BYU Athletic Department Profitability

[Paperback Writer]

You're right about tuition, it's crazy.

LDS Tuition - $2,210 per semester
Non-LDA Tutition - $4,420

But even at $4,420, the non-LDS tutition is a steal and doesn't cut into the profit margin that much. To compare, it looks like a resident Utah fulltime student pays around $3,000 per semester. Non-residents pay almost $10,000.

I'm trying to understand this. Is the implication that the university is billing the athletic department for each scholarship? So an out-of-stater at Utah or non-LDS at BYU will get billed more? I don't think department budgets work that way. There are so many athletic scholarships offered just like there are so many full-academic scholarships offered in other departments. Those potential revenues just don't get factored into university revenues.

The cost of running athletic programs are travel, uniform and equipment, facilities, coaches salaries, etc. Not tuition. So when a school cuts the mens wrestling team, they're not saying "Oh, we no longer have to pay the university 50K for the 10 mens scholarships". It's more like "we no longer have to pay for a mens wrestling coach and an assistant coach, we no longer have wrestling team travel costs, equipment costs, facilities, etc.

[Top Ute]

I'm trying to understand this. Is the implication that the university is billing the athletic department for each scholarship? So an out-of-stater at Utah or non-LDS at BYU will get billed more? I don't think department budgets work that way. There are so many athletic scholarships offered just like there are so many full-academic scholarships offered in other departments. Those potential revenues just don't get factored into university revenues.

The cost of running athletic programs are travel, uniform and equipment, facilities, coaches salaries, etc. Not tuition. So when a school cuts the mens wrestling team, they're not saying "Oh, we no longer have to pay the university 50K for the 10 mens scholarships". It's more like "we no longer have to pay for a mens wrestling coach and an assistant coach, we no longer have wrestling team travel costs, equipment costs, facilities, etc.

Sorry, but that's how they work. Those costs simply aren't written off and disappear. Quickie research found one prominent school which laid it out quite clearly:

Who Pays For The Scholarships?

The Athletic Department is required to pay all of the student-athletes’ scholarship expenses, including tuition. Until the present time, gifts from annual Seminole Booster donors (Golden Chief, Silver Chief, etc.) have been transferred to the Athletic Department to pay those scholarship costs.

Providing scholarships for its students is the most important function of the Athletic Department. However, these scholarship costs are also the single largest item in the athletic budget.

Those costs in 2006/2007 were over $7,800,000.

Otherwise, athletic departments wouldn't place such a premium on endowed scholarships. Every single one of Stanford's athletic scholarships are endowed through the athletic department. At Utah, there are about a half-dozen that are endowed across football and hoops, and the entire gymnastics scholarship allotment is endowed.

As for your example of cutting wrestling, that's first and foremost a Title IX issue, not one of budgetary restrictions.

[Top Ute]

You're right about tuition, it's crazy.

LDS Tuition - $2,210 per semester
Non-LDA Tutition - $4,420

But even at $4,420, the non-LDS tutition is a steal and doesn't cut into the profit margin that much. To compare, it looks like a resident Utah fulltime student pays around $3,000 per semester. Non-residents pay almost $10,000.

Yeah, isn't as great as I thought it was. But 25 non-LDS athletes would cost BYU over $110,000 in tuition costs to the athletic department based on payment of two semesters per year. A drop in the bucket compared to the entire athletic department budget, but still significant enough to cover, say, a raise/bonuses for a coaching staff, for example.

[Top Ute]

Should profit be the determining factor in determining what athletic teams to field? It can't tottally be ignored but there's some balance to it. For instance Nebraska fields womens bowling and womens rifle teams in part to keep mens gymnasticts and mens wrestling and still be Title IX compliant. BYU has already cut mens gymnatstics and wrestling. I suppose mens cross country and mens swimming could go but that probably won't save much. Interesting that BYU fields a mens volleyball team and Utah fields a m/w skiing but doesn't have mens track&field.

Very compelling argument that's often used as a defense of intercollegiate athletics. It's not the mission of many departments of a university to show a profit, nor could they ever justify showing one. But those departments don't ever face the financial scrutiny that athletic departments face.

Cutting men's X-C and swimming as opposed to wrestling and men's gymnastics could never be justified from a cost-saving measure. First, your X-C and swim coaches are often (if not always) the same person for both men's and women's teams. And there are fixed costs with wrestling and men's gymnastics that are germane to those sports -- you don't need two swimming pools for a men's/women's team, and X-C meets are often run simultaneously between the sexes.

As for Utah, men's track and field will likely be added in the near future; the construction of the new T&F facilities last year all but assures it.

[Paperback Writer]

Sorry, but that's how they work. Those costs simply aren't written off and disappear. Quickie research found one prominent school which laid it out quite clearly:


Otherwise, athletic departments wouldn't place such a premium on endowed scholarships. Every single one of Stanford's athletic scholarships are endowed through the athletic department. At Utah, there are about a half-dozen that are endowed across football and hoops, and the entire gymnastics scholarship allotment is endowed.

I stand corrected. Scholarships do factor into athletic costs/budgets. But quickly reseach with another prominent school (Nebraska) that I'm familar with state that student support, which includes scholarships, make up 9% of athletic department actual expenses. So where do you think make up the other 91%. It's things like I stated earlier - travel, coaches salaries, facilities, equipment, etc. So when entire programs are cut, most of the savings come from those areas rather than scholarships.

