The Lie of College Athletics and Money

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]

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.
[/QUOTE]

True, except isn’t that contrary to what the OP is pitting? Isn’t the basis of this thread that college athletics don’t bring in more money than they spend? I’m not suggesting the OP’s link is the final word on everything–that this isn’t something that can be debated–but the working premise is that the five million a year coach is a resource-draining, fiscally irresponsible move.

I daresay education and research, along with the associated trappings that go along with it, can be defined broadly enough to preclude diverting significant money away from those goals in order to foster HackySack tournaments.

42

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
True, except isn’t that contrary to what the OP is pitting? Isn’t the basis of this thread that college athletics don’t bring in more money than they spend? I’m not suggesting the OP’s link is the final word on everything–that this isn’t something that can be debated–but the working premise is that the five million a year coach is a resource-draining, fiscally irresponsible move.
[/QUOTE]

I was sort of half asleep when I originally posted to this thread, and I read “college athletics lose money” as “college football loses money”. I had forgotten that big-money college sports are supposedly underwriting the cost of non-revenue-generating sports.

Now we see that at most schools, they aren’t underwriting said cost - but you still have to wonder if they help.

I certainly won’t argue that from a logical standpoint, paying a college football coach that sort of money is idiotic - you can get any number of coaches with an equally good subjective resume for much less than, say, Nick Saban. But from an economic standpoint, if your college football program is profitable, it makes sense.

That said, there’s usually no point at all in giving the coach you’ve already got a big raise “to keep him”. We know now that big-name coaches just don’t honor their contracts. Whether it’s jumping to the NFL or just a bigger college program, there’s always someone willing to offer more money or more glamour.

43

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
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:
[/QUOTE]

Well it is fortunate that you aren’t me, then, as you would spend your life boggling your own mind. One of the reasons I picked Vanderbilt over Penn for law school was the sports. Not the only reason, not even the major one, but one of them.

And I don’t regret it for a moment. And yes, I made this decision as an adult, who had worked for 10 years after previous post-grad experience. And you know what - I work at a law firm at which I am very happy, and which is a pretty prestigious firm. I would not have got better job offers had I gone to Penn, as far as I can see. I had a much better time at law school than I think I would have had at Penn, but we will never know for sure.

What boggles my mind is that someone smart would think that membership of the Ivy league should be a determining factor in picking a school. But you hang onto that Columbia elitism as long as you want. I made the right choice for me. I hope you did for you.

44

The problem with numbers like this, is that they are aggregate. For example, the Univeristy of Minnesota Men’s Athletic Department runs a profit, becuase of the revenue sports of Hockey, Basketball, and yes, football. A big part of revenue is TV. Ever hear of the Big Ten Network?

However, there are also a lot of non revenue sports, like wrestling, baseball, track, swimming. These obviously cost more than they make up.

And then there’s the elephant in the closet: Title IX. Woman’s athletics suck up the rest of the profit, and then some. Especially since it’s been established that they need ‘equal’ but ‘separate’ facitilites. Hence a women’s hockey stadium, a women’s basketball arena, a women’s soccer field, etc. when facilities are already available.
So even though things like football, hockey, and basketball are by them selves almost obscenely profitable, the rest of the athletic department more than make up for it. In that context, it seems silly to bitch about a new stadium for football, when almost the same amount of money has been spent on women’s facilities with no return on the investment.

45

[QUOTE=villa]
Well it is fortunate that you aren’t me, then, as you would spend your life boggling your own mind. One of the reasons I picked Vanderbilt over Penn for law school was the sports. Not the only reason, not even the major one, but one of them.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect he/she was picturing you choosing Mississippi State over Harvard rather than Vandy over Penn.

That said, if you were going to an SEC school to watch football, why on earth did you pick Vanderbilt?

46

[QUOTE=Plexi Guy]

And then there’s the elephant in the closet: Title IX. Woman’s athletics suck up the rest of the profit, and then some. Especially since it’s been established that they need ‘equal’ but ‘separate’ facitilites. Hence a women’s hockey stadium, a women’s basketball arena, a women’s soccer field, etc. when facilities are already available.
So even though things like football, hockey, and basketball are by them selves almost obscenely profitable, the rest of the athletic department more than make up for it. In that context, it seems silly to bitch about a new stadium for football, when almost the same amount of money has been spent on women’s facilities with no return on the investment.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? Perhaps it is different up north, but at least in the SEC colleges I’ve been (UF and LSU), many sports share facilities. The women play softball at the same arena, they use the same basketball and volleyball courts (note that sometimes both of those courts are the same), the same soccer fields and tennis courts, run in the same tracks, and swim in the same pools.

