<p>T26E4</p>
<p>Thanks for a great quote - it really made my day!</p>
<p>It turns out it is not true that college sports are not a major source of revenue generator on most campuses. Indeed it is a myth. There are many faculty that generate revenue for their campuses via their patents, and large grants. Some large projects are funded by grants worth $10s and a few instances $100s milliions of dollars per year. Most big science campuses (Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan) have multiple center grants. The highest grossing grossing football program is Texas at ~50 million. How much of that goes to cover the coaches salary? It amazed at how some students can give you a detail run down on the football teams chances of making a bowl game but have no idea that the research being carried out accross campus has the potential to cure a deadly disease. </p>
<p>Below is a link to a study on college sprorts and </p>
<p>[Knight</a> News Releases - Knight Foundation](<a href=“http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases]Knight”>http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases).<br>
/detail.dot?id=135945</p>
<p>Here is the rest of the URL I posted in my previous message:
[New</a> Study Debunks Link Among Winning College Athletic Programs and Increases in Donations and Quality of Applicants - Knight Foundation](<a href=“http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=135945]New”>http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=135945)</p>
<p>appdad
Interesting study…
I agree that it might be beneficial for many schools to tone down their spending. </p>
<p>He doesn’t really address those schools that produce a surplus - and fund other sports and programs…like PSU and Notre Dame. It would be tough to argue that these schools should tone things down. I really believe a lot of the rabid alumni support for both schools is due tot he fb program. So, it DOES work in some cases. </p>
<p>But it it pretty crazy out there for many schools…something is wrong with this picture.</p>
<p>appdad - Thanks for the posting the study. Very interesting. I do wonder about the perception that “winning” sports teams, especially in football and basketball, bring a higher profile for a university and, thus, draw in a better quality student. My first thought goes to schools like MIT (Do they even have a football team?), CalTech, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. Not exactly known for their athletic stardom (unless you count crew). Again, it seems to me the purpose of colleges and universities is to provide places for intellectual study beyond secondary education. Seems like many schools have forgotten their mission statements. Additionally, aren’t public (and many private) universities not-for-profit? Where do all the ticket-sale and concessions monies go? Looking at the recent personnel layoffs and tuition hikes taking place across the country, my guess would be the athletic money does not go back into the academic budget. Where does all that extra money (profit) go?</p>
<p>Colmom, I think you are wrong about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and I would add Stanford-they care very much about their sports, spend alot on sports, and they field top 20 teams in probably more sports than schools like Florida and Ohio State. Difference is that its in sports that don’t make any money like swimming, fencing, soccer, golf, tennis. Sports is a big drag on finances at the schools you site, at schools like Florida football pays to cover all their sports programs, and on the other end schools like Notre Dame very definately have football programs that very generously fund scholarships for the entire student body.</p>
<p>I never said those schools don’t care about sports. Just saying that the first thing that comes to mind when I think MIT, CalTech, Harvard, Yale, etc. is academics, not sports. They are known for the quality of the student body and outstanding academic programs. I don’t think top tier students choose to go to those schools because of their sports teams. MIT is known for engineering, for example, not their sports teams. My point was that some posters think sports might draw top tier students to those schools winning national sports titles. I’m not sure sports at a university has that benefit. (National titles are more like a perk.) </p>
<p>At the schools that you mentioned - what is the salary of coaches compared to salary of professors? Where do those schools put their money? Do they have huge scholarship funds because alum donate based on the sports seasons’ wins? Or, do they donate because of the quality of the education they received at those institutions of higher learning? </p>
<p>And, you might want to rethink UF’s top-20 ranking in sports beyond football and basketball.</p>
<p>“My point was that some posters think sports might draw top tier students to those schools winning national sports titles. I’m not sure sports at a university has that benefit.” </p>
<p>While I would expect the number to be relatively small, some top students wish to go to schools with big sports as part of the experience. In fact, I know one myself who chose our flagship state university rather than a top level private precisely for that reason. (In case, you’re wondering, it turned out just fine for her; she has a job offer from a major consulting firm).</p>
<p>In 2008 Sports Illistrated ranked Stanford #2 in all sports Florida #7 and Princeton #11.</p>
<p>If the question is does a big time football program net-net have a positive impact on the academic quality and reputation of a school. My feeling is that if done correctly yes. In the case of ND that was brought up, the funds generated by their exclusive TV deal goes to support academic scholarships for all. I believe having the kind of atmosphere that surrounds a ND home game definately is attractve for many students, and I do believe that many donors to Nd give in part because of their love of ND football.</p>
<p>At the same time, I believe the desire to support so many sports teams at Ivy League schools actually reduces the quality of the student body because of the comprimises they make to accept those students over academically stronger students.</p>
<p>^And by that logic, you believe that the quality of an Ivy education, and the student body therein, pales in comparison to that of ND?</p>
<p>I highly doubt that.</p>
<p>No, I was just responding to the question of whether it helps or hurts. I think it helps a little but clearly there are alot of other factors that determines the qualty of a University education.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Much of it goes to funding non-revenue sports like tennis or gymnastics. This is a stated goal of universities also- to provide for an athletic environment.</p>
<p>Cuts in the academic budget reflect lack of revenues elsewhere like state support or endowment siphoning.</p>
<p>I’m reminded of the rabid football fan, a spry man of some 65+ years, who sat next to me on an airplane ride about two years ago. </p>
