While we might not start a normal fall Monday with a rather heavy look at finances in college athletics, face it: the local teams didn't really give us a whole lot to play with here. We'll take a look at the Vikings' meltdown later on (conclusion: they actually played pretty well, even if they were their own worst enemy at various times), but those looking for a thrashing of Gophers football or hockey might have to look elsewhere. (And if you don't get to it, don't worry ... both teams already took a significant thrashing over the weekend).

Instead, let's take off the funny-man hat for a moment and talk about an interesting report just released by the Knight Commission. It is titled "College Sports 101: A Primer on Money, Athletics and Higher Education in the 21st Century." Former colleague Jay Weiner played a large role in its construction, and he was kind enough to pass along the link to it as soon as the report went online. We spent maybe 30 minutes skimming it so far this morning, and we'd like to pull out a few key takeaways we've found. Beyond that, here is the link to the full report if you want to have a deeper read. The report focuses mainly on schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision part of the NCAA, which you might have previously known as Division I-A. Simply put, these are the schools eligible for the bowl games you watch in December and January. This is anyone from Toledo to Minnesota to Florida.

*From the perception vs. reality department (with our emphasis in bold):

A 2006 survey sponsored by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics found that 78 percent of Americans polled believed athletics programs were profitable (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2006). In fact, the vast majority of athletics programs reap far less money from external sources than they need to function. Virtually all universities subsidize athletics departments through general fund allocations, student fees, and state appropriations, and the NCAA estimates in a given year that only 20 to 30 athletics programs actually generate enough external revenue to cover operating expenses. Institutional subsidies to athletics can exceed $11 million, according to data provided by the NCAA.

Translation: at the biggest of the biggest schools with massive football programs and generous donors, sports can make a profit. Otherwise, they usually don't. That said, most other areas of a school -- we assume -- are also run via general fund money, student fees, state appropriations, etc. As long as the proportion seems fair, we don't necessarily have a problem with athletics getting some of that money.

*From a chapter on expenses:

The median budget for athletics programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision is about $40 million, but that number is deceiving. There is a wide gap in spending from the very top programs to the bottom. If we split big-time athletics programs into 10 deciles of 12 institutions based on expenses, the median budget for the lowest decile was $14 million in 2007 and the median budget for the top decile was $83 million. The highest spending categories for the average athletics program includes the following:

Salaries and benefits, especially coaches' salaries (32 percent of total expenses); Tuition-driven grants-in-aid—or sports scholarships (16 percent); Facilities maintenance and rental (14 percent); Team travel, recruiting and equipment and supplies (12 percent combined); Fund-raising costs, guaranteed payments to opponents, game-day expenses, medical costs, conducting sports camps and other miscellaneous costs (12 percent).

We knew salaries were through the roof, but it kind of blew our mind to find out that salaries and benefits ate up twice as much of the budget as scholarships, which we had assumed accounted for the largest single chunk of an athletic department's budget. Also, the difference between $14 million and $83 million is astounding. The top-spending FBS schools are using roughly six times as much money as the lowest-spending schools -- far less, as a ratio, than say Yankees vs. Twins. No wonder the same teams are always good in football. If you are rooting for a big-spending school, you are essentially rooting for the Yankees.

*From a chapter specifically on revenue

According to 2007 NCAA financial data, half of all top-flight athletic programs rely on at least $9 million in institutional and governmental subsidies to balance their budgets. Even in the most prosperous conference, its members received a median subsidy of $3.4 million. Such allocations come from student fees, support from a university's general fund (covering indirect costs such as utilities), state support, staffing or facilities maintenance.

*And finally, from a chapter on myths and intangibles:

NCAA data from a February 2009 study authored by economists Jonathan Orszag and Mark Israel shows athletics budgets amount to 6 percent of most universities' total institutional spending (Orszag & Israel, 2009). Despite that relatively thin slice of a campus' budget, athletics events where thousands of students, faculty, administrators and alums gather are often the visible "front porch" for a university. ... Rigorous studies of the subject, however, suggest that there is no significant institutional benefit to athletic success.

While the supporting evidence for that last claim didn't seem as strong to us as other areas of the report, it once again provided some food for thought and challenged some long-held assumptions. We are told that a survey of college presidents is going to be released later today -- and it could contain even more interesting and potentially controversial information. In any event, again, have a look-see at the full report if you get a chance. There is a good discussion of where college sports are headed money-wise (troubling times on the horizon), and the entire report is definitely worth checking out.