An ESPN writer goes on to share further thoughts.
[W]hy are so many schools spending so much on facilities anyway? Why are we paying coaches millions and millions when their not-so-distant predecessors earned far less? Who is benefiting from the self-driven rise in costs? And how? We’re still playing the same schools. The players still are not paid (wink, wink). The concession stands still charge way too much for a soda.
How is all this money making any part of the college sports experience better?
If we were talking about professional sports it would be one thing. Pro salaries may be obscene, but teams spend their own money. But we’re often talking about public money in collegiate sports. As that NCAA report reveals, even when the athletic department is supposedly self-funded, programs still needed a median of $10 million in institutional subsidies to cover their costs last year.
December 4th, 2010 at 8:53AM
Our athletics area is not dining on caviar, and they have worse facilities than all but a couple of schools in our conference. They are allowed, however, to blow through their supposed expense budget or come up short on projected revenues every year, secure in the knowledge that the university will pay up. Their positions, even down to the most junior assistant coaches and office staff, are automatically filled when people leave. A few years ago, a coach did something mildly naughty (not sure what what the details were) that made some parents of team members mad, and $100K of buy-out money quickly materialized from the university’s budget. In contrast, on the academic side, we have people teaching uncompensated overloads because there is limited money to cover medical or maternity leaves, and the pitiful $2300 or so we pay adjuncts can’t be found.
December 5th, 2010 at 12:11AM
Did you see the comments on the Caples column? Pearls before swine, I tell you!