Interactive Table: Who Foots the Bill in College Sports?

[IdaCat]

The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article about how student and institution fees and state money subsidize college athletics. They included an interactive chart that allows you to select individual schools and drill into the details.

There are few schools that can reasonably justify even having athletics, IMO. UK is one of those few.

It's very interesting. Check it out.

LINK

 

[UKserialkiller]

They don't call him Jesus "Bankrolls" Christ for nothing, Ida.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Had to go check out ul. Hmmm...something must be wrong with the math.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

This type of story has a lot of misleading information. Similar claims were being made nearly 30 years ago when I was in college (at WKU) and they were discussing getting rid of the football program. So we discussed the economics of it in my Econ class.
One misleading aspect is that those who do not support college athletics always include tuition to the atheletes as a cost. It is NOT a cost in most cases. The only time it would be a cost is if the school is at capacity and is turning away qualified students because they simply can't fit them in. Most colleges would take more qualified paying students if they could get them. Why not count the unpaid tuition you may ask? Because (in most cases) if you didn't give the athlete a scholarship, then he wouldn't pay to attend the school. So there is no opportunity lost there. What about having more faculty to teach the athletes? Lets look at WKU, a school of 16,000 students. All of the athletes in all of the sports at WKU (many of which don't offer full scholarships to every athlete) total at most 400 (probably less), that is only 2.5% of the student population. Most athletes don't take a heavy class load because of practices; and also consider that those on partial scholarships must pay 1/2, you are looking at between 1% and 2% extra students in each class. So a class of 50 might have 51. You can only include the dorm fees of the athletes if the school is at 100% capacity in it's dorms, although you can always include the utilities portion of those dorm fees. So typically the cost to the university of an athletic scholarship is a fraction of the value of the scholarship.
Additionally the value of sports teams can be measured (and is discussed in that article) in terms of donations to the university often because of it's athletics. But what can't be measured is the level of attendance at the university due to the athletic programs. Would UK have 20+K if not for the historic basketball program? No. But how many less really can only be speculated (5%, 10%, 25%, ...).

 

[IdaCat]

Check out EKU. Deplorable.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

EKU shows no student fees. UL shows $1,960,346

 

[IdaCat]

EKU provides 10.5 million in institutional subsidies. Where does that come from?

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Organized crime?

 

[Tskware]

It is ridiculous but nothing new. I could have told you without looking at the chart that about 30 or so Power 5 schools more or less self fund athletics and the rest spend way more than they take in. I would also disagree with some that say athletics have some intrinsic value that can only be measured by increased enrollment and endowments. Fact is, nearly every school, big or small, has increased enrollment these days. Now sure, when Ohio State wins the BCS or UK wins the NCAA, you probably see a bump, but I guarantee you that even smaller schools raise more money and have bigger enrollments than ever these days. Nobody goes to the Ivy League for football or basketball but they have more money than the Vatican.

Also, you would be surprised these days how many kids at even the Power 5 conferences really don't care all that much about football and basketball, just check out the empty seats in the student section at a lot of games.

 

[ndk_rivals308474]

This looks like some hard numbers to what a lot of people have been saying for years: at the upper levels, college sports are big business. And its very rare for a non-Power 5 school to be on the same level. There's no reason Georgia State should be competing for the same trophies as Ohio State, Texas, Kentucky, etc

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

It is ridiculous but nothing new. I could have told you without looking at the chart that about 30 or so Power 5 schools more or less self fund athletics and the rest spend way more than they take in. I would also disagree with some that say athletics have some intrinsic value that can only be measured by increased enrollment and endowments. Fact is, nearly every school, big or small, has increased enrollment these days. Now sure, when Ohio State wins the BCS or UK wins the NCAA, you probably see a bump, but I guarantee you that even smaller schools raise more money and have bigger enrollments than ever these days. Nobody goes to the Ivy League for football or basketball but they have more money than the Vatican.

Also, you would be surprised these days how many kids at even the Power 5 conferences really don't care all that much about football and basketball, just check out the empty seats in the student section at a lot of games.

Ivy League schools aren't selling (to potential students) the typical college experience, they are selling the academics, the prestige, the exclusiveness, the superior post-graduate job opportunities.
Yes, college enrollments are up across the board. The bump you see for schools like Ohio State, Kentucky etc isn't a one-time (when they win a championship) bump, it is a continual increase that is likely exagerated further the 2-3 years after a championship. Say UNC got the death penalty in basketball from this academic scandal (we know they won't). I guarantee you enrollment would go down significantly (at least 10%). Because going to those games is part of the college experience that many students are looking for. You don't have to have a top level program, although I'm sure that helps some too. Would be interesting to see what happened to SMU enrollment before and after they got the death penalty in football in the 80's, compared to other similar schools growth during that time.

 

[d2atTech]

If people enroll in college because of the experience (sports, girls, beer, etc.) they are wasting their time. College is a huge time and resource sink and the only reason it's worth going to is if it improves your financial prospects.

