This is simply my thoughts about the money, as money has been the all consuming part of "college athletics".

(Apologies for my cut and paste, from my email from another site.)

Bottom line is that, as we all know, football pays for everything.

One caveat - men's basketball is in the red - to the tune of $1.4 million.

I love Aggie baseball. It is a money drain of $3.2 million.

Track and Field - very very successful and great for A&M. It is a money drain of $7.3 million.

Volleyball - National Champions. $2.7 million drain on the budget.

Tennis $4.8 million loss.

Swimming and diving - minus $4 million.

I love women's soccer. It costs the $2 million.

Softball - another $4 million.

Golf - $3 million.

Girls riding on horses - $3.7 million.

I did not mention women's basketball. My God.

All these sports are great. They are expensive.

Anyways, in this new era of NIL and unlimited transfers, is it time to move on from the old time format of all the varsity sports? Is it time to go all revenue centric - meaning let's quit wasting money on everything except football, and let men's basketball fend for itself?

Just my thoughts. And, for myself, I only spend my humble donations of football...

Texas A&M revenue, expenses and net by sport in 2025 fiscal year
Sport
Revenue
Expenses
Net
Baseball
$5,758,509
$9,016,887
-$3,258,378
Men's basketball
$15,740,036
$14,318,327
$1,421,709
Women's basketball
$1,036,356
$6,645,736
-$5,609,380
Equestrian
$240,059
$3,955,213
-$3,715,154
Football
$108,474,280
$60,230,147
$48,244,133
Men's golf
$252,145
$1,889,982
-$1,637,837
Women's golf
$331,224
$1,764,007
-$1,432,783
Soccer
$2,591,859
$4,516,707
-$1,924,848
Softball
$812,458
$4,490,934
-$3,678,476
Men's swimming and diving
$430,211
$2,397,800
-$1,967,589
Women's swimming and diving
$430,008
$2,527,430
-$2,097,422
Men's tennis
$2,264,156
$4,945,678
-$2,681,522
Women's tennis
$2,710,382
$4,853,353
-$2,142,971
Men's track and field/cross country
$617,876
$4,128,494
-$3,510,618
Women's track and field/cross country
$620,978
$4,413,406
-$3,792,428
Volleyball
$1,196,880
$3,922,449
-$2,725,569

Understood. But, the money. Do you just go "business P/L" for the non- revenue sports - actually revenue "big time losers" and spend the money on football ?

Yes. Basketball is in the black.

I'm too disillusioned by all the expense.

I'm just giving you a hard time. I actually agree with you.

I grew up in an Aggie family but actually played ball at a small D1 in Louisiana. Same deal there. All the nice things that all the other sports had were from the football team's revenue. We obviously weren't near as profitable as Texas A&M football, but that was the bellcow of the athletic department.

I often thought the same thing you're saying. All anyone talked/talks about was/is how we need to raise more money. I say trim the fat and move it along, but that ain't the way it works for some reason.

Football. Less out of more much of the time.

The ncaa requires you to play at least 14 sports to be classified D1- 7 men's and 7 women's- or six men's and 8 women's.

Yes, understood. My question is all about the money.

The program (not me, granted) pays for some very expensive coaching staffs and other expenses for incredibly high quality facilities.

Is this the way to go? You can spend a lot less - on the other sports - to qualify as D-1.

Was watching a few minutes of women's basketball tonight. But just a few minutes. What a waste of money on a 7 figure $ coach.

If it were up to me, I'd be giving most of those programs more money, not less. Quite a few of them have shown they can get the job done when it comes to the only thing that matters which is winning.

Aggie Football has shown to be nothing but a giant black hole for money vs success. The program uses more money than most other programs and still can't win. Giving them more isn't changing that.

Hey Nav said:

---

Yes, understood. My question is all about the money.

The program (not me, granted) pays for some very expensive coaching staffs and other expenses for incredibly high quality facilities.

Is this the way to go? You can spend a lot less - on the other sports - to qualify as D-1.

Was watching a few minutes of women's basketball tonight. But just a few minutes. What a waste of money on a 7 figure $ coach.

---

What are you going to do with the money you save?

AD money isn't NIL money. Once you fully fund scholarships and pay the full $18.5 million in revenue sharing, all you can do with that money, football-wise, is spend more on coaches, or build more facilities. We pretty much have al the facilities we need for football, and spend plenty on staff. There just isn't anything significant we could do with more AD revenue being directed towards football.

Now, NIL money is, at least for now, different, but we'll see how long that remains the case. But, as I said, you can't take AD revenue (TV money, tickets revenue), and turn that into NIL. The rules don't allow that.

