Big time college sports soaking up subsidies

[Ryan]

People keep trying to convince me that big time collegiate football and basketball programs subsidize the smaller sports like cross country and track & field. I keep saying I don't buy it, with multi-million dollar contracts for coaches, 6-figure, if not 7-figure, salaries for assistant coaches, and insanely high expenses for all kinds of other "necessities". Well, here's some evidence that I wasn't right to buy it. Not only are these sports not subsidizing the smaller sports but they are being subsidized by the schools and, in some cases, sucking school budgets dry. Faculty salaries decreasing, tuition and fees increasing, even class sizes increasing.

It's beyond time to ask whether these sports really belong in the collegiate atmosphere. Are the big time sports truly good for the schools?

[Andrew A.]

Is this not more of a 'general discussion' topic?    At any rate, while this is correct, the presidents of the schools with major athletic departments (not to mention those who would like to work at schools with major athletic departments) and their trustees oversee all of this.  It is big business and there is a lot of money at stake, though so many schools gamble big for a payoff that only a handful of programs can enjoy.  Alumni and boosters play a big role, too.  Many athletic department donors are also donors to other departments in the school and might not be if the athletic department were significantly diminished.  Consider it to be something like the school's marketing division.  People are not paying to put the chemistry lab or the solar decathlon teams on television, or even in a stadium with admission charged.  It has traditionally been a way for schools to get their names in headlines, to spread the reputation of their prowess as institutions.  It seems kind of silly, but application and enrollment figures for schools the fall semester following a March Madness or BCS win bear out that their sports teams that get widespread coverage in the media bolster their reputations among potential students.  Of course it is rife with contradiction and corruption, it is ridiculous to have it associated with institutions of higher education, but too many people are making too much money from it to believe that it will go away or even be significantly reformed in our lifetimes.  Heck, we cannot even get a BCS playoff due to the powers that be clinging so tightly to their share of the financial pie.

[Ryan]

I wasn't sure but it does affect running.

So those who give to academic programs wouldn't if it weren't for a well known football team? Maybe a few but I don't think very many. From my understanding, TV contracts, radio contracts, and most definitely admissions were taken into account. The teams, with two exceptions, were still financial sinkholes. It takes a lot of ticket sales at about 5-7 home games per year to cover just one multi-million dollar coach's salary, not to mention 6-figure assistant coach salaries, cross-country trip expenses, and all kinds of expenses for the supposedly amateur athletes. This research shows the money just isn't there without help from the schools.

[Andrew A.]

Well, the football home games (and basketball home games, to a lesser extent) - especially homecoming - are occasion to rally alumni/boosters.  Of course most programs 'lose' money, it is difficult at best to account for exactly what income results from alumni giving to non-athletic departments and from increases in applications and enrollment as a result of having a high-profile athletic department.  I would genuinely be shocked to see alumni giving to non-athletic departments ever drop as a result of there being a problem with the excesses of the athletic program, however.  That would seemingly be what would need to happen for school administration to get the message that there is a conflict of interest between their mission and their action.  Also, academic administration is not noted for being a bastion of creative thinking -- jobs are lost over taking risks that bring poor results.