 

[Ukbrassowtipin]

I was interested in tuitions... UNC, florida, etc are almost 3 grand a year less than UK for instate

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

If people enroll in college because of the experience (sports, girls, beer, etc.) they are wasting their time. College is a huge time and resource sink and the only reason it's worth going to is if it improves your financial prospects.

Yes, and we ALL know that 17 and 18 year old kids always make the most sound decisions. (yes that was sarcasm)
And I'm not saying the full college experience is the only factor, or a factor for every kid, but it is part of the equation for a large number of them. Otherwise schools that are in the lower 1/3 in quality and not the cheapest would have almost 0 enrollment. There are several factors, and sometimes going to a school that might play in meaningful football or basketball games could be the tiebreaker. Higher education is a competitive business like any other.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

I was interested in tuitions... UNC, florida, etc are almost 3 grand a year less than UK for instate

I'm 4 years away, but have been checking that out as well (at least KY and NC schools). My kids can in-state at any UNC-system school (which is not just UNC-CH), and NC schools have some of the cheapest tuition in the country. Can also get in-state at UK (since I am alum and member of Alum Assoc).

 

[bthaunert]

Ivy League schools aren't selling (to potential students) the typical college experience, they are selling the academics, the prestige, the exclusiveness, the superior post-graduate job opportunities.
Yes, college enrollments are up across the board. The bump you see for schools like Ohio State, Kentucky etc isn't a one-time (when they win a championship) bump, it is a continual increase that is likely exagerated further the 2-3 years after a championship. Say UNC got the death penalty in basketball from this academic scandal (we know they won't). I guarantee you enrollment would go down significantly (at least 10%). Because going to those games is part of the college experience that many students are looking for. You don't have to have a top level program, although I'm sure that helps some too. Would be interesting to see what happened to SMU enrollment before and after they got the death penalty in football in the 80's, compared to other similar schools growth during that time.

Disagree 100% about your example of UNC. UNC is a VERY good school (all jokes aside) and would not have a problem keeping the same enrollment. I bet their acceptance rate is close to 25% which is very selective. You are overstating the importance of college sports at a good school academically.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

I work 10 minutes from UNC, I know how good of a school it is. Doesn't matter. You would still see enrollment go down if they got the death penalty in sports. Most kids here in NC apply to UNC, even if that isn't their first choice. I don't think you can go by acceptance rates, but yes UNC is selective (especially their graduate programs). There are other good academic schools even in NC.

 

[IdaCat]

This type of story has a lot of misleading information. Similar claims were being made nearly 30 years ago when I was in college (at WKU) and they were discussing getting rid of the football program. So we discussed the economics of it in my Econ class.
One misleading aspect is that those who do not support college athletics always include tuition to the atheletes as a cost. It is NOT a cost in most cases. The only time it would be a cost is if the school is at capacity and is turning away qualified students because they simply can't fit them in. Most colleges would take more qualified paying students if they could get them. Why not count the unpaid tuition you may ask? Because (in most cases) if you didn't give the athlete a scholarship, then he wouldn't pay to attend the school. So there is no opportunity lost there. What about having more faculty to teach the athletes? Lets look at WKU, a school of 16,000 students. All of the athletes in all of the sports at WKU (many of which don't offer full scholarships to every athlete) total at most 400 (probably less), that is only 2.5% of the student population. Most athletes don't take a heavy class load because of practices; and also consider that those on partial scholarships must pay 1/2, you are looking at between 1% and 2% extra students in each class. So a class of 50 might have 51. You can only include the dorm fees of the athletes if the school is at 100% capacity in it's dorms, although you can always include the utilities portion of those dorm fees. So typically the cost to the university of an athletic scholarship is a fraction of the value of the scholarship.
Additionally the value of sports teams can be measured (and is discussed in that article) in terms of donations to the university often because of it's athletics. But what can't be measured is the level of attendance at the university due to the athletic programs. Would UK have 20+K if not for the historic basketball program? No. But how many less really can only be speculated (5%, 10%, 25%, ...).

Just to keep up with the NCAA bureaucracy, athletics sucks major resources from nearly all administrative departments on campus. Especially at the small schools that don't have self-supporting athletic depts. This huge hidden cost affects ALL students.

The core mission of higher ed is to educate students at a reasonable cost. At least it should be. Supporting athletics has been accepted as part of the cost of business. That has to change.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Just to keep up with the NCAA bureaucracy, athletics sucks major resources from nearly all administrative departments on campus. Especially at the small schools that don't have self-supporting athletic depts. This huge hidden cost affects ALL students.

The core mission of higher ed is to educate students at a reasonable cost. At least it should be. Supporting athletics has been accepted as part of the cost of business. That has to change.

I looked up my university and they have lost over $23 million in 5 years. What other business would be allowed to continue like that?

I don't even think students are aware of the fees they're being charged on top of that.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

Again, I think tha $23 million your university has "lost" includes a lot of costs to itself (such as tuition). Tuition is NOT a cost to a university in most cases.