The one structure that is not used by female athletes is probably the huge football stadiums. Not even the cheerleaders practice there all the time.

47

[QUOTE=T_SQUARE]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Minnesota football claims to make money, but it doesn’t. They don’t count the cost of the new stadium, for instance when they calculate how much money they “make.” Programs also typically don’t count upkeep on their buildings or security for the games in their budgeting. The books are cooked.

Vanderbilt? If you’re going for sports then you went to the wrong school. Florida is hands down the winner in the sports derby of late. If you want to attend a sports powerhouse that is where you go! That’s why it has become the hardest school in America to get into.

Wait? it’s not? Not even close?

I looked around and found several different accounts of what the hardest schools in America to get into are. The lists differ depending upon who is compiling them, but the closest thing to a sports power I found on any of the lists was Stanford and they are far behind the Ohio States and Floridas of the world. Much of the lists were, in fact Ivy league schools, but remember these schools do in fact have division I sports programs, they just aren’t competitive with the jockocracies so they are often ridiculed. Many of the schools on the lists have no sports programs at all, however. M.I.T., Cal Tech, Coopers Union and others do just fine attracting students with no sports at all. Florida maybe has had a slight uptick in enrollment from due to it’s athletic success, but even if it has is this really the best or most efficient way to attract quality students?

There was a book released a few years ago called The Game of Life which studied many of the assumptions people have about college sports. The authors found that contrary to popular belief, schools with winning programs do not bring in larger alumni donations than losing schools.

They define their function themselves. They have mission statements. Ours does not include the word “entertainment.” Nor are sports mentioned in any way. Sports, however, are where the money is going.

48

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I suspect he/she was picturing you choosing Mississippi State over Harvard rather than Vandy over Penn.

That said, if you were going to an SEC school to watch football, why on earth did you pick Vanderbilt?
[/QUOTE]

Then he/she was making a bloody silly assumption, based on some sort of blinkered arrogance about the quality of schools in and out of the Ivy League.

I didn’t pick Vandy solely because of the football. My final choice was narrowed down to Penn and Vandy. And one of the factors that came into the choice was the fact that, as a sports nut, I would enjoy watching SEC quality performances if only from the visiting teams. :stuck_out_tongue:

That said, I did get to watch Cutler develop as a QB. And see how Eli Manning couldn’t even read a Vandy defense properly.

49

[QUOTE=Bronto Boy]
“…just 17 of the more than 300 athletics programs in all of Division I—about 5 percent—earned a net profit between 2004 and 2006, with ticket sales and private donations accounting for more than half of all revenue.”

[/QUOTE]

There are only 300 athletic programs in Division I? Across all sports? That seems like a surprisingly low number, given the number of basketball teams in March Madness, all the football teams, hockey, etc.

50

[QUOTE=Dewey Finn]
There are only 300 athletic programs in Division I? Across all sports? That seems like a surprisingly low number, given the number of basketball teams in March Madness, all the football teams, hockey, etc.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect that means there are 300 composite athletic programs, ie. 300 schools - any one of which may have between 1 and 40 individual D-1 sports programs.

51

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I suspect he/she was picturing you choosing Mississippi State over Harvard rather than Vandy over Penn.

That said, if you were going to an SEC school to watch football, why on earth did you pick Vanderbilt?
[/QUOTE]

I was going to say the same thing!

