I’d be happy to. Show me a way to measure this. I’m sure that this happens BUT why should this intangible factor be valued above the very tangible cost-expenditure that this report shows?
Yes, it’s true. The marching band will play at the six or seven games a year played there. But to use that as proof that this is a mixed use facility is just disingenuous. It’s also worth mentioning that the U hired an outside consultant in the push to get this thing built who specialized in disguising costs of sports facilities as educational expenses. He was let go after the school paper published a story about it.
It isn’t athletics vs education - it might be athletics vs academics… Athletics is part of education.
And I am not saying you can measure all the effects. But you cannot claim every dollar brought in in tuition by a program is because of that program. People choose schools for multiple reasons, and shockingly, athletics is a significant reason for people.
This is a reply to previous posts obviously - board hung while posting it and a post slipped in inbetween…
The strange part is that Universities could potentially benefit two-fold by eliminating their sports programs.
First, they could eliminate the downward spiral of badly needed money into the maelstrom of collegiate sports, and devote it to either lowering tuition (ha!) or at least restoring programs cut due to decreased budgets.
And second, it might motivate an alum (like myself) to contribute to their *alma mater * during fundraising if they thought that the money would go to academic programs rather than sports.
(I know that I would be given an option of where to direct my contribution but (suspicious soul that I am) I am of the opinion that the money I would steer to my favorite programs would have gone there anyway, and any surplus would go to the athletic program.)
ETA: villa, I did change my wording from “education” to “academic programs” after reading your post in deference to your argument, but I will respectfully submit that I don’t feel “educated” after playing or watching sports. I usually do, however, after reading a book or watching a play. I recognize that others may feel differently.
Sure athletics (intramural sports) is part of education but I am pitting Athletics (big “A”) as the NCAA is organized which is essentially minor league sports.
I disagree about the connection between tuition and programs. Students choose to take particular classes or majors. No one is being forced to take French (vs. German or Spanish).
How do you determine how many tuition dollars are “generated” by French classes? Unless students are choosing your university based on the strength of the French Department, then that department isn’t bringing in any revenue that the university would have realized regardless.
As someone who works at a university - I can say without hesitation that it is crazy to give faculty large sums of money. Most are financially illiterate. D1 sports is a lot like owning a race horse. Sure, SOME race horse owners make money. A few make millions. But the vast majority lose money but keep at it while dreaming of hitting it big.
NYT Weekend Magazine did an article about a college in Florida’s decision to get into football in a big way several years ago. It discussed all of this.
You can do it for the university ('s academics) as a whole, then, if not for a department.
I have not read the report itself, but perhaps you could clarify for me. Does the report distinguish between “revenue” sports - generally men’s hoops and football, and all other sports? Because ISTR seeing reports that suggested of all sports activities, hoops and football are the ONLY ones that come produce ANY revenue. And it seems a little odd if the report charges the costs associated with - say - a swimming team against football revenues.
Hopefully there is some carry-over with respect to athletic facilities. My oldest kid is a music ed student and quite active in band. Tho she cares nothing about sports, having sports activities to play marching and pep band at is not inconsequential for her. She chose to attend a school where the band may be higher quality than the sports teams, but for many musicians, the opportunity to play at the biggest profile events has undeniable appeal. You may think that is not worth the cost of the stadium, but it is of some value to the hundred+ students in band and their families.
Ditto for cheerleading, and probably other groups that derive benefit from participating in bigtime sports presentations. I can imagine students in physical education, journalism, marketing, and other areas getting useful experience from working with college sports.
Hopefully the facilities are designed in a manner to encourage diverse use. For example, most basketball arenas serve double duty hosting concerts and commencement ceremonies.
Like I said, I’m not a big fan of any sports. Just suggesting the issue of costs/benefits is a little more complicated than some suggest.
Yes, but governments and non-profits do NOT invest in race horses. I’m fine if private individuals want to try to make money with sports (e.g. the NFL, etc) but object when public institutions start to gamble in this way.
I never advocated giving faculty large sums of money…although I’d be more than happy with that 
But this just presents the same problem as trying to determine how much tuition revenue sports bring to a univeristy – how do you measure how much of the school’s revenue is derived from its academic reputation?