 

[bthaunert]

I work 10 minutes from UNC, I know how good of a school it is. Doesn't matter. You would still see enrollment go down if they got the death penalty in sports. Most kids here in NC apply to UNC, even if that isn't their first choice. I don't think you can go by acceptance rates, but yes UNC is selective (especially their graduate programs). There are other good academic schools even in NC.

I still don't think you see a decrease in enrollment. Maybe a decrease in applicants, but not a decrease in enrollment (or a very slight decrease at most). I have worked at 3 Universities, one of which plays major college sports. Does a successful athletic program increase the amount of applicants a school sees? Yes. Does it impact the amount of students that enroll....very, very minimally.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Again, I think tha $23 million your university has "lost" includes a lot of costs to itself (such as tuition). Tuition is NOT a cost to a university in most cases.

Maybe not but if you have to fund travel, food and whatever else comes with athletes for sports like women's water polo, mens water polo, soccer, baseball, basketball, tennis, softball, etc doesn't that add up?

 

[bthaunert]

These are my thoughts as well.

Since this is right up your alley, can you tell me the benefit for a school like in the Big West conference to have sports when it bleeds millions of dollars? It doesn't make sense to spend so much money on coaching salaries, travel expenses and scholarships/additional crap.

I think first and foremost, with the decrease in state funding that Universities see these days (we get about 6% of our budget from state money), the almighty tuition dollar is even more important these days. College is getting so expensive, so any way to decrease the amount that college costs, is a move in the right direction. I am a huge supporter of college athletics, but if Universities were smart about their decisions based around many things, including athletics (and I worked in Division I athletics for 6 years), tuition would quit skyrocketing.

As for your question about a Big West school, IMO, the outside benefits (enrollment, endowments, donations, etc.) that a university might receive above and beyond the normal benefits because they have Division I athletics does not outweigh the financial support that an athletic department receives through general University finds and student fees. A lot of Universities lose tons of money supporting the athletic department.

With that being said, universities are not disbanding athletic departments, it's just not happening. What does need to happen is at some point, Universities are going to have to take a much bigger look at athletics and ways to trim a lot of fat.

 

[d2atTech]

I think first and foremost, with the decrease in state funding that Universities see these days (we get about 6% of our budget from state money), the almighty tuition dollar is even more important these days. College is getting so expensive, so any way to decrease the amount that college costs, is a move in the right direction. I am a huge supporter of college athletics, but if Universities were smart about their decisions based around many things, including athletics (and I worked in Division I athletics for 6 years), tuition would quit skyrocketing.

As for your question about a Big West school, IMO, the outside benefits (enrollment, endowments, donations, etc.) that a university might receive above and beyond the normal benefits because they have Division I athletics does not outweigh the financial support that an athletic department receives through general University finds and student fees. A lot of Universities lose tons of money supporting the athletic department.

With that being said, universities are not disbanding athletic departments, it's just not happening. What does need to happen is at some point, Universities are going to have to take a much bigger look at athletics and ways to trim a lot of fat.

Playing devil's advocate, it is difficult to just blame athletics. Do art departments net the school money? Do engineering departments net the school money? I would venture to guess both answers are "no", but arguably they are both worth keeping as they serve as training professionals. If we view athletics as a major, each school would just need to figure out how much loss is too much.

 

[bthaunert]

Playing devil's advocate, it is difficult to just blame athletics. Do art departments net the school money? Do engineering departments net the school money? I would venture to guess both answers are "no", but arguably they are both worth keeping as they serve as training professionals. If we view athletics as a major, each school would just need to figure out how much loss is too much.

If Universities view athletics as a major, and we know that less than 1% of college athletes get a job in their field (pro sports), then athletics would no longer be offered as a major.

 

[d2atTech]

If Universities view athletics as a major, and we know that less than 1% of college athletes get a job in their field (pro sports), then athletics would no longer be offered as a major.

This is an entirely rational conclusion, and one that I agree with. I would venture to say that for some schools and sports it would still make sense to have an athletics department (e.g. Kentucky Men's basketball).

 

[Tskware]

I could be wrong, but think that the Athletic department reimburses the school for the cost of tuition for its scholarship athletes, which is a cost that goes to the bottom line P&L for the sports programs. Someone has to pay for the professors to teach them, the classrooms to teach in, etc.

As I have said previously, lots of schools, big and small, have rejected the whole idea of big time sports programs, e.g., all Div III schools and for the most part Div II, which only give 35 scholarships a year in football. And they seem to fill up their enrollment just fine.

Even at UK, the baseball program splits only about 12 scholarships. For the most part, if you want to play baseball even in the SEC, fine, have at it, just expect to pay some, if not all, of your way through school.

Lets be honest, if Murray or Morehead dropped football, basketball or baseball, or track tomorrow, it might be three weeks before half the students even noticed.

In Europe, where the population is sports crazy in some ways just like our own country, they have a lot of top level club sports, but the schools themselves have very small athletic departments. Thus if you want to be a tennis or golf pro, or track athlete, or soccer player, the universities have nothing to do with it. In high school, you play club rugby or soccer, much like our travel squads, but the high schools don't fool with it much, you are there to learn, not play ball.