Anyway, I am a professor at an institution that runs a profitable football team that in essence subsidizes most of the other sport teams. And yes, at times, the interest and investment in sports can go overboard sometimes - specifically, when we head to Dallas to play o.u. every year. But there are several issues to consider about collegiate athletics:
[ul]
[li]They generate interest and attention for the university. Yes, a lot of fans didn’t attend the uni, and don’t care what the French lit department published this year, but they do buy merchandise.[/li][li]The powers that be (state legislators) tend to pay more attention to a school when you’ve had a successful year.[/li][li]It allows a common experience to be shared among students and alumni. Of course, it isn’t the only experience that might be shared, but yes, I know people who came to the University of Texas at Austin in large part because of the athletics.[/li][li]College athletes are the only members of the student body who are asked to risk their health and well-being for the benefit of the institution. I didn’t play a sport; I was a brain. (They’re not mutually exclusive, but you get my point.) But as I wrote papers and worked on projects to improve the school, I was never in danger of blowing my ACL or breaking a wrist. And while a fraction of those students will get a big payday in the major leagues, most won’t.[/li][li]Athletics are a good “hook” for students who are not part of the local community. One of the reasons that students know about our campus is because we won a national championship in football a few years ago, Vince Young was the quarterback, and Matthew McConnaughey was on the sidelines. Those facts might grab the interest of a student in California, or New York, and he or she might go to our website, learn about the school, and decide that it’s a good match.[/li][li]As mentioned previously, a lot of non-athletes have an opportunity to demonstrate their skills at athletic events. Bands, cheerleaders, dance squads, student managers, trainers - they all gain valuable experience and exposure that they simply wouldn’t get without athletics.[/li][/ul]
I’m an academic that long ago came to terms with the fact that in some taxpayers’ imagination, the production of knowledge for knowledge’s sake is not a sufficient reason to fund higher education. But if we do that and beat USC in the Rose Bowl, those folks will be on board. I actually don’t have a huge problem with that. Some institutions are resolutely against athletics, and that’s cool. But don’t assume that prestigious schools don’t spend and direct excessive amounts of attention to athletics. My other alma mater, Harvard, has a pretty impressive hockey team and they spend a lot of money on facilities and the like. Hell, they spend a lot of money on sports that they’re not even that good at - see the hiring of Tommy Amaker as basketball coach.

52

[QUOTE=Captain Lance Murdoch]

Vanderbilt? If you’re going for sports then you went to the wrong school. Florida is hands down the winner in the sports derby of late. If you want to attend a sports powerhouse that is where you go! That’s why it has become the hardest school in America to get into.

Wait? it’s not? Not even close?

I looked around and found several different accounts of what the hardest schools in America to get into are. The lists differ depending upon who is compiling them, but the closest thing to a sports power I found on any of the lists was Stanford and they are far behind the Ohio States and Floridas of the world. Much of the lists were, in fact Ivy league schools, but remember these schools do in fact have division I sports programs, they just aren’t competitive with the jockocracies so they are often ridiculed. Many of the schools on the lists have no sports programs at all, however. M.I.T., Cal Tech, Coopers Union and others do just fine attracting students with no sports at all. Florida maybe has had a slight uptick in enrollment from due to it’s athletic success, but even if it has is this really the best or most efficient way to attract quality students?

[/QUOTE]

As I said, I didn’t choose Vandy solely for sports. But I think you probably knew that…

All in, college isn’t just about what goes on in the lecture hall. Schools are, and should be, presenting an all round “experience” for students, and I think athletics can be part of this. I would be the last person to say this doesn’t go too far at some places, and I am more than happy that there are schools with no athletics, so people can choose that if it suits them. I will say the only school in the US I have experience of is one that, for me, drew the balance very nicely. Going to football, basketball and baseball of a high quality added to my experience. So did hitting the honkeytonks in Nashville. So of course did the great faculty at the law school. I think it would be a push to claim that Vandy athletics damage the academics at that school.

I just don’t support the knee jerk anti-athletic sentiment shown by some. Much as I don’t support the “we are Ivy League, we are the best” sentiment.

53

[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
[li]Athletics are a good “hook” for students who are not part of the local community. One of the reasons that students know about our campus is because we won a national championship in football a few years ago, Vince Young was the quarterback, and Matthew McConnaughey was on the sidelines. Those facts might grab the interest of a student in California, or New York, and he or she might go to our website, learn about the school, and decide that it’s a good match.[/li]
My other alma mater, Harvard, has a pretty impressive hockey team and they spend a lot of money on facilities and the like. Hell, they spend a lot of money on sports that they’re not even that good at - see the hiring of Tommy Amaker as basketball coach.
[/QUOTE]

I think your first point here (well, the first one I quoted) raises the question of whether a public university, endowed by state funds, has any business attracting out-of-state students. It makes sense for a for-profit school, but does it make sense for a nonprofit? (In Florida at least, out-of-state tuition is several times more expensive than in-state, but I don’t know if that’s universal and whether it makes up the shortfall)

Harvard is a strange case. It has a massive endowment that until recently it more or less sat on. If it spends $2 million a year on hockey facilities I’m okay with that since they weren’t going to spend it on anything else anyway. Besides, it’s a private school. They can put 90% of their funding into a competitive monster truck racing program if they want and none of us non-alumni will have any business complaining.

