I'm confused.
Yes, I know, nothing new.
Still, explain it to me.
People keep talking about how much money college sports makes and how unfair it is that they do this on the backs of the unpaid students.
Yet according to the LA Times UCLA had a $102 million sports deficit over the last 3 years. This is the biggest public university in the largest state in the largest media market in the country. If, with all those advantages, they do so poorly financially. it can't be easy, can it?
There are 1300 plus schools in the NCAA. 1300 of them lose money on sports. Some of the plus make money. But those are mostly big public schools in red states. Stanford is not in a red state. Nor are USC or UCLA.
So, you kinda have choices, don't you? (Assuming you aren't one of the plus like Texas or Alabama or Michigan.)
1. Decide what level of a program you want and can afford and step up to paying the costs. That is what 90+% of NCAA schools do and all lower level schools like, say Foothill College, do.
2. You can run a, let's call it, power 5 program where you try to break even. You adjust expenses to meet your expected revenue. That's what Stanford does - WITH ENORMOUS SUCCESS.
3. Or you can play to the cliche and exploit your student athletes. Bring in the mercenaries. It appears this is the path USC and UCLA have chosen.
Look, we are Stanford. The future is uncertain. But I'm confident we will figure it out. We always have. Better than anyone else. We always will.
Yes, I know, nothing new.
Still, explain it to me.
People keep talking about how much money college sports makes and how unfair it is that they do this on the backs of the unpaid students.
Yet according to the LA Times UCLA had a $102 million sports deficit over the last 3 years. This is the biggest public university in the largest state in the largest media market in the country. If, with all those advantages, they do so poorly financially. it can't be easy, can it?
There are 1300 plus schools in the NCAA. 1300 of them lose money on sports. Some of the plus make money. But those are mostly big public schools in red states. Stanford is not in a red state. Nor are USC or UCLA.
So, you kinda have choices, don't you? (Assuming you aren't one of the plus like Texas or Alabama or Michigan.)
1. Decide what level of a program you want and can afford and step up to paying the costs. That is what 90+% of NCAA schools do and all lower level schools like, say Foothill College, do.
2. You can run a, let's call it, power 5 program where you try to break even. You adjust expenses to meet your expected revenue. That's what Stanford does - WITH ENORMOUS SUCCESS.
3. Or you can play to the cliche and exploit your student athletes. Bring in the mercenaries. It appears this is the path USC and UCLA have chosen.
Look, we are Stanford. The future is uncertain. But I'm confident we will figure it out. We always have. Better than anyone else. We always will.
