Interesting link: http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/12/28/top-50-most-profitable-fbs-football-and-mens-basketball-programs/

A couple interesting notes:

- surprised how low USC ranked on revenue and profits
- Oregon and Oregon State both on there (OSU runs their football program on a shoestring budget)
- the "usual suspects" making tons of $$$$
- Auburn spends the most (by far) of anyone on their football program - but, wonder if the methodology is consistent across all programs? i.e. they may put costs in their football budget that support multiple sports?

Socialist. I demand entertainment.

well, I think the list is interesting - but I'm pretty sure 100% of any schools' fans don't really care except to the extent that their program is economically viable - fans just want to see their teams win

however, often times football is able to fund all other athletic programs (that are loss makers) and even provide funds back to the university for educational programs

I would wager the "costs" don't include capital improvements such as stadiums. Also, operational costs like added security on game days and the like.

Quote:

---

Top 50 most profitable sports programs

---

It should read Top 50 most profitable football programs.

Big, [SIZE="3"]BIG[/SIZE],[SIZE="5"]BIG[/SIZE] difference.

Something like 90% of all FBS Athletic Departments run a deficit as per the Knight Commission.

Cal is in that boat. Cal runs a profit on football (most schools do). It's that the profits from the "revenue" sports aren't typically enough to cover the losses in the "Olympic" sports.

Cal comes in at #58: http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/12/29/51-100-most-profitable-fbs-football-and-basketball-programs/

FiatSlug;729126 said:

---

It should read Top 50 most profitable football programs.

Big, [SIZE="3"]BIG[/SIZE],[SIZE="5"]BIG[/SIZE] difference.

Something like 90% of all FBS Athletic Departments run a deficit as per the Knight Commission.

Cal is in that boat. Cal runs a profit on football (most schools do). It's that the profits from the "revenue" sports aren't typically enough to cover the losses in the "Olympic" sports.

---

well, technically football and basketball were on that list

AU_Bears;729131 said:

---

Cal comes in at #58: http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/12/29/51-100-most-profitable-fbs-football-and-basketball-programs/

---

Our football program only made about $3M more in profit than the Utah BASKETBALL program? Yikes. Anyway, it's just good that we were in the black.

SouthBayPhenom;729147 said:

---

well, technically football and basketball were on that list

---

And still, Cal had a $8.1 million deficit for FY11 (ending June 30, 2011).

As I said before, 90% of FBS Athletic Departments run a deficit. Cal is no exception.

There's a difference between being profitable and being non-profit. Many non-profit organizations make a profit in order to sustain itself. Cal is no different - with so many programs running deficits, it looks to football to be able to support the other athletic programs. I'm not sure I see anything unethical about this. Without making a profit, many other sports programs would be shut down.

FiatSlug;729264 said:

---

And still, Cal had a $8.1 million deficit for FY11 (ending June 30, 2011).

As I said before, 90% of FBS Athletic Departments run a deficit. Cal is no exception.

---

Sorry my statement wasn't clear. The thread title should have been most profitable football and basketball programs, not most profitable sports programs. I fully understand that most athletic depts run a deficit

FiatSlug;729264 said:

---

And still, Cal had a $8.1 million deficit for FY11 (ending June 30, 2011).

As I said before, 90% of FBS Athletic Departments run a deficit. Cal is no exception.

---

I think only 3 or 4 schools run w/o a deficit. Notra Dame, Texas, Penn State, and sometimes (but not currently) Florida. All traditional football powers. This is very misleading, since the athletic departments pay for the funding for some percentage of the student body that would otherwise have to be paid for out of funds already allocated to the academic funds, provide or help donors to non athletic pursuits, and contribute to the overalll college experience.

Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming that Cal was doing anything unethical; merely commenting (in the most general way) on the state of Athletic Department finances.