As for your example of cutting wrestling, that's first and foremost a Title IX issue, not one of budgetary restrictions.

Cutting non-revenue sports has everything to do with cutting budgets. Title IX just means that a university has to have some semblance of balance between mens and womens athletic scholarships. If mens wrestling made a profit then proceeds could be used to fund additional womens' scholarships. It's not (and almost all womens sports are not as well) so it's cheaper to eliminate a mens program than lose money keeping it and have to fund a corresponding womens program and lose even more money. So yes, cutting wrestling is Title IX related, but its first and foremost a budgetary restriction (or cost cutting) and not the other way around.

[Top Ute]

I stand corrected. Scholarships do factor into athletic costs/budgets. But quickly reseach with another prominent school (Nebraska) that I'm familar with state that student support, which includes scholarships, make up 9% of athletic department actual expenses. So where do you think make up the other 91%. It's things like I stated earlier - travel, coaches salaries, facilities, equipment, etc. So when entire programs are cut, most of the savings come from those areas rather than scholarships.
Cutting non-revenue sports has everything to do with cutting budgets. Title IX just means that a university has to have some semblance of balance between mens and womens athletic scholarships. If mens wrestling made a profit then proceeds could be used to fund additional womens' scholarships. It's not (and almost all womens sports are not as well) so it's cheaper to eliminate a mens program than lose money keeping it and have to fund a corresponding womens program and lose even more money. So yes, cutting wrestling is Title IX related, but its first and foremost a budgetary restriction (or cost cutting) and not the other way around.

That's simply not true. Athletic departments have much more to fear by violating proportionality principles than it ever could by operating in the red. Any school that has males holding 70 percent of its scholarships, when the student body is just 48 percent male, that school is going to get the hammer and it will lose any case it tries to make for itself.

[Lost Student]

That's simply not true. Athletic departments have much more to fear by violating proportionality principles than it ever could by operating in the red. Any school that has males holding 70 percent of its scholarships, when the student body is just 48 percent male, that school is going to get the hammer and it will lose any case it tries to make for itself.

Right, but what PW is saying is that a school in such a situation would have two possible solutions to equalize the numbers: increasing the number of women sports or decreasing the number of men sports. Budget concerns dictate the latter solution.

[Top Ute]

Right, but what PW is saying is that a school in such a situation would have two possible solutions to equalize the numbers: increasing the number of women sports or decreasing the number of men sports. Budget concerns dictate the latter solution.

You call it budget concerns, I say it's just the easiest route to go. Plus, there are only so many sports for women and location plays a part (there's women's ice hockey, but you don't see Florida schools adding it to become Title IX compliant, for example).

I don't think it's accurate to say there are two possible solutions that are both equally realistic, especially since almost every school that has cut a men's sport has done so to fund another women's sport. In other words, this is not an either/or proposition. Without Title IX and the threat of proportionality, schools wouldn't do either, and would continue to support male sports that were running in the red.

[Paperback Writer]

Right, but what PW is saying is that a school in such a situation would have two possible solutions to equalize the numbers: increasing the number of women sports or decreasing the number of men sports. Budget concerns dictate the latter solution.

That's correct. The real problem is football-it takes up 85 scholarships; there's no womens equivalent in one sports program. If a football program is profitable like Nebraska, it can fund all other sports and still allow mens wrestling and gymnastics as well as fund womens bowling and women rifle so that there are comparable scholarships. If football revenues fall or go in the red, then other mens programs have to be cut because the womens programs cannot be touched due to Title IX.

I think more can be done on the women's side for revenue generation and exposure. Specifically, I think women's volleyball can be a revenue generator if given more exposure and publicity. Nebraska is having some success at this in that their volleyball program does sell out it's 5K venue. I don't think women's volleyball can become anothe March Madness but it's the best hope for women's sports to generate revenue through TV, tickets, etc.

[Lost Student]

You call it budget concerns, I say it's just the easiest route to go. Plus, there are only so many sports for women and location plays a part (there's women's ice hockey, but you don't see Florida schools adding it to become Title IX compliant, for example).

I don't think it's accurate to say there are two possible solutions that are both equally realistic, especially since almost every school that has cut a men's sport has done so to fund another women's sport. In other words, this is not an either/or proposition. Without Title IX and the threat of proportionality, schools wouldn't do either, and would continue to support male sports that were running in the red.

I've wondered: if a school is financially able, and it wanted support every possible NCAA sanctioned sport, would Title IX permit it? In other words, can that school find enough women's sports to balance out football plus all the other men's sports? Can't it just have a huge women's bowling team or something?

Also, I see Paperback_Writer made senior member after only 325 posts. Not too shabby!

[Paperback Writer]

I've wondered: if a school is financially able, and it wanted support every possible NCAA sanctioned sport, would Title IX permit it? In other words, can that school find enough women's sports to balance out football plus all the other men's sports? Can't it just have a huge women's bowling team or something?

I don't see why not. Nebraska's bowling team has a roster of 12, not sure how many are on scholarship, I presume all. And only one is from Nebraska which I don't understand. Maybe they take their bowling seriously in Lincoln.

Other schools get creative. Kansas St. has a women's rowing team and a womens equestrian team. Bolth with a rosters of 50+. Not sure why the Wildcats don't field womens soccer and softball teams like everyone else.

But think about it. I can understand Utah fielding a skiing team - it has mountains and skiing has long been part of Utah culture. But a womens rowing team in Kansas???