From the Murray State University newspaper:
… Murray State intercollegiate athletics expenses rose by $421,967 from 2008 to 2009 resulting in the highest amount in University history to $4.9 million.
On behalf of the [university Senate Finance] committee, which consists of six faculty members, [Winfield] Rose recommended to the Board of Regents “… we find the size of this subsidy and its growth inappropriate. … We further encourage the President and the Board of Regents to freeze the athletic subsidy at its present level immediately and to eliminate it totally over the next decade.”
… “We are under no illusion that what we have to say will be taken seriously by the Board or by the administration,” Rose said.
… The members of Faculty Senate who voted in favor of the Finance Committee’s recommendation believe there should be a cap on athletic spending.
“How far does it go in these tight financial times?” Rose said. “Does intercollegiate athletics have a virtual blank check on the University’s bank account?”…
Yes. It’s Kentucky, after all.
April 16th, 2010 at 1:29PM
Can somebody enlighten me why exactly do many American universities invest so much in sports? I’m told of highly paid coaches (much more paid than top-notch faculty), etc. What exactly is the driving force?
For all the criticism this blog directs towards European universities (sometimes deservedly, sometimes undeservedly), this is I think a specifically American issue.
April 16th, 2010 at 4:13PM
Positional arms races in tournament markets. In the case of the so-called revenue sports, make that positional arms races in two different tournament markets, where a good college coach might be able to obtain an offer from an aspiring professional team. I’m not familiar enough with intercollegiate competition in footie or cricket overseas to suggest that such crossover opportunities also exist there.