<p>He watched as I put away the stack of manuscripts I’d been writing comments on. (I review for journals and presses, and work to get my grad students published, since publication is their only hope of ever earning more than $5000 per course, per semester, never mind their credentials, and the University simply could not function without their underpaid labor.) </p>
<p>As I was taking out the book that I would be lecturing on, the following day, my seatmate let me know he was a “a big fan” of the sports team for the university (very large, public) where I teach as a tenured professor. </p>
<p>“How about those X!” he exclaimed, referring to the name of the football team. “They sure are great,” etc. He told me how he also followed Y and Z local teams and never missed a home game, traveled to go to some games, etc.</p>
<p>After a while our conversation shifted. How did I like working for said university. I told him I really liked it a lot, many advantages, a certain openness to new ideas, quite a few very high quality students. I pointed out, however, that the professors’ salaries are at the very bottom of the PAC-10 in many fields, and that this had been the case for a number of years.</p>
<p>“PAC-10 and professor’s salaries! How can you compare! That’s ridiculous,” he said. “That’s a sports designation! That has nothing to do with how good a university is!”</p>
<p>Football is the big budget drainer here, which is why top coaches like Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer and Nick Saban can command multi million dollar contracts. If done properly Football can support the entire athletic department. If done poorly it can suck the department dry. At USC, until Pete Carroll was hired the Athletic department regularly lost money. Football started winning and now it’s in the black thus allowing for other sports like Water Polo, Tennis and Golf to thrive. Also, the general fund gets a cut of all donations to the school.</p>
<p>When people are willing to buy tickets to watch Chemistry professors do research, then the salaries of professors will rise. Keep in mind that coaches of high profile sports, especially revenue sports like football and basketball, have a 24/7 job. They are lucky to take one week off a year. They travel incessantly, have to explain their every move to the media, work long hours when on campus, and give up a most of their family time. Most college coaches do this at pay that is either comparable or far less than professors. Before they get their first assistant coach job, they have put in years working for peanuts. Only the head coaches of certain sports teams make the big bucks. Most coaches coach because they are addicted to coaching, no one goes into that profession for money. Why have sports, music, drama, lectures, literary journals, on-campus religious clubs, dance, or other non-academic activities on college campuses? Because it is part of our culture and people enjoy these activities. Why is there such animosity towards sports programs? They are simply another on campus activity and another way for the university to connect with the community at large. If sports were not good for the colleges, the College CEO’s would get rid of them.</p>
<p>Some schools are pretty transparent about their athletic department finances. Here’s a link to Michigan’s athletic budget for FY 2010:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“The Regents of the University of Michigan”>The Regents of the University of Michigan]June</a> 2009 Regents’ Meeting | Regents of the University of Michigan<a href=“click%20on%20link%20to%20item%20#19%20in%20supplemental%20agenda”>/url</a>.</p>
<p>Highlights: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The Athletic Department is entirely self-supporting. It receives no payments or subsidies of any kind from the University, and it expects to generate an operating surplus of $8.8 million in FY 2010 on operating revenues of $94.4 million and operating expenses of $85.6 million.</p></li>
<li><p>Football is the big dog, pulling in $33.7 million in ticket sales (net of payments to visiting schools), and accounting for the bulk of an additional $15 million in television revenue and another $1.8 million in conference distributions of football bowl revenue. Football also accounts for the lion’s share of a projected revenue of $13.8 million in corporate sponsorships, $13.7 million in “priority seating and other annual gifts,” $4.1 million in licensing royalties (Michigan logos on sports clothing), and $1.9 million in concessions and parking, though basketball and hockey play some role in all of these.</p></li>
<li><p>Basketball ($2 million in ticket sales) and hockey ($1.8 million in ticket sales) are much smaller, though basketball also pulls in another $2.7 million in “NCAA based basketball distributions” coming through the Big Ten conference. </p></li>
<li><p>The three major revenue sports—football, basketball, and hockey, but about 90% football—not only pay all their own costs, but fully support the entire athletic department including 25 varsity sports as well as non-varsity intercollegiate sports and recreational sports.</p></li>
<li><p>A portion of the Big Ten conference payout, about $1.6 million, goes to the University’s general fund to support need-based financial aid. The operating surplus is budgeted for athletic department “operating reserves” but when this fund gets too large the athletic department has in the past made additional contributions to the University’s general fund. The athletic department also awards about $15 million in athletic scholarships, the maximum allowed under NCAA rules. The tuition portion of these scholarships goes to the University’s general fund in the form of direct payment of the tuition of scholarship athletes, an estimated 70% of whom are OOS and therefore get their tuition paid at the OOS tuition rate.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>My answer to the Op is that he probably shouldn’t. But he probably does. Some here know I see college as a sales product, offering a service- no different from a car lot.
I suspect the coach brings in far far more money than the top administrator.
As the top salesman, he gets the most perks.
I could wish for a world where student athletes were student athletes. But I also wish I was a couple inches taller. Neither wish likely to come true.</p>
<p>In business the rainmakers always get the bucks.
In some segments of the higher education racket those rainmakers are in the athletic department.</p>
<p>Several of the best universities in the country manage to more than keep the lights running despite marginal sports programs. I’d like to know more about the economics of college sports. I wonder if it is anything like pro stadiums and Olympic venues, which usually don’t quite live up to their promise as revenue generators for the host cities.</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins chases federal research dollars. In neighboring DC, Georgetown puts on a big basketball show. Which is the better money-maker for a leading university? Hopkins’ research expenditures total nearly $80K per student per year. Georgetown’s? Less than a 10th of that.</p>
<p>Re: ND being a private school and can do anything it wants…
UConn Basketball coach Calhoun was paid $1.6 million last year.</p>