Title IX isn't going anywhere, so "girls riding horses" isn't either unless it's replaced with another female sport that loses money. These sports that operate in the red represent a very small fraction of the overall athletic budget.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say we go super cheap and put out a crappy product in all of these sports, cutting their net financial loss in half, and all of those savings were put into football facilities or NIL. Would it make any meaningful difference on the field for our football team?

Winning championships is good PR for the whole university, including football. In the last 20 years or so, these programs have given us several.

wangus12 said:

---

If it were up to me, I'd be giving most of those programs more money, not less. Quite a few of them have shown they can get the job done when it comes to the only thing that matters which is winning.

Aggie Football has shown to be nothing but a giant black hole for money vs success. The program uses more money than most other programs and still can't win. Giving them more isn't changing that.

---

So you want to sink more money into programs that are already losing money even when those teams are successful? You keep doing that and the whole athletic department would go bankrupt in no time at all.

the entire university operates this way, not just athletics.

Hey Nav said:

---

This is simply my thoughts about the money, as money has been the all consuming part of "college athletics".

(Apologies for my cut and paste, from my email from another site.)

Bottom line is that, as we all know, football pays for everything.

One caveat - men's basketball is in the red - to the tune of $1.4 million.

I love Aggie baseball. It is a money drain of $3.2 million.

Track and Field - very very successful and great for A&M. It is a money drain of $7.3 million.

Volleyball - National Champions. $2.7 million drain on the budget.

Tennis $4.8 million loss.

Swimming and diving - minus $4 million.

I love women's soccer. It costs the $2 million.

Softball - another $4 million.

Golf - $3 million.

Girls riding on horses - $3.7 million.

I did not mention women's basketball. My God.

All these sports are great. They are expensive.

Anyways, in this new era of NIL and unlimited transfers, is it time to move on from the old time format of all the varsity sports? Is it time to go all revenue centric - meaning let's quit wasting money on everything except football, and let men's basketball fend for itself?

Just my thoughts. And, for myself, I only spend my humble donations of football...

Texas A&M revenue, expenses and net by sport in 2025 fiscal year
Sport
Revenue
Expenses
Net
Baseball
$5,758,509
$9,016,887
-$3,258,378
Men's basketball
$15,740,036
$14,318,327
$1,421,709
Women's basketball
$1,036,356
$6,645,736
-$5,609,380
Equestrian
$240,059
$3,955,213
-$3,715,154
Football
$108,474,280
$60,230,147
$48,244,133
Men's golf
$252,145
$1,889,982
-$1,637,837
Women's golf
$331,224
$1,764,007
-$1,432,783
Soccer
$2,591,859
$4,516,707
-$1,924,848
Softball
$812,458
$4,490,934
-$3,678,476
Men's swimming and diving
$430,211
$2,397,800
-$1,967,589
Women's swimming and diving
$430,008
$2,527,430
-$2,097,422
Men's tennis
$2,264,156
$4,945,678
-$2,681,522
Women's tennis
$2,710,382
$4,853,353
-$2,142,971
Men's track and field/cross country
$617,876
$4,128,494
-$3,510,618
Women's track and field/cross country
$620,978
$4,413,406
-$3,792,428
Volleyball
$1,196,880
$3,922,449
-$2,725,569

---

What Private Equity firm do you work for?
lol I'm jk, but this is the PE argument & direction college sports will go the more that PE gets involved.

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

The ncaa requires you to play at least 14 sports to be classified D1- 7 men's and 7 women's- or six men's and 8 women's.

---

Once college football breaks off from NCAA governance, will this really matter? Maybe the NCAA becomes the governing body of college basketball in order to keep the tournament.

We're long overdue on reducing expenditures on all the sports teams.

GIF Reactor said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

The ncaa requires you to play at least 14 sports to be classified D1- 7 men's and 7 women's- or six men's and 8 women's.

---

Once college football breaks off from NCAA governance, will this really matter? Maybe the NCAA becomes the governing body of college basketball in order to keep the tournament.

We're long overdue on reducing expenditures on all the sports teams.

---

It was mentioned above, but I guess it needs to be repeated. Title IX. Google it.

I hate to wreck you post but college sports are not a business, Texas A&M is a non-profit entity.

High school sports lose money.

So OP is saying to spend less money on the teams that have actually given us Nattys or have come close and spend more on the one we think might but always falls short?

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

The ncaa requires you to play at least 14 sports to be classified D1- 7 men's and 7 women's- or six men's and 8 women's.