54

[QUOTE=villa]
As I said, I didn’t choose Vandy solely for sports. But I think you probably knew that…
[/QUOTE]

I admit when I read you chose an SEC school over an Ivy League, I was also surprised. I was picturing LSU, Alabama, Tennessee; schools more known for football than “ahem” academic prowess. I forgot about Vanderbilt, which is basically an Ivy League school outside New England. I’d almost give Vandy an asterisk.

You weren’t being intentionally misleading. We tend to associate conference name with athletics. But when someone hears you chose to a Pac-10 or Big 10 school over an Ivy league, they may not think you mean Stanford or Northwestern.

55

Oh my villa, you certainly have me there! Why, I nearly choked on my martini as you knocked me out of my ivory tower—it’s a good thing I’ve hired some of the hoi polloi to clean up after such disasters. I can’t wait until I get ‘round to the club this evening, those boys from the Illuminati are sure to get quite a kick out of it (that’s if I can keep the Trilateral Commission from monopolizing their time).

I think membership in the Ivy league should be the determining factor in picking a school? I’m hanging on to Columbia elitism? You had those lines pretty much written out at the same time as you posted, didn’t you? No, really…if you didn’t have them pre-written in Word ready to be copy and pasted into a reply (including blanks for the appropriate college), you had them thought out. There certainly wasn’t anything in my post to suggest such absolute rubbish. Besides, my Only-Ivy-Schools-Are-Good-Schools-Club membership was revoked for going to Georgetown for law school. (Or does mentioning that I went to a non-Ivy school make me even more elitist? How does this work?)

You posted that your choice of school was based (in part) on the chance to spend time watching kids in bright costumes play with toys. Ok, whatever floats your boat – I did acknowledge that environment can be a factor in choosing a school.

But you didn’t say—or even imply—that things being relatively equal, what to do with recess time can tip the scales between choice of schools. No, you made a comparison between schools with a reputation (in general) for playtime and schools with a reputation (in general) for academics.

Yes, equally great educations can come out of both types of schools, there’s no need to drolly gallop around the ring claiming prejudices and snobbery where there are none.

Ok, maybe there is some snobbery. Snobbery in that I think that with the number and variety of academic-related factors that go into the choice of schools, it’s buffoonish to elevate the prowess and ability of other children who are playing games mainly while you’re in class—especially for grad school.

56

[QUOTE= Rhythmdvl]

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.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry but… what? “Getting into an Ivy League school” for grad school is absolutely NO indicator whatsoever of whether someone has talent, ambition, or background.

Notre Dame, Michigan, the University of Minnesota, UCLA, Vanderbilt, and UVA are all sports powerhouses with law schools right on par with the Ivies. Furthermore, while, institutionally speaking, “Ivy” is a decent assurance of academic quality, it’s no outright guarantee, and there are plenty of gasp public universities that offer similar or superior experiences.

[QUOTE= Rhythmdvl]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it does. Physical development, school spirit, campus identity, and pride are all extraordinarily important parts of the college experience, and to presume that a proper university is one that caters exclusively or disproportionately to the intellectual is not only naive but socially maladjusted.

[QUOTE= Rhythmdvl]
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).
[/QUOTE]

I should point out further that if Columbia’s rowing program was any good, you’d tout it just as much as Harvard, Yale, and (in some years) Penn do theirs.

[QUOTE= Rhythmdvl]
But you didn’t say—or even imply—that things being relatively equal, what to do with recess time can tip the scales between choice of schools. No, you made a comparison between schools with a reputation (in general) for playtime and schools with a reputation (in general) for academics.

[/QUOTE]

You cannot be serious. If you thought for an instant that villa made an academically disparate decision based solely (or even primarily) on sports, then either you’re a Columbia legacy or you’ve eaten a great deal of lead paint chips since then.

When it came to law school, I chose BC over Fordham, and quality of life was a significant factor in that choice. And the presence of a kickass hockey team and football team for which I could root, and the fact that the BC alumni network uses those events as major outings was not an insignificant factor in assessing quality of life. Two or three places in the rankings doesn’t mean anything if a student is so unhappy or jaded that his learning experience is compromised.

I understand where you’re coming from, Rhythmdvl. It is difficult to maintain a state of denial when there are people who are not only as smart as you (if not smarter), but stronger, faster, and better-looking, too.

