UK athletics represented about 2% of the school’s revenues last year.
Perhaps Capiluoto is giving this situation the amount of attention that is appropriate given the size of the athletics department relative to other parts of the university.
You're an idiot if you think this is the case- I mean truly, you're a moron if you think it's that black and white.
UCONN applications skyrocketed after they won the title again this year. LSU had a record freshman class after the Joe Burrow year- and a record yer for fundraising across all of campus.
Attendance and applications can be directly related to athletic success.
Boosters donate more money to the university as a whole when athletics are good (which does not get contributed to the athletic departments bottom line).
More apparel and branded merchandise is sold when athletics are good. (Which also mostly does not get contributed to the athletic departments bottom line).
The public and national perspective of an entire university and in our case, an entire STATE, change for the BETTER when athletics are good.
The local economy is impacted when athletics are good (bars, restaurants, shops, people driving in from all over the state to attend games and stay in hotel rooms, etc.)
Athletics is the "Front Porch" of every university in America almost.
Do you think Alabama is a national brand because of their academics?
Did Gonzaga become a household name because they have great science teachers?
You think alumni and boosters/donors are lining up to donate a bunch of money to the school because we signed a new Economics professor or win a math competition?
2% my ass- Athletics has about as big of an impact on a university's bottom line as anything else I can think of besides healthcare potentially (because that's the biggest scam in America)- because it impacts SO MANY OTHER THINGS (fundraising, applications, attendance, local economy, etc.) and sports can single-handedly change the reputation of an entire school and an entire STATE.
Healthcare ain't doing that.