---

however the NCAA does not require you to play in a 4-day women's basketball tournament in Hawaii

travel costs...ouch

If you don't significantly contribute to our success, why are you worrying about the money? Are you a Baptist church member scouring the budget because it gives you a sense of (false) control?

It would be great if someone could post a comparison of our expenditures to that for other major SEC schools.

Everything is about money. I think the Zoo's problem is we focus too much on wins and losses.

The President of the University and the Regents probably care much more about the net income from the football program than the wins and losses. And, apparently, we've found the revenue sweet spot at about 8-4, with an occasional 10 or 11-win season to get hopes up and feed more sales.

In terms of income, we're probably ranked in the Top 5 almost every year. Some of you guys need to quit worrying about the W's and be proud of the $'s we rake in. We're a freaking powerhouse in the most important metric!! Whoop!

ok, jk.

Gol***93 said:

---

I'm just giving you a hard time. I actually agree with you.

I grew up in an Aggie family but actually played ball at a small D1 in Louisiana. Same deal there. All the nice things that all the other sports had were from the football team's revenue. We obviously weren't near as profitable as Texas A&M football, but that was the bellcow of the athletic department.

I often thought the same thing you're saying. All anyone talked/talks about was/is how we need to raise more money. I say trim the fat and move it along, but that ain't the way it works for some reason.

---

I would cut WBB to the bare minimum, and give the savings to volleyball. Keep the momentum going in what is working. Be great and win championships in some sports, rather than be good in all of them.

Quote:

---

Once you fully fund scholarships and pay the full $18.5 million in revenue sharing, all you can do with that money, football-wise, is spend more on coaches, or build more facilities. We pretty much have al the facilities we need for football, and spend plenty on staff. There just isn't anything significant we could do with more AD revenue being directed towards football.

---

So, there is a gentleman that writes a weekly column in the Kerrville Daily Times about sports. It should really be titled "This week at Texas Tech" , as that is his focus (his byline mentions that he has a BA in Journalism from Texas Tech and has worked in the banking and insurance industries.)

What I have learned from his column this past season is that, yes, Tceh is a player on the big stage because of money - money from a very wealthy guy who played football there and spends significant amounts on sports, including a Million $ softball pitcher, the best transfer portal in football, the finest facilities in the entire nation - better than any NFL facilities. Also, Lubbock is a very nice town His words, not mine. Oh, and apparently that money gets this guy the title of Chairman of the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents.

As nice as the facilities are in Aggieland, are we now behind the likes of Tceh and Oregon?

Quote:

---

As nice as the facilities are in Aggieland, are we now behind the likes of Tceh and Oregon?

---

I'm sure that there might be one or two minor "gee whiz" things that they have but we don't, but you might be able to do the same in reverse. Our football facilities are excellent.

So long story short, A&M needs George Strait to perform at Reed, George P. Mitchell, and Ellis Field, 53 times (roughly)

Please check my math

Law Of The Quad said:

---

I hate to wreck you post but college sports are not a business, Texas A&M is a non-profit entity.

High school sports lose money.

---

Also ridiculous and sustainable as long as taxpayers foot the bill.

twk said:

---

GIF Reactor said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

The ncaa requires you to play at least 14 sports to be classified D1- 7 men's and 7 women's- or six men's and 8 women's.

---

Once college football breaks off from NCAA governance, will this really matter? Maybe the NCAA becomes the governing body of college basketball in order to keep the tournament.

We're long overdue on reducing expenditures on all the sports teams.

---

It was mentioned above, but I guess it needs to be repeated. Title IX. Google it.

---

You should Google Title IX too. It doesn't say anything about coaches salaries, travel expenses, or facilities

My initial reaction is that we lost millions of dollars fielding the worst women's basketball team in the SEC by a wide margin. Does our Women's basketball coach have compromising photos of our AD? Because we are currently in a fight to finish last again this year. Seriously Trev are you looking at the absolute thrashing the Aggie women are getting? We lost to Texas 35-80. Yikes!

We could have shut the whole thing down and bought Coleman and an OL to be named later with the savings.

I looked it up Joni has a 11-39 career record as our coach her salary is $1.5M/year. So that's over a half a million dollars per SEC women's basketball win if we don't win any more games this year, which seems kinda likely. Impressive. She probably has a buyout that will net her ~$9M total earnings from A&M if we fire her. Something to keep in mind when you get angry about football players getting paid.

I am glad that the sports income is spread among this many sports. Glad that A&M has these ample resources. Sad that so many believe it should run like a for-profit business. They apparently believe the NCAA should support only one sport.

Brand recognition. School pride. Student bonding. Spectator options. And most of all, opportunities for many different athletes - education, avocation and even possible vocation..