: Anim: WoodyHayes: Anim: Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships

It is outdated now and I don't remember which order they were in, but maybe fifteen years ago I remember a pretty detailed piece on underachieving football programs. Clemson and (sadly) Texas A&M were the #1 and #2 underachieving programs throughout their respective histories. An absolute shiatload of factors went into it and I was very impressed by the work, sure wish I could find it if it still exists somewhere.

That would be interesting to see, even better if someone had done one recently. Obviously Clemson has had some return on their investment but A&M is definitely still at or near the top with Texas and Michigan.

/I mean I could do it, but I'm too busy making fun of the aggies on the internet

A&M, Michigan, Tennessee, and Texas have to be near the top of least bang-for-your-football-buck.  Nebraska would be right up there too but not quite in the same spending league.

You may need to take the long view

Well, I was going to say, you need to find a list in that same rationale, but aimed towards the fark and the cadre of "dont like what I dont like" people.
And at least I was justified in that thought by the person just below your post.

The Googles Do Nothing: johnny_vegas: The Googles Do Nothing: Anim: WoodyHayes: Anim: Mama said aggies are ornery cause they got all that money but no championships

It is outdated now and I don't remember which order they were in, but maybe fifteen years ago I remember a pretty detailed piece on underachieving football programs. Clemson and (sadly) Texas A&M were the #1 and #2 underachieving programs throughout their respective histories. An absolute shiatload of factors went into it and I was very impressed by the work, sure wish I could find it if it still exists somewhere.

That would be interesting to see, even better if someone had done one recently. Obviously Clemson has had some return on their investment but A&M is definitely still at or near the top with Texas and Michigan.

/I mean I could do it, but I'm too busy making fun of the aggies on the internet

A&M, Michigan, Tennessee, and Texas have to be near the top of least bang-for-your-football-buck.  Nebraska would be right up there too but not quite in the same spending league.

You may need to take the long view

The long view, yes, those are great programs but the last 15 years have been brutal for these teams.

The thing is, the people who go to enjoy those games, don't always give a shiat if the team wins or not, they are butts in the stands. And in the grand scheme of things, thats pretty much the most important part of collegiate athletics.

Oh and education or something.


I have been reduced to circling the Michigan State game on the schedule.
 
2020-09-14 11:48:15 PM  
Other sports are plotting their change, hoping to drive more revenue and reducing their reliance on football and basketball subsidies.

College soccer, which had planned for seven years to change its schedule to a whole school year and have its tournament in the spring, is planning its 2021 spring schedule, and will be including 2020 fall results for schools that didn't postpone their season.  This could serve as a trial run for when they can vote on this.

There's a new proposal by northern baseball teams to move the start of the season to late March or early April, coinciding with the start of the pro season, and have the CWS in July.  The reasoning is that with the current start in February, baseball teams are denied a good half-season of ticket revenue since they'll be lucky to have any home games before mid-March, when their ticket buyers are so focused on the basketball tournament.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.