How, exactly, did you feel about Columbia’s rowers or fencers or football players, knowing that they got breaks and admissions points that others (perhaps including you) did not? Was it because they were “dumb jocks” or maybe, just maybe, they were well-rounded people who could directly contribute to the student body as a whole.

57

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]

I think membership in the Ivy league should be the determining factor in picking a school? I’m hanging on to Columbia elitism? You had those lines pretty much written out at the same time as you posted, didn’t you? No, really…if you didn’t have them pre-written in Word ready to be copy and pasted into a reply (including blanks for the appropriate college), you had them thought out. There certainly wasn’t anything in my post to suggest such absolute rubbish. Besides, my Only-Ivy-Schools-Are-Good-Schools-Club membership was revoked for going to Georgetown for law school. (Or does mentioning that I went to a non-Ivy school make me even more elitist? How does this work?)
[/QUOTE]

Not in the slightest. No preparation at all, apart from experience with those who think their Ivy League undergrad experience somehow renders them set apart from the rest of the world..

Where might I have gotten the accusation of elitism from? Well, let’s look back.

I posted:

[QUOTE= villa]
I chose law school between two final options based, in part at least, on a desire to see SEC football on a weekly basis rather than Ivy League football.
[/QUOTE]

Your response:

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
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.
[/QUOTE]

If you cannot see how that comes across as dripping in condescension, then you need to practice reading comprehension. You cannot see how a legitimate reading of this is that a school with good sports programs could not possibly compete with an Ivy league school on post grad programs? I guess it is time to cross of Michigan Law School and UT law (Longhorns, not crappy Vols (sarcasm alert)) then.

Your post dripped arrogance, which pissed me off. You then continue said arrogance in this post.

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
You posted that your choice of school was based (in part) on the chance to spend time watching kids in bright costumes play with toys. Ok, whatever floats your boat – I did acknowledge that environment can be a factor in choosing a school.
[/QUOTE]

Yet arrogantly enough, because YOU do not enjoy sports, your mind “boggles” when someone else chose environmental factors, one of which was sports, in their grad school decision.

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
But you didn’t say—or even imply—that things being relatively equal, what to do with recess time can tip the scales between choice of schools. No, you made a comparison between schools with a reputation (in general) for playtime and schools with a reputation (in general) for academics.
[/QUOTE]

I compared one school, which I attended, with another school, which I did not attend, and made the determination that the one school I attended was better for me and my family. Nowhere did I say that SEC schools were academically equivalent to Ivy league schools. Had you wanted to, you could have asked the two schools concerned. But you didn’t. You wanted to flash the superiority of ALL Ivy’s (even at Law school level) to ALL SEC schools (and I am willing to bet had I said Big 10, or Big 12 your response would have been no different, despite each conference having at least one kick ass law school).

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
Yes, equally great educations can come out of both types of schools, there’s no need to drolly gallop around the ring claiming prejudices and snobbery where there are none.

Ok, maybe there is some snobbery. Snobbery in that I think that with the number and variety of academic-related factors that go into the choice of schools, it’s buffoonish to elevate the prowess and ability of other children who are playing games mainly while you’re in class—especially for grad school.
[/QUOTE]

And there you go again. My decision was buffoonish because one of the factors was something you did not like. Despite your claim that considering environmental factors is a good thing, my decision was buffoonish because it included one of my favorite passtimes - watching live sport.

58

I would jump in and comment except the cite given by the OP is an article you have to pay to see. How can anyone comment on something only one person has actually read?

59

Thanks, Happy. You said it much better than I did. Though I have to question your sanity in chosing to spend three years in somewhere as cold as Boston. Hell man, we could play golf 11 months a year down Nashville.

Although, that is another base, crass, un-educated, knuckle-dragging reason to pick a institution of higher learning.

60

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Notre Dame, Michigan, the University of Minnesota, UCLA, Vanderbilt, and UVA are all sports powerhouses with law schools right on par with the Ivies. Furthermore, while, institutionally speaking, “Ivy” is a decent assurance of academic quality, it’s no outright guarantee, and there are plenty of gasp public universities that offer similar or superior experiences.

[/QUOTE]

Last USN&WR rating had Penn’s law school #7, and Vandy’s #14.
May not sound like much difference, but depending on what you want to practice where, it can be.

Of course, villa has repeatedly observed that multiple concerns factored in his decision.