Women's sports leaking money

[mango]

I just read that Coach K's annual salary at Duke is $3M. That number is more than the annual budget of some academic departments. I don't care if a coach wins 10 NCAA championships, no coach is worth that kind of money. Colleges have gotten into bidding wars with one another to retain talented coaches as an "investment" because championships bring revenue to the colleges. Eliminate the campus revenue line by paying the student athlete (and letting them pay their tuition out of their earnings) would put a quick dent in the escalation of big sports.

[BearClause]

Apr 7, 2010 14:08:09 GMT -5 mango said:

I just read that Coach K's annual salary at Duke is $3M. That number is more than the annual budget of some academic departments. I don't care if a coach wins 10 NCAA championships, no coach is worth that kind of money. Colleges have gotten into bidding wars with one another to retain talented coaches as an "investment" because championships bring revenue to the colleges. Eliminate the campus revenue line by paying the student athlete (and letting them pay their tuition out of their earnings) would put a quick dent in the escalation of big sports.

I'd be surprised if his base salary from the Duke athletic department is more than $500,000. The large majority of these salaries come from "talent fees" provided by the equipment companies sponsoring the teams or by local media for participating in radio/TV shows.

[redbeard2008]

Granted that college football has become a bit of a Frankenstein monster. At many, many schools, however, it is what is paying for the sports programs for women, as well as for many for men (other than football and basketball).

There are certainly ethical issues with college football to which a blind eye has been turned due to the profits, benefits, and media exposure (Warhol's 15 minutes of fame factor), including exploitation of athletes, obesity issues (350-lb student-athletes), injury/disability issues (concussions, spine injuries, including paralysis, etc.), and so on. Schools are increasingly recruiting thugs and criminals, to play what has increasingly become a thuggish game (see the recent stories about the University of Oregon, for instance). Many of these issues might be at least partially addressed by changing the rules to make it a less violent sport, except that its violence is a large part of its popularity and appeal (yes, with comparisons to gladiators in ancient Rome entertaining a jaded and besotted public easily coming to mind).

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing college football go back to single-platoon, although that's simply not going to happen. Football doesn't need to be ultra-violent to be a fun sport to watch, however. I wouldn't mind seeing changes to return football to being more of an aerobic than an anaerobic sport - by limiting substitutions for interior linemen, for instance, forcing them to play both ways. Coaches would be against it, however, since it would make their lives more difficult.

At the same time, I don't think that Div1A football as we know it today is sustainable. At many football schools, football is a drag on, and not a boon to, the overall athletic budget. Western Washington University just dropped football this last year. I suspect many other schools will follow as expenses continue to increase. State legislatures are going to be much less willing to subsidize college football programs that are running in the red. If college football programs were forced to be self-supporting, a large number of Div1A football programs would be dropped, with maybe only 40 or 50 programs remaining standing. Reducing scholarships, from 85 to 65, for instance, would expand the number of self-supporting programs (by another few dozen?).

The notion that you could significantly change things at schools with profitable football programs by funneling all athletic revenues through the general fund, rather than the AD fund, is entirely wrong headed. That's because administrations would want to maximize that revenue, which would mean that football would get just as much, if not more, support as before.

[reluctant]

p-dub - would you apply your arguments about the usefulness of college athletic departments to high school athletic departments? Do you see the situations as identical?

Do these arguments apply to other areas of (college) student life? If the main measure of viability is job placement, what else could schools cut?

Do you see any worth in the argument that participation in sports can augment education provided by academic departments (team work, emotional control, discipline*I'm not saying kids that do not play sports lack these, just that sports can offer additional training in these areas**), in turn increasing job placement and success?

[mikegarrison]

Apr 8, 2010 12:30:43 GMT -5 reluctant said:

p-dub - would you apply your arguments about the usefulness of college athletic departments to high school athletic departments? Do you see the situations as identical?

Do these arguments apply to other areas of (college) student life? If the main measure of viability is job placement, what else could schools cut?

Do you see any worth in the argument that participation in sports can augment education provided by academic departments (team work, emotional control, discipline*I'm not saying kids that do not play sports lack these, just that sports can offer additional training in these areas**), in turn increasing job placement and success?

The point is that almost everything except sports in a big D-1 university is intended for the purpose of public benefit, particularly research and education. While some of these things can occasionally be profitable, profit is not the purpose. It is only useful in that it helps pay for the main purpose of the university.

But all of a sudden, for sports people are trying to apply an entirely different standard. They are talking about how the sports should be profitable, and whether profitable sports should subsidize unprofitable ones, etc.

Why is that?

I went to a D-III school, where the sports teams were very clearly understood to be not a stepping stone to the pros, not a source of income to the school, but simply an enhancement to student life and the overall educational experience. They were a learning opportunity and a chance to get some recreation. In that context, while it was still an open question of which sports the school could afford to fund, there was no question of the sports being held to some standard of making a profit.

[thumpvb]

College athletic departments actually boast that their students don't get jobs in their fields! From a university standpoint, that is an embarassment. But it just shows that athletics aren't part of the university.

Ok maybe im a little late getting into this discussion but P-Dub that statement is just silly not to mention completely wrong. The fact that athletes go pro in sometihng other than sports doesn't separate them from the academic side it ties them to it.

I work for a school who's athletic department is in fact goverened by a committee of faculty representatives from various academic units. The athletic director is able to sit in on these policy making meetings, and can offer input, but in the end does not have a vote. Oh and by the way the athletic department is 100% self funded and routinely gives money back to various broad based academic endeavors such as libraries, and the university general fund.

It goes without saying there are rogue athletic departments out there, but be careful about using such a broad brush. Like it or not athletics is the most visible recognition of just about any school out there thanks to our nations obsessions with sports. Supporting an athletic department is just good advertising.

[mango]

Apr 8, 2010 13:24:41 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

I went to a D-III school, where the sports teams were very clearly understood to be not a stepping stone to the pros, not a source of income to the school, but simply an enhancement to student life and the overall educational experience.

Well said, and college leadership in Div 1 has abandoned this principle in pursuit of the mighty sports dollar. Even admission officers are tainted because they have to bend the rules of admissions for athletes (yes, even at Stanford) while at the same time revel over the increased number of applications (and application fees) that come to their door step when their basketball team brings home a championship.

[harryhotspur]

Apr 7, 2010 14:26:13 GMT -5 redbeard2008 said:

I wouldn't mind seeing changes to return football to being more of an aerobic than an anaerobic sport - by limiting substitutions for interior linemen, for instance, forcing them to play both ways. Coaches would be against it, however, since it would make their lives more difficult.

So what if their lives become more difficult? They can't complain given how much they get paid.