Brian Dohn just posted profit numbers for UCLA football and basketball:
Equity in Athletics reports were released, and UCLA's athletic department proved to be self-sustaining with revenues and expenses equaling $66,088,264 for the 2007-08 athletic calendar.
UCLA fields 20 sports, including nine men's programs. The school reported 390 female athletes, compared to 379 men.
Football and men's basketball were the only sports to produce a profit. The football team had revenues of more than $28 million, and netted $11,370,856. The men's basketball team had revenues of nearly $11 million, and posted a profit of $4,257,853.
UCLA football netted a profit of more than $11 million. As for SUC here is Scott Wolf:
USC football made nearly $8 million last year, with revenue of $28,595,881 and expenses of $20,963,700. This is why football carries the load with athletics.
Here's an interesting nugget: Football's recruiting expenses were $8,712,687.
UCLA football is making more money than SuC football. With all the on field success those "student athletes" have had at South Central, that kind of sounds weird. Doesn't it?
The recruiting expense ($23,780 per day) for SuC is mind boggling. Keep in mind these are numbers that show up on record. With unresolved allegations involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra benefits involving Bush and OJ2 (for hoops) lurking in the background, a good reporter would look into whether there are any other off balance sheet "transactions" that are not accounted in these numbers.
What are they spending all that money for? Charter jets? Does anyone have links to numbers for recruiting expenses at schools like Texas, Oklahoma and Florida.