(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

*If* the school's alumni are interested in funding football with donations.

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So it's a matter in part of what the university deems a worthy expense. I do agree with the notion that some deficit is justifiable because it's a way to expose the university. But it's relative...depends on how much exposure you're getting and what you're paying for it.

Also depends on whether the university needs the specific exposure of D-I athletics or FBS football to attract students. IMO a large public university with a lot of seats to fill year after year, and a 70% acceptance rate, is in a different situation from a small private university that has a 20% acceptance rate.

At any rate, if someone calls FBS football a marketing expense, it has to be justified as an effective and cost-effective expense in the same way as any other such expense. If a marketing director at a large university spent $20 million/year (or even $1 million/year) on traditional media advertising, that expense would be scrutinized for its effectiveness in increasing applications, increasing the quality of applications, increasing donations, etc., and administrators would try to determine if increases in those metrics were directly related to the advertising. It wouldn't just be blindly accepted as, "Hey, we want to increase our visibility."