Fight On, SC!
I am very good friends with a couple of the coordinators of the recreation department at Georgia State U. They all opposed developing a football program for this reason. One told me college athletic programs share the recreational equipment but not their own “what’s yours is mine what’s mine is mine.”
They also were opposed because the additional 200 dollars the team would have added would be on top of the fee’s they already received. In other words they felt that it might have made funding recreation for all the other students more difficult.
[/QUOTE]
It is a bit unclear. But the revenue sharing between sports is standard practice at NCAA institutions. The confusion is real. It is very difficult to get clear accounting on the costs and revenues from sports.
And it is clear that facilities do serve double duty but it is NOT clear how those costs are allocated. Football stadiums tend to be the worst because they are very expensive and really only get use a few days a year. Now if ticket sales actually paid for the stadium (and other costs of the program) than I’d be fine BUT the report shows that this is often not the case.
Again the objection is not against athletics but the use limited dollars to support what is essentially minor league teams.
I really don’t understand this. Why isn’t tuition (money paid to take classes) an accurate measure of how much revenue is generated? Reputation doesn’t come into this. Someone might chose not to attend but someone else will fill the slot.
People go absolutely APE SHIT in Athens GA when the Bulldogs (UGA) play. I know the vast majority of fans did not attend UGA, and probably do not have relatives who attended. Do they donate money to improve UGA’s academics? I doubt it.
Does it bring in students? Maybe, but students that attend UGA because of the football team may not be the best.
I’m sorry but… what? You had the talent, ambition, and background to get into an Ivy League school, but you chose to go to a school that had better … better sports? You made this decision not as a high school kid, but as someone making a decision about a post-graduate institution? The mind boggles.
I guess it does support the notion that schools dump money into their sports programs as a form of advertising. Pretty much the only schools I know of by name outside the northeast and California are those whose names show up on television.
I should also realize that choice of recreational activities does play a part in deciding between, say, an urban campus and a remote rural one.
But inherent to the problems alluded to in the OP is the warped mentality of sports on campus. That playing games, whether football, tiddlywinks, capture the flag, or hopscotch has some bearing on education and deserves more backing than, say, the French club. I shudder to think of a student body made up of kids drawn more to playing games than learning.
I should point out that I think it’s the height of irony that my undergrad (Columbia), while on one hand known for its academics, is commonly referred to by its membership in an athletic league (Ivy). :rolleyes:
Just wanted to toss out another datapoint - when I was in law school at a state university, I was shocked to learn that one of the big-name professors was (at the time) IIRC the third highest employee of my state. Again IIRC, paid more than the governor of the state, or the president of the university.
I assume similar examples exist elsewhere in academia. Researchers are provided labs and paid highly, despite an inability and unwillingness to teach. Retired politicians, authors, artists, or other “celebrities” might be hired to confer “prestige” upon journalism, political science, or arts departments.
How do you put a dollar figure on the “entertainment” college sports provide? Hell, Oklahoma and Nebraska are only 2 states that might not even exist in the consciousness of the rest of America if not for their sports teams. Many college communities derive considerable benefit from rallying around their local college heroes. And if you say that providing entertainment and generalting community identity ought not be functions of colleges, exactly how narrowly do you define that function?
One of my political theory professors once explained how much less he (tenured) made than the laser researchers in the next building who taught one three-hour class each per year.
Then he explained why he didn’t mind- because they bring in big research grants and he doesn’t.
If hiring a $5-million-a-year coach brings in more than it costs, then it’s a smart move; if the salary is paid by boosters, so much the better.
It’s common for the football team to go to a hotel the night before the game. Fridays before a game at a D1 school are known for raging parties, so it seems pretty reasonable to get your team away from campus, both for peace and quiet, and so the coaches can keep an eye on them.
I don’t think we are really talking about football here, at least not Minnesota football, which probably makes money. Also, Title IX insures that there will be some money losing sports. I’ve said for years that sports that make money (usually football and men’s basketball) should be exempt from Title IX quotas.