“…In the 2007-08 school year, nearly 80 percent of major athletic programs reported operating deficits, with programs in the red losing an average of $9.9 million, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Add the recession, which has affected state appropriations and private giving at most colleges and universities, and college sports face unprecedented economic challenges.
A recent NCAA report noted that even football-generated revenue does not cover the operating cost of the football team at 44 percent of the institutions playing major-college football. Such figures would be worse if the millions in debt for stadium improvements and other facility enhancements were included. These are hardly profit centers at most institutions.
Now, consider all this in an environment where athletics costs are escalating at all but a few institutions while academic budgets are being cut and student fees and tuition are being raised. NCAA data show that the rate of increase in athletics spending in Division I programs is three to four times greater than the rate of increase for academic budgets. That is neither acceptable nor sustainable…”
***************************
Oh hell sure it is. I can’t tell you how many times UD’s been lectured by readers about how acceptable and sustainable the situation is.
And anyway, the two writers of this opinion piece in the Washington Post —
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121803510.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
— don’t take up the real problem. They’ve done the numbers, but they haven’t done the ethos.
You’re up against a deeply corrupt and deeply embedded culture. Pontificating about how it’s not sustainable is like an Italian politician telling constituents the Mafia isn’t sustainable. Sure it is.
**************************
Apologies for the bare-bones look of this post. I’m having trouble getting a good window to open in my WordPress dashboard.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:03AM
It is the ethos, of course — but focusing on the ethos of corruption within athletics is, I think, not much better than fixating on the numbers. I’d say the basic issue is the undue priority accorded intercollegiate athletics in our higher education system, which is not the fault of insiders who are after all paid to think it’s important.
Athletic programs are sustainable because they are really not all that much of a drain on the academic side; the question is why they should be a drain at all.
Athletics gets its priority because it is perceived as a profit center (the only part of the numbers that matter are those minus signs), because it’s seen as an easy route to a bigger reputation, and because competitive standings are published weekly in the newspapers (whereas the doctoral program rankings are 15 years old).
Reform of athletics generally concerns (1) internal corruption and (2) costs — and gets nowhere, because the two goals turn out to be in conflict. (The one step that might begin to address both would be abolition of athletic scholarships, but that won’t happen.) We need to "take it big," or in this case, small.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:54AM
Or take it away — as in spin it off. Some model of this sort has been proposed by a lot of observers. The big programs are self-sustaining and have nothing beyond vague emotive symbolism to do with the university to which they’re attached. Keep the symbolism — call each team by a university’s name, and put that name on their uniforms, and keep the mascots, etc. — but make these independent leagues.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:51AM
This American Life last night was about my town and its university: Penn State, in State College, PA. Penn State is this year’s #1 party school. I consider this dubious distinction a consequence of the football and fraternity cultures mixing in an isolated small town. The basic administrative message seems to be that we can’t cut back on football-associated drinking because the alumni won’t donate as much money.
December 21st, 2009 at 11:21AM
Phiala: Thank you so much! I heard a snippet of that report yesterday and then later desperately tried to find the whole thing at NPR’s site. For some reason I couldn’t find it. So thank you! I’ll listen to it now.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:23PM
OK, so WHY is college athletics so popular? One reason is that people love to belong to groups. They will even sacrifice just to be part of a group. At least that is one theory that libertarians have for the popularity of BIG GOVERNMENT:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=502623
December 21st, 2009 at 2:30PM
This American Life
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1330
December 21st, 2009 at 3:03PM
Thanks, GTWMA!
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:56AM
I think the spin-off idea (which I associate with Barnaby Keeney of Brown decades ago) is unlikely to work — these would just be minor league pro teams, whatever label you put on them. And the finances would be extremely unstable.
The proposal amounts to “let’s just get rid of sports” without the advantages of practicality or straightforwardness.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:11AM
Given this…http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/06/baseball-minors-sacramento-biz-sports-cz_mo_0806minors.html
I wouldn’t assume that minor league finances would be unstable. And this is even in a situation where the minor leagues compete with collegiate sports.
I have no doubt that a looser affiliation between universities and their professional sports teams would be financially viable for the teams. Once they adjusted costs to their inability to siphon money from the academic side, they’d make money.